Wikivoyage talk:External links

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Some things that have moved:

  • Archived External links discussions →
Wikivoyage talk:External links/Archive (2004-Feb 2007)
Wikivoyage talk:External links/Archive 2007-2018 (Feb 2007-2018)


Hitchwiki is linked in the Krk guide. Here's their main page. It looks like a useful wiki, but it appears to be independent of Wikimedia. Should we link it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That looks like a really small wiki, with only 3,538 articles in any language. Furthermore, the amount of hitchhiking information on their Krk page is not so much that it couldn't be replicated here; if we were feeling lazy, we could even copy it word-for-word, as their content is CC-licensed. So no, I don't think we should be linking to this wiki in this instance, but I do feel like their content could be used to complement our own.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your opinion. I think that if we use information from another wiki, we are obligated under WV:Copyleft to credit our source, such as in an edit summary. Any other views? I suppose this link could be removed within 24 hours if no-one objects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's the relevant language:
Wikimedia projects like Wikipedia have a compatible license, so we can copy relevant text as long as proper attribution is provided in accordance with the CC-SA license. When copying text from another site with a compatible license, you must cite the article from which you are copying in the edit summary and include a link to the license terms.
The way I interpret that is that we should be including a URL in the edit summary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. It would also be a good idea to write a note crediting Hitchwiki on Talk:Krk.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will take care of this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Real estate agents/agencies[edit]

Any objection to explicitly spelling out in the "What not to link to" section that these are not to be linked because Wikivoyage is not a relocation service and therefore focuses on temporary accommodations? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would object if you didn't do it. Seems like common sense for a travel wiki. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mostly deafening silence in reply to my question. I doubt it would be controversial with anyone but real estate agency touters, though, so unless there is an objection, I'll put in a bullet point on this soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go ahead. You could add this to the existing "Vacation rental agencies that do not meet Wikivoyage's rental listing criteria". AlasdairW (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Right under "Vacation rental agencies". Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking to official website in the lead[edit]

We usually link to a place's tourism or civic website in the article's lead. Can anyone point me to the part of the style manual that tells us to do that, or was this edit removing the link okay? Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would revert it if the link is working correctly. If not, then it was a good edit to remove the link. It may not be in policy, but it is still helpful to include that link at the beginning of the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikivoyage:External links says "If an official website exists for the destination, it should be linked to only once, from the name of the destination in the first sentence of the article." —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks! Ground Zero (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next ques6: the link works, but only to a Japanese site that has no "click here for English". This is probably more of an irritant to our readers than getting rid of it. People who read Japanese probably won't come here for info on travelling in Japan. Ground Zero (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be removed, then, IMHO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've looked at many articles where these kinds of links are in foreign languages. I'm not sure they're as much of an irritant as you think, since you can translate the pages with Google Translate — and moreover, just because I can read Italian and would look at an Italian tourism page without hesitation, for example, doesn't mean that I don't find it sufficiently easier to read in English that I wouldn't start my research about a place in Italy by reading English-language websites. But though I thought there was some guideline somewhere, stating that a link to an official tourism site or some such should be at the top of the page, if there is one (Wikivoyage:External links?), I think that if we are going to ban links of these types of sites at the top of the page when they're only in foreign languages, we need to discuss that and post a guideline somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to revert it then. I dont thinking it's a useful link for the overwhelming majority of readers, buf I'm not particularly motivated to get into a policy discussion on this. I'm okay reading a couple or a few languages, but Japanese is out of the question for me. Ground Zero (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm most certainly more competent in English than Japanese, but if the only official information about a place is in Japanese, that's what I'm going to read. Even if there is an English version available, I look at the Japanese version as well because sometimes, they don't translate all the information into English. So while I may be a minority here, I'd say leave the link in. You never know who might find it useful. The dog2 (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find that the online translation using the Chrome browser is easy and is 90% accurate. In the case of Ishigaki, I quickly a page on accessing the airport, which had similar bus details to the article. Online translation is not perfect so I would try to avois using it for bookings etc. AlasdairW (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And in general, if you travel to Japan, your probability to know some Japanese, have a friend that does or have some translation aid is bigger than for the general public. The same applies to small places with obscure languages. Going to such a place you should not be too irritated when finding text in the local language (and I'd say: if the tourist bureau does't have English pages, the place qualifies). --LPfi (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you. But I think "Japanese only" should be added to the link, which means not linking it directly to the island name but using an m-dash to "tourism site: [name of site (Japanese only)]". Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That works for me. The dog2 (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this were a separate ==External link== list, I'd agree. But having the first sentence read "City (Japanese only) is a small city in the prefecture of Somewhere, Japan" isn't great. (Also, maybe just "(Japanese)", to avoid maintenance hassles if they update their website later?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like seeing only the word "Japanese" in parentheses with no visible context given would look strange. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think what was meant was something like "City (石垣, tourism site, Japanese) is a small city in ..." (IK's suggestion was not quite like that, but close enough). --LPfi (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like your solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it should say "official tourism site", though, so as not to give spammers any more ideas than they already have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think our leads sometimes look drier and more Wikipedia-ish than would be ideal, and a parenthetical like "tourism site, Japanese" in the first sentence might make that worse. I think a reader reading about an off-the-beaten-path destination shouldn't be too surprised to end up at a page written in the local language. Some of the official sites we link to for individual POIs don't have English versions either. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that as the status quo ante, and I wouldn't fight it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect that readers, not knowing our conventions, might miss the link in the current format. I'm inclined to think we should have one or more separate labelled links for "local tourist bureau", "city government", perhaps others? Where might those go? End of lead section? Pashley (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have always found the placement of these links odd. This discussion provides yet another reason why they would be better placed somewhere else. I think they should go in the 'Understand' section. That is where visitor information centres go. Quite often the official tourism website is associated with the visitor information centre, but even when not, the two pieces of information are of a similar ilk. It is not only readers unfamiliar with our conventions who might miss the link currently – I usually overlook it too. Nurg (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or maybe in ==Cope==? The times I can imagine wanting the city government's main website (as opposed to, e.g., the public transit system website) are usually when something's gone wrong.
I would generally support moving these links, if we had a decent place to put them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pashley, thanks for refocusing on the forest while we were looking at an individual tree. I would totally support moving these links to "Understand". Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can live with moving the links to the "Understand" section. In that way, we can list both the official tourism web-site and the city government web-site, if they are maintained separately. They usually provide different information, and you never know who might find either of them useful. The dog2 (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If both links are relevant, both would be in "Understand" with nothing linked to the first instance of the article name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support that change. Ground Zero (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to change policy regarding official tourism website links[edit]

Per the discussion above, I propose this change:

Current policy:

"If an official website exists for the destination, it should be linked to only once, from the name of the destination in the first sentence of the article."

Proposed policy:

"If an official website exists for the destination, it should be linked to only once, in the Understand section. If a destination maintains separate websites for tourism and for civic administration purposes, both may be linked in the Understand section and should be identified clearly. (This policy changed in 2020. Websites should no longer be linked in the lead paragraph.)"

I realise that the parenthetical comment is redundant, but this policy change will put most of our articles offside the policy, so it warrants clarification. Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problems with the wording or the parenthetical. My only thought is that I'd like to see an example or two of how to present and link these in the Understand section. When it was in the lede, it was obvious: just put the link on the boldfaced name of the destination. When it's in the Understand section, how would it look? Is it better to link it inline from prose (and if so, how would we draw attention to the link?), or to just have it as one or more bulleted items? --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm of pretty much the same position as Pete.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An example for discussion:

Visitor Information[edit]

This has the following:

  • Official tourist site- this is the page we current link from Edinburgh
  • Local government
  • National tourist agency page on city
  • Listing for physical office

This is an example for a larger destination with multiple links. I choose Visitor rather than Tourist information because it should also be useful for business travellers. I think that linked pages must be (in part) funded my local or national government to be considered "official". AlasdairW (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support the new wording and the example. I would say that if and only if there is no governmental tourism/visitors site in a given destination (probably because it's tiny), it could be OK to link non-governmental organizations such as Chambers of Commerce that promote a destination and local business generally without directly profiting as an organization, but I'd respect a consensus against this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, looks good. My only remaining question is: where within Understand is the best place to put this subsection? Would it be better at the top, bottom, or somewhere in the middle (for example, immediately after History)? My first thought would be at the top, but then again typically the subsection listing tourist info booths seems to usually go near the bottom (I guess maybe because it's the catch-all for "Here's where you might be able to find any info that isn't already covered in this section").
I'd also suggest rewording or expanding the parenthetical remark slightly, like "(This policy was changed in 2020. Websites should no longer be linked in the lead paragraph, but since this affects almost every article it will take some time to implement this change.)" --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm OK with that rewording. We changed the placement of the "Talk" section in Wikivoyage:Country article template (and optionally in other templates such as Wikivoyage:Region article template) in March, 2015, and as recently as yesterday, I have still moved some Talk sections accordingly. In terms of where to put the "Visitor information" subsection, I'd suggest just before "Climate" if there is such a section, or if not, at the end of "Understand". I definitely wouldn't put it at the beginning of that section, before prose that's hopefully engaging and brings the reader in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As we seem to be in agreement, I've plunged forward and implemented this changes, with the suggested modifications. We can continue to tweak this if there are other ideas. Ground Zero (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for plunging forward! How does everyone feel about the idea of putting this subsection before a "Climate" subsection, if there is any? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that "towards the end of the Understand section" is sufficent. I don't see a need to go into detail giving the order of the subsections. AlasdairW (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we just change the Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates to reflect this? Ground Zero (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with it going at the end of the Understand section and suggest saying "at the end" rather than "towards the end". I also suggest that the visitor centre go first, as it's a place the traveller can physically go to, its listing may have additional content (per Edinburgh) and it deserves more prominence than a plain old external link. Also, I question the inclusion of a civic website in addition to visitor info links - is this a new addition or something that was already covered by policy elsewhere? Nurg (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objection from me for this policy change. It will allow us to list all the web-sites that travellers could potentially find relevant. The dog2 (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you guys feel like it looks better to have this subsection after "Climate" than before "Climate"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I used "towards the end" as a way of dodging the question for now. I'd support listing the subsections in your desired order in the article skeletons as a way of demonstrating the preferred ordering. Ground Zero (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool. Nurg, your feelings on this? I keep in mind that "Climate" often includes a chart, so for that reason, it's good to put it last in "Understand". Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, actually, it helps to keep the climate chart from running into the 'Get in' section, as in our pilot case of Edinburgh, and I think that's a good thing, though not a big deal. Also, I favour giving readers more of our content before we offer them an exit to another site. The WP model of having external links right at the bottom of the page perhaps doesn't suit us, but I like the principle. And, just as a side comment, I scooted around a few articles and found that the Climate subsection is not always near the bottom of the Understand section - sometimes it's at the top or in the middle. Nurg (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, if it works better to put "Visitor information", or whatever we'll calling it, at the very end of "Understand", let's do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the very end is fine. However I prefer the physical office to come after the links. Any link in the office listing should just be about the office, the listing could be much longer than the example as opening times often vary over the year and in small places the listing may just be for the noticeboard in the town square with a map and posters for events. Whether "Climate" should come before "History" depends on the destination, for somewhere like Edinburgh most readers will look at Climate to decide what to wear, but for a beach resort, Climate may be a major factor in choosing whether to visit. AlasdairW (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's normal for links to be in listings. If a town's Tourism Bureau has a URL, it would be normal to put that in the "url" tab of the listing, regardless of whether it contains lots of online information that readers could use without physically visiting the bureau's office. I can't see a good reason to give the same URL twice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't mean give the exact same url twice, but two different ones. If they are the same then only give it in the list of links. The reader doesn't know whether the page is purely about the office, or general information about the city. In the example Visit Scotland Edinburgh page ( comes before the link in the listing (, and given the layout of Visitscotland's site it is hard to find one page from the other. AlasdairW (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha, but if the link is for the same organiation as the one with the visitors' bureau, the link should be given once in the listing, because if not, a bot will eventually "correct" that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paradoxical violation of don't tout?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Look here. This is an example of a businessman removing a listing out of a belief that it's bad for his business for him to list it. I'm not sure it's important for this place to be listed, so I have no motivation to revert his edit, but it's pretty strange, isn't it? Some relevant history at User talk:Sven H Hangson. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting.. Why would a firm not want to be listed? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The objection isn't clear to me. My best guess is that whenever the article is changed or updated, the business's website gets a notification even though no-one had actually visited the site from Wikivoyage. This is the first time I've sent this complaint. I have restored the listing without the website because I think it's worth keeping ad a vegan- and vegetarian-friendly place. Ground Zero (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He seems concerned about search engine optimization. I've followed w:en:WP:External links for years and years, and I've never heard this. I've asked at w:en:WP:VPT#Effects of nofollow.
On the general question, there are a lot of vegetarian and vegan people in Sweden. Vegan-friendly restaurants are not uncommon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question of what we include or don't include is governed solely by what serves the traveller best, and I think it goes without saying that the traveller is better served by listing the restaurant, including a link to its website, than by not listing or linking. As others have said, I'm unconvinced the link has any effect on traffic to his business website, but even if it did, that's not our problem. I've reinstated the URL on that basis. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New external link and email icons[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I recently noticed that the external link and email icons changed. I wasn't expecting this change, and I just shrugged it off, but I now see that listings have two email icons, one before and one after. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-listing email

Non-listing website

We could set the style to "plainlinks", so that there would be only one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links for in depth information from official sources?[edit]

Example :-

I was wanting to include this alongside the TFL link in London on Foot. I am not sure if the current policy would support this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Official sites can be linked; it's all the secondary sources that are not official (YouTube, etc., etc.) that cannot be. Please read Wikivoyage:External links, particularly Wikivoyage:External links#What to link to and Wikivoyage:External links#What not to link to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've sometimes included links to official sites with more detail. Examples are at Taxila#Excavations and Shanghai#Understand:
For a more detailed history, see the Guide to Historic Taxila online at the Pakistani government's national heritage site. The story given there is considerably more complex than just the three main excavated areas mentioned above.
There is an Encyclopedia of Shanghai, in English, that is available both as a book in local bookstores and online at the municipal government site. Much of it is rather boring — statistics, photos of the officials in charge of each development project, and project descriptions that give much financial and engineering detail — but there is also some quite useful material. For example, it has detailed descriptions of every museum and park in the city.
I think policy allows this and it is sometimes quite useful. Pashley (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]