Wikivoyage talk:Cooperating with Wikipedia

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Wikipedia articles that could be moved here.[edit]

Swept in from the pub

At Wikipedia, there's a category for pages/sections that could be moved or copied to here, at w:Category:Copy to Wikivoyage. There's only 7 pages in that category, but I thought I'd post that here so that you could see if you think they'd be good copied to here. Some of them, like w:Edde, Lebanon, I don't think would be good here, but something like w:Surfing in Indonesia may be good in the Indonesia or Surfing article.  Seagull123  Φ  17:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at other articles that were apparently copied here from WP (like This one), it seems clear that a lot of work in reducing redlinks and changing prose has to be made for that to "work". Overall I fear that cooperation between WP and WV could be better. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to take on some of the working of refitting articles like Surfing in Indonesia for WV. For example, I would take out some of the history and the famous surfers, remove redlinks, create links to other WV articles. I would need help in migrating it over correctly, i.e., I expect that copying and pasting would be verbotten. Ground Zero (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have to provide attribution for the license, which could mean as little as providing a permalink to the article you copied it from as your edit summary. (I don't know a more restrictive local policy is in place.)
m:Help:Transwiki has a basic outline of one recommended process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I created a Surfing in Indonesia article with text from the Wikipedia one, and did a fair bit of digging to create relevant links. It was already attracted a proposal to merge it to Surfing, which I don't think would work at all given the state of that articles. I have started a discussion at Talk:Surfing in Indonesia. Ground Zero (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Searches in WP show results from sister projects, incl WV[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Searches in Wikipedia now show results from sister projects, including Wikivoyage. Cool. It will be interesting to see if it boosts our usage. Nurg (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might have to test it out a bit more but from the looks of things, Wikivoyage results always appear below the other non-WP wikis even if WV is more relevant and has an article that matches the search exactly. I wonder who decided on the order. Gizza (roam) 03:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed that too. Also only appears to find articles or redirect pages not listings of points of interest within a page. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it matches on article title for WV, not on article contents. More info at the RfC. (There is also info at mw:Cross-wiki Search Result Improvements - not sure if that's the main project page.) Nurg (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC at the English Wikipedia should only affect the English Wikipedia, so you ought to see different results at different projects. User:CKoerner (WMF) could probably tell you more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a case to be made for listings with a WP article to show up in the search or maybe that listing being linked from WP in some way. Is someone going to make that case over at en-WP? 21:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that there's a case to be made for seeing Minneapolis when someone searches for "Minneapolis, Minnesota" instead of only when they search for "Minneapolis".
I imagine that some editors over at the English Wikipedia don't want readers to be able to find relevant pages on other projects. Some of them probably feel like they have a lot (of readership) to lose from this. I therefore don't expect anyone to make that case, or for that case to be considered with an open mind if someone does make that case. It's probably more effective to let the editors there get used to the idea that cross-wiki search exists at all before trying to expand its use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was surprised the proposal to include even some interwiki results in WP search was successful. There is unfortunately a significant minority of Wikipedians that have a massive complex with regards to other wikis. Gizza (roam) 22:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But we have that complex here, too. Would we consider including Wikipedia results in Wikivoyage searches? How about Commons results, too? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the Wikivoyage results that show in the sister project snippets on the search results page are indeed, based on searching the title text only, as per the follow-up to the RfC on enwiki.
I'm not sure about the "Minneapolis, Minnesota" reference though, User:WhatamIdoing, when I search on enwiki, the query takes me directly to the page. If you search for ~Minneapolis, Minnesota, you do get a result of Twin_Cities in the sister project snippets which is a redirect from Minneapolis-Saint_Paul). We can look into not using redirect pages if that is the consensus here. DTankersley (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the consensus here is that searching for a geographical/travel-related article at enwiki should always provide a link here, if there is any relevant article here.
It's a little odd to get Twin Cities when you search for one of them. Searching for "Minneapolis, Minn." at enwiki ('search inside' to get the search results from the top box) gives me no links to Wikivoyage. I don't realistically know if that's something your team can fix (or how many people other than print journalists still use this abbreviation style, but presumably the result is the same for "Minneapolis, MI".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I opened up a ticket this morning to chat with the team about the redirect to Twin Cities and it appears that this is the best course of action to take when searching for "Minneapolis, Minn." or "Minneapolis, Minnesota". Also, when searching in the top right search box for "Minneapolis, Minn." the result will be that exact page on enwiki, not the search results page that would include Wikivoyage as part of the sister project snippets display. The search results page (and corresponding sister project snippets) can be generated by putting a tilde (~) in front of the search query, something like this. The search algorithm for the sister projects displaying on the search results page will always search for a relevant article in the projects that are displayed, per the RfC on enwiki. So, if there isn't a snippet for Wikivoyage for a particular travel based query on the search results page, I would assume that either there isn't a travel-related article on that particular city - or - that the search term is not in the title of the travel-related article for our algorithm to search for and find in order to display. DTankersley (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The tilde (for "fuzzy" search) is only necessary if you're starting at the search box in the top right corner (rather than going to Special:Search), not choosing the "containing..." option, and using Vector (because Monobook has separate buttons for "Search" and "Go"). Try this link if you want to see the search in Monobook with "Search" instead of "Go". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How does one get this to work? I created the WV page for Kastelruth, and was interested in seeing if a reference to this showed up on WP, but I don't see anything. When I search there, I don't get a search results page - I get taken directly to the WP page for Kastelruth. On it there are references to the Wikimedia Commons images, but I don't see anything referencing the WV page. Marvin The Paranoid (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That does work. However, I was trying to find out something different: what do end-users do to get that working (after all, most users of wikipedia are not even aware of its sister projects, and will not start out knowing what the URL needs to be for special search). After some experimenting, I hit upon the following sequence of events: (1) do an empty search. This brings up the search page (2) Now search for the term here. While this is better, it still is not perfect. I read somewhere, that there is a way to make those links show up on the wikipedia page of the search term itself, but this involves arcane concepts like wikidata q-numbers and WV templates, which I have not yet figured out. Some day..... Marvin The Paranoid (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have changed your prefs or turned off JavaScript, then it's a bit easier in that: Go to the normal search box in the upper right corner. Type in the destination's name (exact match for the Wikivoyage article). Don't hit Return. Notice that it's popped up two options, to ask whether you're searching for the thing ("Kastelruth") or any article that contains that name. Choose the "containing" (second) option. It'll take you directly to the page that shows the Wikivoyage link in the search results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related idea[edit]

Is there any way to show in a WP article that WV has a listing on that place? Should there be? After all, our listings now allow the "Wikipedia" parameter... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see w:Template:Wikivoyage section Links to listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everytime I change a destination page from "outline" to "usable" I check on Wikipedia (in the External Links section) - the better template shows as a box to the right side of the page under the External Links heading. Many pages already have the link but I think I've added 37 links to Wikipedia out of 76'ish pages "uprated". The inline template is more than easy to miss so where I've found the inline version used on Wikipedia I've changed it to the {{wikipedia|placename}} version. As most of my Wikipedia contributions are adding WV links, I've put a note on my Wikipedia user page about being mainly focusing on WikiVoyage and I always put a descent summary in (don't want other Wikipedia contributors reverting them!) PsamatheM (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't bother adding links to Wikipedia for outline WV articles as some are so "empty" they are not really worth attracting readers to (not yet - not until the page has descent content) PsamatheM (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand its the "empty" pages that need the extra love, many of us will edit pages of locations we have a connection to at WP, a linK could encourage some of those to edit the corresponding WV article.--KTo288 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please use w:en:Template:Sisterlinks, since we can include all of our sister projects together. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that the {{wikivoyage}} template and the {{Sister project template}} template don't show up on the mobile version of WP, while the inline version does. Maybe someone could see if this could be changed? Or otherwise, mobile version users won't see a link to WV, as they won't get a "Wikivoyage" link in the sidebar either.  Seagull123  Φ  22:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opt-out option proposed at English Wikipedia[edit]

An option to suppress the search results of this project from the English Wikipedia search system is proposed at Village pump's "proposal" subpage, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Per discussion, the opt-out option is added for registered users via preferences. --George Ho (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burke (Virginia)[edit]

Burke (Virginia) is a skeleton-article. I'm thinking the "Transportation" and "Recreation and events" sections of Wikipedia's Burke article could be used in our article. Should we copy them over? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's best not to copy word-for-word from the encyclopaedia, as search engines penalise duplicate content. It's fine to paraphrase with attribution, keeping just what's relevant to the voyager. Summarise the information in your own words, please. K7L (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing isn't my strong suet. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Swept in from the pub

It looks like at least one established, experienced editor has been creating entire "Understand" sections for articles by copying a few entire paragraphs verbatim from Wikipedia for each destination. These were created in good faith, but I nonetheless have a few reservations.

The issue was raised with Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#Ice Age National Scenic Trail but it affects a larger number of articles. I'm not sure how many, short of going to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Wikipedia and checking every destination's lede and "Understand" against the "History" or other sections of the original Wikipedia article. The creative communism free licence doesn't prohibit this (as attribution has been provided) but these do incur a SEO penalty. I'd raised the issue, only to be told "The text has already been adapted for use in Wikivoyage. If you think it should be tweaked, tweak it. Or you can just keep complaining and not do anything to improve it."

I disagree with this stance because:

  1. We need to have original content. If the Wikimedia Foundation wanted an encyclopedia, they already have one... Wikipedia. We add no value by merely cribbing answers from the encyclopaedia and posting them here.
  2. Dumping verbatim copy-paste text to muliple articles and telling others to "tweak it" is merely making more work for subsequent editors.
  3. There's no easy way, short of manually going through the user's entire contribution history and a list of every page with the {{wikipedia}} tag, to determine which articles contain text which the user has summarised and posted in their own words (good) and which articles contain copy-pasted encyclopaedia text (which is bad, due to the SEO penalty and due to the perception that we have nothing original to offer editors or voyagers).

Admittedly, our existing guidelines on WV:SEO, WV:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel, WV:Cooperating with Wikipedia discourage copypasta from other CC-BY-SA sources but (if the attribution complies with the licence) don't expressly prohibit it. I'm thinking that we should adopt a more restrictive stance; specifically, entire paragraphs of verbatim text from other free sources should be treated as a {{style}} problem which needs to be flagged and repaired, much like touting, fluff or listings which lack a {{listing}} template or a description of the venue being listed. Currently we have no easy means to track copy-paste edits and no way to discourage their proliferation.

As much as I don't like an article lacking an "Understand" section (as we're an educational resource, not merely a yellow-page directory listing of every greasy spoon and cockroach motel) we are looking for original content and any mass, w:User:Rambot-style spree is doing more harm than good. K7L (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should write a good free travel guide. If we find good text that suites our guide and can be used legally I see no problem in using it. Original content is better, but summaries or extracts from Wikipedia articles, with the information useful in our context, are much better than nothing and often better than what could easily be written as original text. Unless the Wikipedia article is a short stub, which equally well can be read here, there is still much more to read on Wikipedia, and unless our article is started with just the Understand, there is much other content here. SEO concerns should not stop us from writing what we think is best for our readers. Crippling our guides for SEO reasons is hardly the way to go. Then of course, as you say, Wikipedia information should in most cases be rewritten for our purpose, but for different reasons. --LPfi (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WV aims to be the best and most complete travel guide, such that travelers would not need or want any other existing travel guide. As such, endless lists of mere attraction names are undesirable because they don't tell the traveler what there is to see, nor why they would want to see it. Instead, each attraction should have a few lines explaining what's special about it (i.e. what makes it worthwhile to see/do) and for many See items that inevitably includes a short history of the place — without their history mentioned, travelers would still need to consult another travel guide to get the full picture. For attractions that have a Wikipedia page, do link to them (using the wikipedia field of the listing template), but only summarize what's relevant to the traveler. For example, it is probably relevant to mention the architect of a building and its architectural style, but usually irrelevant to mention when its last renovation took place or when it was classified as a protected monument, although Wikipedia will mention all that info. Thus, limit WV articles to the scope that most travelers will find interesting, which is typically a few sentences. Those who want more in-depth information can follow the link to Wikipedia. For reference, a good example is the current Sarajevo article. ArticCynda (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is me to whom User:K7L is referring. I welcome the discussion, and will of course respect the views of the community.

I have been undertaking a solo expedition to upgrade city and park articles from "outline" to "usable". I have completed 184 articles so far. This means that a reader clicking on any of our city/park articles for western Canada, the Greater Toronto Area and the Niagara Peninsula will get useful information instead of a stub. I have done this by adapting history from Wikipedia articles, and more importantly, by adding get in/get around info, and a number of listings at least of some of the see, do, buy, eat, drink, sleep sections, depending on what is available for that community. In most cases, the WP history for a town is too long or includes details that are not appropriate for a high-level travel article history, so I cut it down, and improve the wording. (Sometime I copyedit the WP text before moving it over by to WV.)

Here are the four articles that I have upgraded recently from outline to usable in this way, and the corresponding Wikipedia articles: Petawawa, W:Petawawa, Hawkesbury, W:Hawkesbury, Ontario, Wilno, W:Wilno, Ontario, Renfrew, W:Renfrew, Ontario. You can also check my work by picking a random small town in Western Canada -- I've contributed to most of them in this way.

What I don't welcome, however, is the continued misrepresentation and denigration of my work as "copypasta", "copying a few entire paragraphs verbatim from Wikipedia", "merely cribbing answers from the encyclopaedia and posting them here", "Dumping verbatim copy-paste text".

I explained in the Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#Ice Age National Scenic Trail that "If you compare the new article to the WP article, you will see that I have adapted it to make it more suitable for a travel guide, and useful for travellers." When User: ChubbyWimbus (and not K7L) falsely described my contributions there as copypasta/e a second time, I responded to him/her, "The text has already been adapted for use in Wikivoyage. If you think it should be tweaked, tweak it. Or you can just keep complaining and not do anything to improve it. Your choice." No-one complaining in this VfD has done anything to improve the article. It seems that they would rather have no article at all than a work-in-progress.

Yes, I'm a little cranky about this. I've been doing a lot of work to build this into a useful travel guide, and I am seeing my work denigrated by a few editors repeating the false narrative that I am just copying and pasting. Don't take my word for it - compare the articles I've linked above to see whether you think they "add no value" for travellers.

Commenting on this discussion without looking at any of the articles is not helpful. Ground Zero (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at two of these articles and it appears from the attribution that the stuff copied from WP is around 20%. Although this is not ideal, I don't see this as a problem. I realise that there are SEO penalties in doing this, but I think that it is much more important that readers are satisfied when they do come here. I don't think that 20% in common is going to irritate somebody who reads our article a few minutes after reading the WP one (including those that follow the link between articles in either direction). Both articles will have later edits and will diverge over time. AlasdairW (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I did not "misrepresent" or "denigrate" anyone's work. My second comment was "I'd say do whatever needs to be done to remove the WT attribution and tweak whatever text was copy-pasted and then keep it". I used the word "whatever" which doesn't mean it was all copy-pasted. The concern was brought up about copy-pasted content, so I suggested giving that content (whatever it may be) a tweak and keeping it. It wasn't my accusation that anything was copy-pasted. I only responded. Also, I voted "keep" so if you're worried about "misrepresentation", you could refrain from saying I'd "rather have no article at all". I have no issue with summarizing. I looked at a couple of the articles you cited and those seemed fine. I don't know the extent of what you've edited or if there are other articles that are more concerning. I'll trust that there aren't unless someone brings some up. Copy-paste has been an issue brought up before, so it's not about you personally. I've never seen any value in copy-pasting when summarizing is easy and in complete alignment with our goals. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ChubbyWimbus, because your comments were in a VfD discussion about an article that I had created, I assumed that your comments were about my work. Thank you for the clarification. And yes, you voted "keep", so it was incorrect for me to suggest that you would rather have no article. I apologize. Ground Zero (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Aside from K7L, I'm not seeing concern about adapting text from Wikipedia where appropriate in order to build our articles in conjunction with adding practical information from other sources. I had stopped contributing in that way pending the outcome of this discussion, but since the discussion has fizzled out, I'll resume expanding articles to usable status. Ground Zero (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you go this route, could you please check whether the geographic coverage area of the article to which you're pasting text matches that of the original Wikipedia page? Often our geographic boundaries are different, and this is by design. Wikipedia tends to align strictly to the official municipal boundaries, while we tend to allow one bottom-level destination to continue across suburbs or even a collection of small rural villages so that a bottom-level article's coverage ends where the next destination begins. This gives articles of reasonable size to be printed and carried for travel. K7L (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It will be interesting to check the SEO results of these articles, say 3-4 months down the track. Hopefully the new original listings and content added outweigh the copied text in Understand. When I have used Wikipedia as a source of information, I paraphrased every sentence and made the wording more informal, lighter and travel-friendly (and interspersing it with personal knowledge and information from other travel sources). While the content is original, it has the drawback of being much slower than adding many sentences verbatim but excluding some of the irrelevant ones from Wikipedia. Gizza (roam) 04:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DaGizza: as you note, there is definitely a trade-off between building the travel guide, and maximizing SEO, and each editor will make his or her own decisions about which to prioritize. For my part, I will edit Wikipedia text to make it more concise, to improve the writing style, and to focus on what I think would be of most interest to travellers in the interest of putting the traveller first. I'm not going to edit for the sake of appeasing someone like K7L whose criticism of other editors is unconstructive. Ground Zero (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SEO is only part of the issue. Our success in attracting editors depends on being able to encourage editors from other projects, including Wikipedia, to edit here. We have a better chance of convincing them to stay if we're creating original content instead of merely mirroring some other random wiki. K7L (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the last effing time, the content I am adding is not "merely mirroring some other random wiki". I have had with your insults. I raised the issue of your attack on my contributions and tone on your talk page to encourage you not to drive away editors, and you didn't have the courtesy to respond, as you didn't have the courtesy to respond to my reply to your attack above. You are probably the last person qualified to advise on how to attract and keep editors. I am focussed on building the travel guide, and ask you to stop trying to bring other editors down. Ground Zero (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see both sides here, but I think it's better we copy open source material than have nothing- while it seems lazy we have a lot if work to do.

It would be nice however if copied descriptions could be catalogued some way so other editors can identify them as areas needong re-writing easily —The preceding comment was added by 18:11, July 23 2018

== Flabbergasted that line links to Wikipedia "sights" are not allowed ==

Swept in from the pub

I was very surprised (and disappointed today) to become aware of Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia and to see my good-faith edit reverted. Right now I'm in the middle of planning a trip to this destination and many places pointed to in the article - Caroni Swamp, Divali_Nagar, Pitch Lake quite rightly do not have links as they are not destinations, they are sights... things to do.. just like Buckingham Palace would never have a Wikivoyage page.

This in itself is fine. I don't want to be overwhelmed by information on those things here. I don't want to read a paragraph of text why I want to go to a place - I can work that out myself.... but...

... I still want to learn more about these destinations to determine whether I want to go to them during my visit to this destination. Right now, every time I plan a trip, I spend hours searching for these places in a separate tab with Duck duck go, my search engine of choice, and then loading them in other tabs on Wikipedia and reading about them, making notes about which ones I want to go to. It's a rather exhausting experience, but generally I find the information I need to supplement the travel information in Wikivoyage on Wikipedia - behold there are links on Wikipedia if you can find them - w:Caroni Swamp, w:Divali_Nagar, w:Pitch Lake!

Links help connect the web together, so I thought I'd save somebody else an hour of doing all that, by linking to the Wikipedia articles! Now behold they too could learn about them whether the mental burden of searching and finding them and they too could be inspired just like me who's just learned about the w:Scarlet_ibis through Wikipedia and as an avid bird watcher is very excited to see it... I felt great having made that edit. Someone else will hopefully be inspired too! Yay!

Yet moments after doing this, my Echo alerts me and I find my well-intended change reverted because of an unclear "policy" on Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia.

This really disappoints me, and to be honest, doesn't seem in the spirit of a travel guide which should help people learn about the world. Is this interpretation of this page, correct, and if so why on Earth would we not allow links? Rules are great, but they shouldn't get in the way of someone trying to make the travel guide a better place.

I propose that the wording of the "Inline link" section is relaxed to permit links to Wikipedia articles on sights which that do not warrant a Wikivoyage page.

Jdlrobson (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdlrobson: changes to policies should be discussed on the policy's talk page, as I've explained to you already. It would be useful to provide on that page, the specific text that you propose to add, delete it modify, to help focus the discussion. You can also review previous discussions on the matter to understand the objections, and focus your arguments. Also, you should not be offended by someone like me reverting your well-intended edits. That is part of working on a collaborative project, and no offence is intended. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand linking in the way you did is tempting, but in fact doing it the VW way serves the traveller. Most WP links were to attractions that should have a listing, and the WP link is allowed in that listing. So keeping to policy means some more work, but ensures the main attractions are mentioned as listings in the proper lowest level articles, which should be the primary place. At least half of the linked attractions are indeed missing. You could link the lower level article from the attractions lists. The w:Caroni Swamp may be a little problematic if the listing is for the nature reserve – I do not know whether we prefer linking anyway or leaving the link out, or whether there is some workaround.
The w:Scarlet ibis is a separate issue. Some types of articles list many animals and plants, which cannot be linked by our current policy. Linking them would make a lot of links, which may distract the reader, and it is easy to paste those names to the Wikipedia tab (is there some elegant way to do that on mobile?), at least if the editor has provided scientific name or in some other way made sure you end up in the right article. I suppose current consensus is such links are more trouble than they are worth, but I can think of workable solutions.
--LPfi (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to add a WP link to a listing, see for example Shanghai/Pudong#See or Suzhou#Classical_gardens which each have many such links. The little "W" at the end of each listing is the link (& I wonder if there's a better way to show it). So one method that gets more-or-less what you want is to create listings & put links there. The external links page does mention this, but perhaps it need clarification or more emphasis. Pashley (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is what is throwing me User:Pashley. I'm not quite seeing why this is allowed but not an inline link to the sight. I'd like to help improve this article to whatever is the preferred consistent way of doing this. Starting with inline links seems like a good step. Maybe at some point the whole section needs to be updated to a new style using lists of see templates (??) (but that will take more than time than I had yesterday). User:LPfi could you elaborate what you mean on the "VW way"?
@Ground Zero: I have big concerns with using revert for helpful edits. I could understand reverts for vandalism and for edits that remove content or add useless content, but surely we should be collaborating to make the article the best we can instead? If there are other ways to link to sights, which is a problem we want to solve, we should work in that direction, not throw out the links, which to me seems like a useful first step. Instead of reverting, if I saw such edits, and knew that they were allowed in the "{{See" template, I might guide the editor to change the links to those (or do so myself and ping them). I am very willing to be guided in my editing. I see inconsistency as a big problem with Wikivoyage and I'm keen to help in that way. If you help me work out the best way to solve the problem at hand, I'll put in the effort and I'm sure there are others that would be just as receptive!
I also see that linking is one of the types of edits that are easier during the act of traveling itself. From my phone I can edit and add links to a page but I cannot add templates very easily. In this situation, there must be a practical next step. I would have continued editing that wiki page last night, but the reverting put me off and I can never get that time back.
What is the practical next step? Using `{{see` templates instead of links in this article? That seems like a task that would be made easier if these were already inline links to Wikipedia (with the notion that more work is to be done). - User:Jdlrobson 14:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The proper way to fix this would be to create {{see}} or {{do}} listings with the location of the individual beaches - or enough info that the voyager could find the place without looking this up in the encyclopaedia or on an external website. I don't have time to do this right now as it's the Thanksgiving weekend here and I need to be on the road in an hour, but could take a look this evening if nothing's been done yet. Certainly we want a link style where links to a venue's official site, to Wikipedia or to Wikidata look different from internal links to other Wikivoyage articles, but at the same time we can't afford to put obstacles in the path of Wikipedians coming to edit here if we want to have new users to keep this project viable. Misusing the "rollback" button is a bad idea in these cases, as it doesn't allow the inclusion of a meaningful edit summary, but the underlying issue does look to be fixable. We just need the info on how to find each beach here instead of omitting it or linking off-wiki. K7L (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first time I removed the external links, I ensured that the valid internal links that Jdlrobson had added were kept, and explained the edits in the comment line. I did not just roll back willy nilly. Furthermore, I provided a link to the policy on their talk page. Despite the policy, Jdlrobson restored the internal links, and tesponded on their talk page questioning the existence of the policy for which I had provided a link. So I reverted the incorrect links, and posted on explanation on the article's talk page here, with a suggestion that if the editor doesn't like the policy, they could propose a change on the policy's talk page, and provided a link to that policy. I have no idea why they decided to start this discussion here. I have tried to work with this editor, but they don't seem to be interested in my help. Had the idea of converting the points of interest to listings occurred to me, I would have mentioned it, but it didn't. Ground Zero (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why we frown on inline links to Wikipedia is because we aim to be as self-contained as possible, rather than farming out our content to other sites. All traveller-relevant information about a particular destination or point of interest should be in the Wikivoyage article itself. Editors who find our coverage deficient are certainly welcome to paraphrase or even copy (with proper attribution per the CC license) information over from Wikipedia to here. Integrating Wikipedia links into our listing template was a somewhat grudging concession to the pro-interwiki link minority, but in terms of information that's not immediately traveller-relevant, the sentiment over here has always been that our readers don't need to be spoon-fed. If they're capable of typing Wikivoyage's URL into their browser and the name of their destination into the search bar, they're certainly capable of doing the same at Wikipedia or whatever other source of information they want to use. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Other Projects at Wikipedia[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Anyone know why Wikivoyage articles are no longer listed on Wikipedia pages under "In Other Projects"? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Created T208121. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is fixed now. ARR8 (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Wikipedia sidebar[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I noticed that several articles on Wikipedia have a sidebar where the Wikivoyage link has a star next to it (In other projects section). When I hover the mouse to the star, it either says "recommended article" or "good article". I worked on the Brownsville Wikivoyage article, getting it to "guide" status. Would it qualify to have a star designated in its section? The Lincoln, Nebraska Wikipedia page has a "good article" star on its sidebar though it had a "usable" status on their Wikivoyage page. De88 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, I think the article for Lincoln (Nebraska) is quite good, but there is only one listing in "sleep", which puts it close to outline status. Probably, the star should be removed — Wikipedia has a good article for the place, so there is little need to direct travelers elsewhere for information, in that case. I'd remove the star but keep the link to the WV article for Lincoln. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would the Brownsville, Texas article be eligible for this though? The Amarillo, Texas page also has a star on their sidebar; theirs say "recommended article", however. Their Wikivoyage page has "usable" status. De88 (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia and Wikivoyage ratings are not related. Wikivoyage:Star articles has information about how to identify a star-worthy article here at Wikivoyage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think De88 is talking about the little star icon that shows up next to the Wikivoyage link in the sidebar to the left on some Wikipedia articles. This icon is managed via Wikidata. You can add it for Brownsville by going to wikidata:Q51693, scrolling to the Wikivoyage section, clicking "edit", and then clicking on the badge icon that appears next to the link to the English Wikivoyage article. (If that wasn't clear, please let me know and I can explain in more detail.) I think we should get someone to run a bot to do this for all guide-status articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly what I was referring to. You explained the solution well. I just fixed it. I agree though. A bot should be run for these things. Actually, scratch that. It won't let me add a badge. De88 (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It ideally shouldn't let people add arbitrary stars, and if it did, then I'm sure that a bot would simply revert it later. Those stars are meant to indicate the special status of those pages. The idea is that if one of the lists pages is particularly good quality, people might want to know that, so they could decide to visit it. Every Featured Article at any Wikipedia has a gold star showing next to their link (as seen on other the other Wikipedias and non-Wikipedia sites). Example: Albuquerque is a star article here, and the sidebar at w:en:Albuquerque, New Mexico shows a gold star for Wikivoyage. The English Wikipedia article is not as well developed, and it has no star in our sidebar. Bristol is guide status, so the English Wikipedia shows a silver star for us, and w:en:Bristol is a Featured Article at the English Wikipedia, so we show a gold star for the link to their article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About importing Wikipedia policies[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Inas, do we need to have a discussion that specifically enumerates Wikipedia policies we're acting on and establishes a consensus to use them? What else do you want to discuss that you're not satisfied we have a consensus about, and what's the best place to discuss it? You're a great and very long-time contributor and admin, and I don't want you to feel that a few admins who've been at it a shorter time than you are just dictating things to you. If we need to have a discussion that satisfies you that your concerns are fully heard and a consensus is indisputably reached, lay out the terms of the discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

meatball: might be an interesting source of principles or ideas for policies. It's a little more aligned with smaller, low-bureaucracy communities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not immediately obvious where their policies are. Any in particular you had in mind? But the other thing is that we've imported some Wikipedia policies because we've faced a fair amount of vandalism from vandals who come from Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MeatballWiki is a meta-wiki of sorts. The whole thing is discussions of how wikis and online communities work. See meatball:BarnRaising and other ideas about collaboration, ideas about online communication, handling disputes between users and the misleading idea of a difficult person, and advice on community management and power. An idea there that would work better for our smaller scale is meatball:VetoTopic (it's sort of, kind of, a little bit like what we do on this page). An idea that I think interests us more than the English Wikipedia is meatball:CommunityMarketing. There's a lot to look at, if you're really interested in this subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll do some reading. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve held back from commenting here - and, to be honest, largely avoided Wikivoyage altogether the past few days - to avoid throwing more fuel on what’s already an inflamed situation. But since after several days of this message being posted Inas doesn’t seem interested in responding, I will chime in.
At its core, the issue here really has nothing to do with importing policies from Wikipedia, just the same as our wranglings with W. Frank, Alice et al. a few years ago had nothing to do with relative image sizing, SEO optimization and the rest. That is to say, the idea that Inas’ opinions have not been duly heard and considered is no more believable than the same argument about W. Frank. They’ve been heard and heard and heard again. At this point, we have long since ceased debating the merits of importing policies from Wikipedia, with a solid consensus in favor of doing so when warranted as a result (see Wikivoyage talk:Deny recognition#Changing visibility on edits.., Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#Ban editing userspace pages?, and most recently #Media bias), and it’s now become a question of dealing with a user who refuses to accept that consensus is against them and that it’s time to give up the ghost and move on.
There are only so many times a user can forum-shop the same argument about the same issue over and over again in different places, as if the previous discussions and the previous consensuses never happened, before the act of raising the argument itself becomes disruptive. And to that disruptiveness we can add Inas’ most recent comments seeking to reframe the discussion as a matter of personal bad blood that I supposedly have toward him, and intentionally mischaracterizing the consensuses that formed against him as a case of one individual editor (myself) attempting to impose his will and rule by fiat. These latest remarks were particularly offensive to me personally because I take my responsibilities as an administrator and bureaucrat very seriously, and while I know I often come across as having a strong and commanding personality, I take pains to balance that with the principles of democratic site governance and never to act in my sysop capacities without a strong consensus behind me. And they are also extremely insulting to the other editors who lent their voices to those consensuses, who may as well not exist as far as Inas’ argument is concerned.
Inas’ longevity as a Wikivoyage editor, his dedication to the project, and his status as an administrator are all commendable. But in his remarks above, he appears to be trying to use those things to shield himself from the consequences of his own disruptive behavior. But the same standards of behavior apply to all editors, no matter who they are or what user groups they're in or how long they’ve been here. (In fact, if there’s going to be a double standard one way or the other, it should be that we are less tolerant of disruptive behavior from those who have been around long enough to know better.) As you can see in #Media bias above, Inas has already been given two warnings to cease this pattern of behavior and does not seem inclined to heed them. As much as it pains me to say it, and as unprecedented a turn of events as I know it would be, in the case of another recurrence I feel that the escalating user blocks procedure would need to be the next step.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we're doing that, he would have to be de-sysopped first. That would require a de-sysopping nomination at Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations, and of course it would have to be approved by a consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think the links you gave prove your point well. At least two of them seem to show dissension, rather than consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, I'd ask you to be more specific about where you're seeing dissension, because all I'm seeing is a very W. Frank-esque scenario of Inas bellowing vociferously against what's already a fait accompli, and others either trying in vain to reason with him or pointedly avoiding engaging him. (Importantly, when I say there's no dissension I'm talking specifically about consensus regarding importing Wikipedia policies to Wikivoyage, regardless of what each respective discussion was originally about. For instance, in Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#Ban editing userspace pages?, there indeed was no consensus in favor of SelfieCity's proposal to deny blocked users access to their own userspace as a matter of course, but Inas' across-the-board refusal to accept w:WP:BEANS as valid guidance in any Wikivoyage scenario was met with incredulous replies from virtually everyone else involved in the discussion.)
As to the issue of desysopping: it's perfectly possible to apply user blocks to sysops, as demonstrated last year when I accidentally blocked Ibaman (oops), so no desysopping nomination would be necessary.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to spend more time discussing what's in those threads, as anyone can read them for themselves, but at Wikivoyage talk:Deny recognition#Changing visibility on edits.., User:Inas and User:Traveler100 disagree with it and User:LPfi states why this is not done on sv-wp and advises great caution. Granger supports the policy but objects to how the decision was made. In Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#Ban editing userspace pages?, User:LPfi "agree[s] with Inas that WP policies should not be used here, and the fact that the linked pages are not policies doesn't make linking them more relevant. They may be useful, but the link should go from a local page giving context ('there is a discussion on the topic on wp:x; most points raised are relevant also here') or as a plain See also." The folks arguing in favor of applying the "beans" policy in that thread are you, me, SelfieCity (by clear implication) and Ground Zero. So you can't say he's the only one expressing any objections. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For what it's worth, I don't think policies should be automatically imported from Wikipedia—we should discuss first. A related issue is that occasionally people will say "Wikipedia does it this way" as justification for a policy proposal when in fact Wikipedia doesn't do it that way. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone argues for automatically importing Wikipedia policies. The fact that something is a Wikipedia policy is an argument for us giving it consideration in developing our own policies because it has been considered and developed by a community that is very similar to ours, but that has more people available for policy development. Wikipedia policies can especially give us good guidance where we don't yet have policies. Rejecting something solely because it is a Wikipedia policy is simplistic and lazy. Rejecting a Wikipedia policy because it wouldn't work well in a travel guide, or because it wouldn't work well for a small community like ours is entirely defensible. Let's discuss their policies, and not try to shoot down good ideas claiming that there is something a priori wrong about importing Wikipedia policies. Ground Zero (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] I agree. I think in some cases, Wikipedia policies were adopted as an exigency and approved after the fact. That's certainly not ideal and should in general never be done, but those of us who patrol recent changes all understand that the kinds of vandalism attacks we were facing were beyond the ability of our small crew of admins to handle with simple case-by-case reversions and blocks, and that by any other name, it was and is unfortunately necessary to take some counter-measures out of the sight of the vandals. An existing Wikipedia policy served for this, but if it hadn't existed, we would have had to create essentially the same policy, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(multiple edit conflicts; this was posted without having read GZ and IK's above comments) Ikan, you missed a lot of nuance in your comment timestamped 00:43, 14 June 2019. In the Wikivoyage talk:Deny recognition#Changing visibility on edits.. thread, it's important to note that Traveler100 and LPfi both explicitly declined to question the wisdom of the revision deletions at issue in the thread. It's true that they both struck a cautious tone, and springing from their caution was a proposal I later made specifying in which cases revision deletion should be used, which met with a consensus in favor of implementation on a trial basis. In the Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#Ban editing userspace pages? thread, I read the key portion of the LPfi statement you quoted as the second half; not that "deny recognition" should not apply at Wikivoyage, but that the policy page should be ported over to Wikivoyage projectspace rather than being referenced through a crosswiki link. I agreed, and of course Wikivoyage projectspace is precisely where our own "deny recognition" policy ended up.
My problem with Inas was never that he was opposed to importing Wikipedia policy. It was what seemed to me like a total lack of inclination to compromise and collaborate on building a better consensus, rather than just railing and pontificating and standing in the way of our attempts to solve the very severe problem of vandalism that led us to start cribbing from Wikipedia policy in the first place. Contrast that with Traveler100 and LPfi, who brought up valid concerns in a reasonable way, and thanks to whom we have a better "deny recognition" policy than we otherwise would have. And while Inas' conduct at Wikivoyage talk:Deny recognition and Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#Ban editing userspace pages? by itself would not have made talk of user blocks warranted, what happened afterward did. The fact that Wikivoyage:Deny recognition is a thing that exists is proof positive that we did eventually come up with a consensus that importing Wikipedia policies is warranted in certain cases, yet as evidenced in Inas' remarks months after the fact in #Media bias, he still refused to let the issue die - as I said, acting as if none of the discussions about revision deletion ever happened. This is where the W. Frank analogy becomes apt and where Inas' behavior crossed the line into disruptiveness. The personal attacks on me in his most recent comment were merely the icing on the cake.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that I missed nuances as that they weren't as obvious from that thread as from Wikivoyage talk:Deny recognition#Turning User:SelfieCity/Deny into policy, including all its subsections. That's where the consensus was reached. Inas didn't take part in that thread. That said, I do take the points you made above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that original comment on my phone during my lunch break at work, so it was more difficult for me to go back and figure out which talk page threads to link than if I'd been at home on my desktop. Anyway, Inas may have chosen not to take part in building the consensus at Wikivoyage talk:Deny recognition#Turning User:SelfieCity/Deny into policy, but there's no reason to believe he was unaware that a consensus was reached nor does that give him license to disregard the fact that it was. For that reason, I maintain that his conduct at #Media bias was disruptive. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but his feelings are clearly real, he's done great work for many years, and I'm hoping he takes this chance to enumerate the points he feels there is not a consensus for and discuss them. Let's see if he takes up that suggestion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There has clearly been things going on behind the scenes without my being aware of them, so I hope I am not digging up any skeletons. My impression is however that there is real disagreement on how easily to import policies, and I can see how threatening with a policy that has not been imported can be seen as provoking. In my eyes noting that the policy isn't in effect here and should not be imported just as one feels the need is not forum-shopping (the remark was made in passing and could have been left alone, even if the "feels the need" part was an exaggeration).
I hope we all agree that some en-wp policies can be taken as inspiration for new policies over here, if there is a need, but that there has to be discussion and that such a suggestion may very well be turned down - and that no WP policy applies here just because it does on en-wp. They should not be regarded as policies "only implicitly" or "not yet" in effect here. (I understand bringing up the topic ban out of frustration or some such, but it would be wise to word the frustration in some other way.) --LPfi (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but let's break down what Wikipedia's policy on topic bans actually says. In essence, it's that an editor whose edits regarding a particular topic are disruptive, but who is otherwise a productive contributor, can be warned to stay away from that topic but otherwise be allowed to continue to edit, and that if the editor continues to engage on that topic despite the warning they incur a sitewide user block. Importantly, these are all things that current Wikivoyage policy already allows us to do, and w:WP:TBAN was cited merely as a convenient shorthand to avoid typing out the whole lengthy thing I just typed out above. I would again cite the W. Frank drama of a few years ago. His mainspace contributions were mostly uncontroversial, but his habit of forum-shopping and persistently advocating for various ideas regarding relative image sizing and SEO tactics was so bad that we had to warn him to stop being disruptive. He refused and ended up getting the escalating user blocks treatment which culminated with an indefinite ban. I don't recall anyone ever citing Wikipedia policy during that whole process, but was that not, in effect, a topic ban? Why, then, does our opinion suddenly change when it's pointed out that Wikipedia has a policy that, while easier to summarize, achieves basically the same effect? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following this discussion, and its prequel under 'Media bias', at a distance and without knowing all the background to the forum-shopping allegations. But I do have rather similar feelings to LPfi. Topic bans are not, as far as I know, part of Wikivoyage policy, regardless of whether they have been employed on here before against W.Frank, so to threaten their use on an individual user is, for me, going too many steps ahead of the proper procedure.
In order to institute any new policy here, we must first have a discussion, as a community, and approve it via reasonable consensus. If such a policy is already in use, but has somehow not been put through that process, then now is the time to do it.
It is entirely reasonable to expect that all of our 'behavioural management' policies be explicitly written down in such a wording as is acceptable to the community at large, and agreed upon by community consensus.-ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this was never an attempt to enforce a new policy before it was vetted by consensus. It was an attempt to enforce a combination of existing policies (namely Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks and much of what is written at Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun) that together add up to effectively the same thing as what Wikipedia calls a topic ban. The crosswiki link to w:WP:TBAN was included as a quick and convenient way of explaining what a topic ban is to those users who are familiar with Wikivoyage policy but unfamiliar with Wikipedia's. I'd be all in favor of formalizing a single, centralized topic ban policy at Wikivoyage, but it bears repeating that that would be merely a matter of repackaging existing policy, not "institut[ing] any new policy" that would need to be "approve[d] via reasonable consensus". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's your interpretation that you were trying to enforce existing policy, that's fine. I also accept that there are some close similarities between the aims of the different policies being discussed, so can see where you're coming from when saying that a topic ban is covered by existing policy.
However, the fact that a number of us have now interpreted topic bans as a 'new to Wikivoyage' policy suggests it is not currently widely understood, and in my view that is because (a) it isn't written down anywhere (b) it hasn't actually been used much or at all since the days of Frank, which was an exceptional case in many ways.
It therefore can't hurt to have the conversation now, and get something down in writing - if we decide it's a good policy to use going forward.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a separate point, I think it's clear with most of us that there's no issue with importing Wikipedia policies on a case-by-case basis, assuming there is consensus in each case. The key issue is here, however, that WP's policies are sometimes used as arguments in favor of certain ways of blocking vandals, etc., and a certain user doesn't like that. Quoting a policy on Wikipedia where no equivalent exists here is not the same as importing policies. If we Wikivoyagers want to do something because it's done on Wikipedia and it works there, why oppose? That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I'm not sure what to say about escalating user blocks, but the consistent opposition by this user against any attempts to use methods, tactics, or policies of Wikipedia seems extreme to me. Wikipedia towers above other wikis in its size and influence, so IMO it's unreasonable for a sister site of Wikipedia to have isolationist policies. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like before there is (another) topic ban, we should have a debate about whether to have a Wikivoyage guideline allowing those in extreme cases, even though they will in any case be extremely rare. So I think anyone should start such a thread, probably at Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits or perhaps Wikivoyage:User ban nominations.
But in terms of other guidelines that have been cited in this thread, escalating blocks are specifically and pointedly a Wikivoyage guideline - see Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks - and Wikivoyage:Deny recognition, another Wikivoyage guideline, incorporates aspects of a couple of Wikipedia policies. Both these guidelines - and especially escalating user blocks - were extensively debated, went through a number of drafts, and were agreed upon by a consensus of those participating in the discussions. Also, no, there's been nothing going on behind the scenes, or if there is, I haven't gotten wind of it. The entire reason for this thread is that I don't like to see Inas being upset and would really prefer for us to iron out any differences, rather than threaten him with punishments. However, it's quite disturbing that he has repeatedly ignored calls to engage in substantive discussions of what he still thinks hasn't been agreed upon by a consensus and prefers to snipe about guidelines that were decided upon by a consensus that excluded him. Inas, if you're not going to take up invitations to lay out what we are doing that isn't backed up by a consensus but prefer to just resume complaining about what are now established guidelines every time you feel like, you are being unconstructive and need to stop. Ignoring efforts to have a dialogue is behavior we might expect from a new user who's touting, not a long-time admin. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before we throw the book at Inas for non-participation here, note that the user hasn't been online since 11 June, and before that was last seen on 6 June. It is quite possible (s)he hasn't seen this discussion. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting throwing any books now. I hope we hear from him on this, and on the discussion that someone will start on possible topic bans. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're not, just putting it for the record. Presumably, the discussion should be started by someone who wants to argue in favour. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that he did see this discussion, and that's why his last edit was on 11 June. If he stops editing permanently, I think we ought to let the issue drop. But until that's clear, the issue shouldn't be dropped. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to believe he'll stay away and I hope he doesn't. He's a very valuable member of this community. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I understand, there was a period of years when he was not very active, until a few months ago. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'd like to comment on the general theme (i.e., not anybody's personal words, okay?) of copying from the English Wikipedia. As someone who spends a lot of time on a lot of different wikis, I have learned that many of the smaller wikis (and several of the largest) are very concerned about just copying the English Wikipedia. As a general rule, content policies get copied from the English Wikipedia to other Wikipedias. You know how this goes: Someone learns "you have to cite", and then comes here and wonders why we don't provide a list of references. The same thing happens at Commons, which intentionally has no policy requiring files to maintain a neutral, or even verifiable.

But for non-content, the Wikipedias vary considerably in their approaches, and the sister projects are even more different. For example, the English Wikipedia looks down on "voting", but the German Wikipedia decides all of their major questions by a straight-up vote. The English Wikipedia restricts paid editing, and Commons welcomes paid contributors with open arms. The list goes on and on: we could talk about differences in username policies (length, acceptable characters, whether a paid user must/should/shouldn't/mustn't include the employer's name in the user name...), in where conversations happen (user talk page? central page like this one? article talk page?), in who qualifies for adminship, in how much discretion admins have – the list could go on for miles. But the point I want to make is that most wikis don't do what the English Wikipedia does, and not just because most wikis don't have the technical folks needed to implement some of the more technical processes. Smaller wikis have different needs. Smaller wikis also have different strengths – like the ability to talk to everyone, to recognize the names of all the regulars, or for one person to review all the Special:RecentChanges (if you want to sit down and do that).

My advice is that we should do what works for us, regardless of whether some other wiki happens to do this or not to do this.

Also, on a much smaller point, my advice is to stop talking about forum-shopping, which isn't really possible here. Forum-shopping is about asking a different group of people, when the first group doesn't agree with you. Since we're all the same people on all the pages, that's not happening. (But you might want to read w:en:WP:STICK, which is about people who persist in promoting ideas that you disagree with. If we're going to copy that jargon, we should get it right. ;-)) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick point: There are acceptable ways to cite Wikipedia articles when you quote, paraphrase or summarize from them here. The most obvious is to indicate what page you used content from in your edit summary. Another way is to put a template at the top of the articles talk page indicating that it includes content from x or y Wikipedia page. One or the other of those types of citations is required, and copyright violation is policed strictly on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think w:en:WP:STICK fully applies to this site because discussions are never over and can always be reopened. What's meant by "forum shopping" is bringing up a topic somewhere other than where it's previously been hashed out. The appropriate thing to do is resume the discussion there and make any new objections or attempts to persuade a new consensus there. If you have a better term for it, let us know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the discussion on topic bans at Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits#Proposal to introduce topic_bans. Comments are invited. Ground Zero (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what this is fuss is all about. There are two things here. Firstly, I stated that AndreCarrotflower using threats and bans not simply as tools against vandalism but also as tools against people they don't agree with on policy. And I see it is being unfortunate - particuarly because of the radical change in tone form previous administrators who have been janitors and support workers - rather than enforcers. I fully stand by that statement, and it's not hard to find examples if this is required to be substantiated. I rarely comment on policy changes these days. But the fact that Wikipedia policies don't automatically apply here without prior discussion, is not controversial. It's policy, and remains so. As a far as the previous discussion about vandalism denial - my arguments were entirely consistent. We don't automatically import the policy from Wikipedia. Once it was discussed here an implemented as a policy, I didn't stand in the way of the consensus. In fact I support our vandal-fighting admins in having the tools they need to fight vandalism. But I'd rather they didn't use them against people trying to develop policy and travel guides. I fully agree with WhatamIdoing. We should adopt standards where it suits, and reject them when it doesn't. I agree with Ground Zero on that count. I'll continue to state my opinion on policy issues. Remain totally open to be convinced of other's viewpoints. And I can point to so many examples over the years when I've been the last standout on an issue and conceded the point to reach consensus. I'm really genuinely upset about the aggressive turn that WV has taken recently. I realise that we needed to take a harder line against vandalism. But when AndreCarrotflower accuses my contributions as being somehow equivalent of W.Frank, I would ask everyone to see that for the ridiculous statement that it is. Look at my history. Decide for yourself. I've agreed with the WP policy imports or abtained on just about every occasion they have been proposed. This stuff about forum shopping is nonsense. I'm talking here, and the next second I'll be on another talk page. It's the same people, same forum. We're a small wiki. I'm not sure what their motivations are, but I've personally run out of good faith, and I think it's purely a power-play. But I hope other can be more open-minded. --Inas (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inas, I'm really glad you came back to state your case. I hope we can now calm down and stop threatening each other, and I don't think I need to name names. That said, I do think that regardless of the size of this wiki, it's best to discuss things in the relevant forums. I also agree that Wikipedia policies are quite obviously not automatically applicable here, but some have been adapted as appropriate and adopted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I feel like I need a don't use Wikipedia policies here without local consensus button. I only bring the subject up when I see it being done. It's not like I'm seeking out places to state it. It's like don't tout. You mention it where it happens, right? And of course some policies have been adapted and adopted - I'd like to think we'd take good ideas from anywhere. And let's face it - the founding ideas wv:plunge forward etc, are cringeworthingly cribbed. --Inas (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point on bringing up using Wikipedia policies without a clear consensus only where it's mentioned. I accept your point. On plunge forward: There are certain types of edits, such as redividing places into different district boundaries or adding to the list of cities in an article for a country, that are really best not to do without prior discussion. In which kinds of situations would you like to reemphasize plunging forward? I'm interested to know, and it might be good to bring this up also at Wikivoyage talk:Plunge forward. Things can get stale around here without the occasional discussion about the core values of the project. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links to non-English Wikipedia articles[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Quick FYI: If you use the interlanguage link system to link to an article at a non-English Wikipedia (e.g., [[:de:Dingsbums]]), inside a listing template, please omit the :. It works in the listing editor's tool to make sure that you have the right link, but it produces a broken link when you save the page. The listing template automatically adds the : for you, so if you add one manually, then you get a broken link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we link to a non-English article from English Wikivoyage, though? I understand that many of us (including myself) know at least some words in a foreign language, but we can't assume that other travelers will. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC) adjusted 20:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I think your use of the "nowiki" tag is not closed anywhere. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to a non-English Wikipedia article is uncommon, and not ideal from the POV of someone who is reading our guide in English. It only seems to be done when no English-language Wikipedia article exists. But it might be better than nothing, e.g., a few pictures, or perhaps it's a German-language Wikipedia article, about a place in a German-speaking country, and you are planning a trip there because you speak German. I doubt that we'd add such a link at a random language Wikipedia (e.g., Wikivoyage guide in English + attraction in India + Wikipedia article in Russian = not desirable). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm referring to the English Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If German Wikivoyage links to German Wikipedia, that's obviously appropriate. However, if German Wikivoyage linked to Wikipedia in a foreign language, even English Wikipedia, it wouldn't be right. While we expect some knowledge from travelers, we don't want to link them to an article they can't read, either. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of our readers will be able to read the linked articles. Most travelers are traveling within their home country (about three trips out of four, for the EU overall). So if we (the English Wikivoyage) write about a German attraction, and can't find an English-language Wikipedia article, but there is a German-language Wikipedia article about it, then a substantial number of the potential travelers to that attraction will be able to read the linked article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the statistics and information. I think, therefore, it may be better to keep these links but adjust them to make clear the link target is a foreign-language Wikipedia. For example, instead of John Doe you would do John Doe (German Wikipedia). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a nice-looking template to indicate their (rare) links to other-language Wikipedia articles. It looks something like link [de]. See w:Template:Interlanguage link. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage tries to use the fewest number of templates, but there's nothing to prevent us from writing "(German)" or "[de]" by hand if these were in normal text. Which, however, they aren't, because they're the automatic links in the listing templates. The "link" is just the Wikipedia "W" icon (a picture, with no possibility of writing any text). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. You mean this kind of listing:
  • Place. Place on Wikipedia
Perhaps, in that case, the template could be adjusted to add an option for a foreign-language Wikipedia. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More prominent linking from Wikipedia?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I have a sense that many people looking for travel information about a place go to the Wikipedia page for it, often not noticing the link to the Wikivoyage article at the bottom in the sister projects portal, mixed in amongst less relevant links like the Wiktionary definition and the Wikiquote collection. I think it might better serve readers there and drive more traffic to WV if we were able to make the link more prominent, perhaps by moving it from the bottom to the top. Given WP's separate purpose, I could see some objections to something like that, but I do think there's an argument to be made that, for a geographic destination, understanding the travel information pertinent to it (i.e. WV's aim) is a large part of understanding it as a whole (i.e. WP's aim). Thoughts? Sdkb (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you can do today, but is on a page for page manual edit basis, is to use w:Template:Wikivoyage or w:Template:Sister project links at the bottom of city pages. See for example w:Berlin and w:Aberdeen. Also if on Wikivoyage there is a good amount of tourist information in a listing for a point of interest it can be used on the Wikipedia article about the site. For example look at w:Eiffel Tower and w:Tower of London. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Making Wikivoyage more prominent on Wikipedia is a good idea. I think the best method to do this would be to update w:Template:Infobox settlement to also display a link to the Wikivoyage page when exits. This would be a one off edit to the template and would add to almost all major settlement pages. For example w:Washington, D.C. look at the infobox on the right-hand-side. Take a look at commons:template:Wikidata Infobox for example at commons:Category:York, England on showing other project links. Suggest adding Wikivoyage link at bottom of settlement template after the link to the city's internet website. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone at Wikivoyage would oppose making links to our articles more prominent in Wikipedia. You are likely to encounter resistance in Wikipedia. But I agree that many readers of Wikipedia geography and tourist sight articles are reading them with a purpose of possibly travelling there, and many of them will not end up at Wikivoyage where there is more relevant information. Gizza (roam) 06:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I agree that it should be easier to get to Wikivoyage from Wikipedia in this manner. The question is, how do we get that kind of discussion going (and successfully) on Wikipedia? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How to get it going is that you start a discussion at w:en:WP:VPIL to develop some specific proposals, and then you take it to w:en:WP:VPPR for a more thorough discussion of each specific proposal.
How to do it successfully... That's not something that can be guaranteed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be framed as adding a "Travel information" or "Tourist information" section with a Wikivoyage link immediately above the "In other projects" section. A Wikivoyage link in the inbox is a good idea but, I suspect, there will be a lot of pushback because linking to wikiprojects in content area is very strongly discouraged. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sussex woodlands[edit]

Swept in from the pub

There was recently a deletion discussion on Wikipedia of four Sussex woodland articles. Two got deleted and two couldn't get consensus either way. I didn't think of it at the time, but it occured to me afterwards that Wikivoyage might be interested in these articles. I can't import them myself as I don't have the importer right here, but as an administrator on Wikipedia I can undelete the deleted articles for someone else to import if they are wanted. Please ping me if you reply as I don't monitor this wiki.

By the way, there is also w:Category:Copy to Wikivoyage if anyone is interested. It lists pages considered better off on the Wikivoyage project and some have been sitting there for some time. Spinningspark (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: thank you for bringing this to our attention. For my part, I don't think it's worth spending the time to import this material. The two deleted articles have almost no travel-related information, and little other useful information. "W:Graylands Copse is a largely inaccessible woodland", so it's not really worth putting in a travel guide. W:Upper Rapeland Wood has some unmaintained trails, so I have added a listing to our Horsham article. Ground Zero (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have started looking at w:Category:Copy to Wikivoyage. I've adapted one article into a Wikivoyage article (Hernandarias), and used information from a couple of others to create listings in existing Wikivoyage article. I removed from the category a couple of articles that had no useful content. It seems like some people think, "well, this doesn't belong in Wikipedia — maybe Wikivoyage would take it." In these two cases, we'll politely decline. I will look at the other articles listed in due course. Ground Zero (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, however, there are times when a transwiki (that's the technical name for moving an article across wikis, I believe) would be appropriate for WP articles. I would expect that many WP contributors who add articles not suited to that website simply don't understand or even know that WV exists. Perhaps we should keep an eye on Wikipedia's deletion discussions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are now three articles remaining in the Wikipedia category, and I think the best approach would be to transwiki them, and then adapt them to Wikivoyage format and content. I've tried reading the transwiki documentation three times, and can't figure it out. If someone else is willing to do the transwiki, I will work on bringing the resulting Wikivoyage up to our standards. Ground Zero (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I noticed today that in Special:UserRights there is an option that bureaucrats can allow called "transwiki importer." Perhaps one of us could be given this right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proper way to do that, I think, would be to create a nomination at Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations (sidebar: is that page perhaps due for a name change? Wikivoyage:User rights nominations or somesuch?) and if you're a trusted sysop, the approval should be a matter of course. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I was thinking that, as we don't nominate patrollers, the same would be the case for transwiki importers, but a nomination works fine with me. (To clarify, I am not putting myself forward currently.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SelfieCity has kindly agreed to accept a nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why does an admin need to pass an additional nomination to be able to transwiki? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the big question is whether to enable transwiki-ing. Perhaps enabling it technically is done by adding the right to somebody, but I agree that an administrator should be trusted enough for that.
The question about allowing transwiki imports is not trivial: the page history will then include history from another wiki, with contributions from people who never were active here (and perhaps confusing user names from before the SUL unification). On sv-wp it was not enabled, then mostly from concern about contributions in other languages, which would seem odd. As long as the original article is not deleted, a permalink to the "imported" version works well.
--LPfi (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much easier to copy the content over, but in the cases of these three articles, doing so without preserving the edit history seems contrary to the spirit of attribution. The point of w:Category:Copy to Wikivoyage is that these articles are considered by Wikipedians to be travel articles, and not encyclopedia articles, so I would expect that the original articles will not be maintained in Wikipedia. (Wikipedians are not always right about what constitutes a travel article. I removed the "copy to Wikivoyage" tag from 7 8 Wikipedia articles that I felt would not make good travel articles.) Ground Zero (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding those 7 articles, are they still flagged for some sort of action from Wikipedians? If they were marked for copying to Wikivoyage they may need to be deleted outright if Wikipedians decided they weren't suitable for the encyclopedia. Powers (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Often such articles can be cut down to sensible Wikipedia articles by removing the travel info, perhaps to stubs or redirects. In those cases there is no need to delete them and our permalink would keep working. --LPfi (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are no longer flagged. I left a note on the article talk pages indicating that I had removed the tag and why. It is up to other Wikipedians to decide what they want to do next. Keep in mind that anyone can add a tag like that if they think it is appropriate. That doesn't mean that that person is right and that the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. In several cases, I didn't see what the problem was. But if these articles are a problem for Wikipedia, making them a problem for Wikivoyage is not the right solution. If you are interested, here are the articles in question: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] [8]. If you think that there is information in these articles that can be harvested for Wikivoyage, go right ahead. Ground Zero (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC) (updated 03:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We can't copy and paste an article entirely from Wikipedia if that article is subsequently deleted from Wikipedia, because attribution is then made impossible. In order for us to take these articles on board, we need to transwiki them, unless Wikipedia can be persuaded to keep them as read-only archives in perpetuity, which would be silly.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed an addition to our policy to reflect this discussion: Wikivoyage talk:Cooperating with Wikipedia. Ground Zero (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my thoughts there. --LPfi (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for importing articles from Wikipedia[edit]

In this discussion in the pub, an editor from Wikipedia pointed out this category of Wikipedia articles, w:Category:Copy to Wikivoyage, which lists pages considered better off on the Wikivoyage project. It took some digging around and chasing down blind alleys to find out that administrators have the ability to import ("transwiki") articles from Wikipedia and preserve the edit history. I'd like to add the following section yo this page to provide instructions on how to do this.

Articles may be imported from Wikipedia by an administrator using the "transwiki" process. This process can be executed from this page: Special:Import — select "w" to import from Wikipedia.
The transwiki process should be used where large passages of text are a Wikipedia article appropriate for use in a Wikivoyage article. The transwiki process imports the edit history of the Wikipedia article into Wikivoyage to ensure appropriate attribution of the content.
Wikipedia identifies candidate articles for transwikiing on this page: w:Category:Copy to Wikivoyage. Articles must meet Wikivoyage standards for content to be eligible for being imported — many articles identified by Wikipedians are not appropriate for Wikivoyage and should not be imported.
Articles imported from Wikipedia must be adapted for Wikivoyage within a reasonable time or they may be deleted. This includes formatting and content changes. In particular, details that may be appropriate for encyclopedia should be removed to focus the article on information that travellers need. The text should be modified to reflect the more informal wv:tone used in Wikivoyage. All references should be removed, along with wiki markup not used in Wikivoyage.
The person importing the article should remove the "Copy to Wikivoyage" tag from the Wikipedia article.

Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment is: Much appreciated! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this article was imported from Wikivoyage and then improved through copyediting and additions of content. Ground Zero (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support adding the above paragraphs to Wikivoyage policy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd preliminary add that a permanent notice should be posted at the head of the talk page, telling that the article has been imported from [Wikipedia in English] and that the users who have contributed to the article before the import may know nothing about Wikivoyage. This should be a template and the precise wordings developed, but until that is done, some free form language should suffice. The template should perhaps have parameters for the project name, a permanent link to the imported version and the transwiki date. The wording "must meet Wikivoyage standards for content" should apply to the version left after the importer's first edits (or edits by the user who requested the import) on the Wikivoyage version. --LPfi (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to prepare that template, then we could discuss the wording.
On the question of applying the "must meet" requirement to the first edits, I find that to be contemptuous. I'm a volunteer. If you want to discourage me for undertaking a task on Wikivoyage, tell me that I have to put that ahead of other things I have going on in my life. I spend a fair bit of time editing Wikivoyage, but if something comes up in the real world, I'm putting Wikivoyage aside and coming back to it when I have more time. We don't tell contributors that they have to bring a new article up to usable or guide status right away or else, so imported articles shouldn't be any different. I am still working on the Vienna microbreweries article, and it will take a while to finish the improvements I think are necessary. If that's not good for you, I'm not concerned. I am a volunteer. Ground Zero (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have been unclear – it seems you misunderstood. I mean that an article on Wikipedia needs not meet any Wikivoyage thresholds to be a candidate for importing, but you should not import it unless you or somebody else has the time and intention to convert it to something worthwhile (i.e. not rubbish). The threshold does not have to be high, but it should be on the starting point you give others, not the starting point for your work (that's up to you). --LPfi (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for being harsh. This what I meant by "Articles imported from Wikipedia must be adapted for Wikivoyage within a reasonable time or they may be deleted." That leaves it open to a discussion between the importer and someone looking at the article. I just imported North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve, started to clean it up, then went for my first haircut in six months and to buy cheese. These are important things to me. If I had started, then said "I'll finish this when I come back from camping int a week", then others would know when is a reasonable time to expect the work to be continued. If someone imports an ungodly mess, then goes on working on other Wikivoyage articles, then it would be fair to ask, "Are you going to clean that up, or should we delete it?" Ground Zero (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we shouldn't bring over articles that are tagged at Wikipedia as candidates for moving here (not all WP contributors are familiar with what we accept as an article here) but would be hopeless to turn into a useful Wikivoyage guide. I remember this being discussed a few years ago when a laundry list of hotels in Istanbul with year of construction and number of rooms was about to be moved here from that category at WP. Also, I do think that if someone imports an article - just like when starting a new article - while they don't have to improve it into guide or even usable status, but should put at least a little bit of effort into it, or alternatively put it in their userspace first.
Otherwise, I completely agree with the policy suggestion above. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I meant by "Articles must meet Wikivoyage standards for content to be eligible for being imported — many articles identified by Wikipedians are not appropriate for Wikivoyage and should not be imported." It looks like you can import an article into your userspace, but I can't figure out how to get it to work. I keep getting database errors. It may be a temporary glitch, or not. Ground Zero (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I also support the policy as worded.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about importing articles from Wikipedia[edit]

There are some issues with the transwiki import mechanism.

Probably the most serious is about attribution. If you look at the Vienna microbreweries example, you will find that most attributions before the import are to redlinked user pages on Wikivoyage, of users who never contributed here. Is that proper attribution? Would you think a link to my non-existent user page on WT would be proper attribution if an article were imported to there? There is of course a tie to Wikipedia through WMF, and with SUL now implemented since several years, user names are harmonized and thus traceable, but still, few readers will find the original user page or even notice the import.

That leads to a second problem. As the page history entry for the import gets buried among other edits, readers who check the history will not notice the page was imported (few look at the logs), and the early contributions will seem weird. That was the main reason sv-wp rejected the option – having contributed to sv-wp in a foreign language seems like disruption rather than contributions. Similarly, edits requesting references or removing travel information can be seen as defamatory.

On the other hand, the usual process of giving credit by a permanent link to the original article does not work if the original article gets deleted. In that case an import – and perhaps a visible note on the talk page – may be the best solution. However, most articles proposed (on Wikipedia) for import to Wikivoyage are viable as articles on Wikipedia although their current content does not live up to Wikipedia standards. If they are kept as redirects or stubs their history will still be available, and to me seem to give better attribution than the current transwiki mechanism.

I think we in most cases can continue to give credit in through a permanent link to the Wikipedia article, and use transwiki just in the cases were a deletion seems likely or already has happened (I suppose Wikipedia can restore the page for the time needed for the import).

We should probably write a more comprehensive guideline on the transwiki process. An additional issue not handled in the suggested text is that of the page name. Usually there is no page over here before the import, and the page can be created as a copy of the original page (probably also the talk page should be imported), but "large passages of text" implies only part of the page is imported – into an existing page over here. I suppose the process in that case requires an auxiliary page of some sort.

--LPfi (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons means that your contributions can be reused somewhere else as long as credit is given. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (we use CC-BY-SA 3.0, which probably is what you mean by "Creative Commons"). But the "as long as credit is given" is the problematic part of my first point. Is it crediting me when my username is combined with a page I never edited on a site I never visited, when my original contribution was linked to another page, which I do maintain? --LPfi (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is sufficient attribution. Our content is reused by sites unknown to us; most of them just credit "Wikivoyage", rather than our usernames, and that abides by the licence. The users are credited by name, and even when their userpage redlinks, it is possible to access their contributions, including imported contributions (e.g. here).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a note on the article's talk page with a link to the version of the Wikipedia article that I imported so that anyone interested can review the contribution history there. We cannot control what Wikipedia does with that article. The list of breweries has been removed from that article, so all that remains is one uncited paragraph with a picture. It looks like a good candidate for deletion to me.
I have also adjusted the proposed text above to refer to importing an article, not "large passages of text". Ground Zero (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TT and SC: do you really think WT could legally use my WV contributions attributing them to the non-existing User:LPfi on their site? --LPfi (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether WT, which does not use a Creative Commons 3.0 license (it has a “normal” copyright), can import content from WV is a question unrelated to this discussion, since no-one’s advocating that we import content to or from that website. (Even if it was legal to re-use Wikivoyage content on WT, the word Wikivoyage is not allowed on the website, so proper attribution would presumably be impossible.)
Additionally, we are "sister" sites with WP, while we are not a sister site of WT, so although WV and WP are both part of the Wikimedia Foundation, WT is owned completely separately by IB. Therefore comparing WP-WV transwiki with WV-WT transwiki is like comparing apples with oranges. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has WT changed licences? Their use of CC-BY-SA was what made the fork possible and what allows them to use content by their former contributers. They could allow the word in the import entry. Would the copying then be legal?
WV is indeed a sister project of WP, but does that fact change anything copyright-wise? I have not given any licence to WMF, except the one I gave to everybody. A reader of WV cannot be expected to know that they should go to another domain to find the redlinked user in the article history. Would our histories be copyright-wise invalid the moment we made a fork away from WMF?
--LPfi (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If WT have a compatible licence and in the future they credit the correct Wikivoyage page for any and all copied content, certainly it is will be legal to do so.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, but if you scroll down to the bottom of the WT main page, it says "All rights reserved." But perhaps that refers only to the main page, which is operated by IB. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] The question is whether it is enough to credit the correct page at the import entry and then attribute the edits themselves to correct usernames but bogus user page links pointing to their own domain? The import entry is soon buried in the history. --LPfi (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The destination pages seems to say CC-BY-SA 3.0, the one also we use. --LPfi (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has two distinct elements: (1) how and when yo use the import function that us available to administrators now, and (2) concerns regarding attribution and copyright, so I have split the discussion under separate headings. Ground Zero (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think importing is good in some cases, but I also think the concerns should be handled, and the discussion really should be about how they are to be handled. It is very difficult for me to see it as a non-concern that attribution is by a link to a non-existing user page on a project the user never has contributed to knowingly. Personally I would not choose a licence that allowed such "attribution" and may rethink my contributing to projects using such a licence. --LPfi (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont quite understand the importance of having your edits attributed to you. LPfi isn't you real name, it is? Whether it appears as a red link in one Wikimedia site and a blue link in another doesn't ever allow someone to track you down. Ground Zero (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the blue linked user page I can explain my motivations or whatever that I like those appreciating my contributions to read. I could post my real name on that page. We have chosen cc-by-sa for a reason, regardless of whether I at the moment use the privilage of being attributed to anything special. For some of the redlinked contributors the attribution might be outright important. They may disclose their name or a pen name used elsewhere at their user page. If we have a procedure for them, we might as well use that procedure for all contributors (at least those that are not active on WV). --LPfi (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The transfer of Wikipedia articles that are travel relevant sounds like a good idea. Does someone know how the attribution issue is solved in other wikis using the transfer script? --Ypsilon (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it is technically possible, but the attribution would be better if the article history could point to the user's pages on Wikipedia. This would require the importing administrator to tweak the page history. Alternatively (WP-en)-username accounts could be created here for the contributors like we have (WT-en) ones from the fork. AlasdairW (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure administrators cannot "tweak" the page history, and we should not create alter ego user names here. The "(wt-en)" thing was a special measure for a wiki project that might have the same user name for a different user. Importing WP pages we are no special case different from Wikibook, Wikinews or whatever. --LPfi (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be fixed at the MediaWiki level, but I am not holding my breathe for it to be done. In the meantime a working solution would be to create a user page pointing at the en-wp user page (like the wt-en user pages) for any contributor that does not have a user page here or at meta (the latter are shown automatically). –LPfi (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage on Wikipedia[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I believe that Wikipedia is a great "feeder" into Wikivoyage. But the w:Wikivoyage article is only "C-class". Wikivoyage:Article status says that this is equivalent to our Usable status, but in Wikipedia terms, it still has to make it through B-class and A-class/Good Article before reaching Featured Article status, which I believe is the true equivalent of WV's Star status. It may be in our best interests to improve the Wikipedia article to help bring more readers our way.

On a related note, I recently made sure that every Wikipedia article corresponding to our Portugal destinations has a {{Wikivoyage}} template (in the External links section, if present; otherwise in See also or toward the bottom of the article). This offers WV greater visibility than the easily-ignored Wikidata-generated sidebar links or even the {{Wikivoyage-inline}} template. I recommend that my fellow Wikivoyagers do likewise for their favorite places. I think I'll tackle the Star articles. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though...if the {{Sister project links}} template is present, leave it as is unless the voy= parameter isn't correct. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some major, high-visibility articles use an even more complex template, which doesn't work the way I think it should. I've commented about it, but will leave it as is. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The problem with writing the article on Wikipedia is a lack of independent sources documenting this website. Most were written several years ago when WV was created, and few mention it outside of its original context. If we can find better sources that's great, but when I've looked in the past I haven't found much. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was pretty much going to comment the same as SelfieCity. Unfortunately, the web isn't very noisy about Wikivoyage, and until it is there's not much that can be added to Wikipedia other than keeping some of the basic stats updated (pageviews, number of articles, the different language editions etc). Still, a fair amount of the journalistic attention Wikipedia gets is negative (in the past year or two we've had the Croatian edition being unearthed as a den of neo-Nazis and the Scots version revealed to be mostly written in gibberish by a single teenaged user), so we may at least count our blessings that Wikivoyage has been relatively controversy-free apart from its initial launch.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]