Wikivoyage talk:Links to Wikipedia

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

see also: Wikivoyage talk:Links to Wikipedia/Archive

Wikipedia links[edit]

Swept in from the Pub

I added some Wikipedia links to an article earlier, and LtPower has removed them. I haven't got a problem with that: I'm learning the ways of the Wikivoyage.

But I've got a suggestion. Over on Wikinews, we have a template called 'w' which lets you easily link to pages, and if there is a page on the local wiki, it resolves there, and if not, it links to Wikipedia. What's the general view on linking to Wikipedia? I've started adding links back from Wikipedia to Wikivoyage using sister projects templates. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion so far: Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Listings tags and links to Wikipedia. You may want to scroll down to the Summary section first though. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. There has been a LOT of discussion about this and opinion seems divided. There are actually several sections on that page which discuss Wikipedia links. AHeneen (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia. For the time being, the accepted way of linking back is to add a [[Wikipedia:Article title]] link at the bottom of the page, which will generate a sidebar link. --Peter Talk 19:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know, the inline link style that you mention for Wikinews would likely not be OK on Wikipedia itself. WP groups interwiki links within WMF with the "external links" because there are many sites which have a mirror copy of the English-language Wikipedia but don't have Wikinews, Wikivoyage or any of the others. We don't have an "external links" section, so we use the sidebar link for now. K7L (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also today had two links to Wikipedia from the Pakistan article hastily removed by this power lieutenant citing that inline Wikipedia links are against the rules and that's that. I say hasty because he had time to remove them but no time to improve the Pakistan article in a way he saw correct, or to join the Wikivoyage IRC channel to explain the reasoning when I invited him to join the discussion I began after the revert. ... Anyway ... my links were to terms casually dropped in the Pakistan article that I thought many people wouldn't know. One, "shalwar kameez", I did know the meaning of. The other, NOC / No Objection Certificate, I had never heard of before. I am at a complete loss why there's a rule against informative links to our well-known sister project. These links were not SPAM or any kind of clutter, just help on unusual terms. I understand there are many kinds of links to avoid. I understand that before coming to Wikimedia there might've been some reasons to discourage more links from Wikivoyage to WIkipedia. I cannot understand a blanket rule which had a clearly adverse affect in this case. I found this bureaucracy very discouraging and had to wonder if Wikivoyage is already chasing away well intentioned new contributors in the ways that Wikipedia has become sadly famous for. — Hippietrail (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. The reasoning and argument for what you externally link to and what not to externally link to has probably been discussed here more than any other single issue. Opinion is divided. You can join in the discussion, and address the argument specifically, and please convince everyone why we should change. You shouldn't have a go at one of our other contributors for making edits in line with policy. If you can't find the discussions, I'll provide pointers to them.
However, addressing your specific case, if you are using a term in an article that is unfamiliar to most, then you should make an effort to explain it inline in the article. We want our articles to be useful offline. Useful on the road, in a book, in a printout, in an phone offline. So it is no use to have the answer to the question in a link to WP, the info needs to be here. --Inas (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To start with, I am strongly in favor of allowing in-line Wikipedia links. That said, current policy is that only a sidebar link to the WP page of the same (destination) or similar (topic/itinerary) name is allowed. The biggest reason for this is so that we get content added here and not 100 links to Wikipedia, forcing WV users to have to visit multiple pages to get the info they need. One reason we need content here is so that WV guides can be used offline (printed as a book or saved as a PDF/e-reader file for computers/tablets/e-readers/smartphones).
There has been a lot of discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Listings#Listings_tags_and_links_to_Wikipedia. We do not have a formal voting process, instead relying on consensus. However an informal vote was made at the bottom of that section and it's 11-8 in favor of adding WP links. If there's no clear consensus, then we keep the status quo. Please voice your opinion there. Finally, I don't think many WV admins/bureaucrats use IRC and it's best to use user/guide talk pages to discuss issues. AHeneen (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wikivoyage talk:Listings discussion actually didn't provide a proposal to use Wikipedia (or Wiktionary) as an inline-linked source of dictionary definitions. It just discussed {{listing}}s, a somewhat narrower topic. K7L (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Position of links[edit]

There is a suggestion at Wikivoyage talk:Inter-language links#Position of links that WP links should be placed before the inter-language links. Nurg (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inline links to Wikipedia[edit]

Please see Wikivoyage talk:Sister project links#Inline links to Wikipedia. --Piotrus (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow some links to Wikipedia[edit]

Swept in from the pub

User:Ikan Kekek made a change removing a link I'd added to Wikipedia in an infobox, citing Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia#In-line links.

While I don't disagree with the policy generally, I wonder if some exceptions can/should be made, particularly for infoboxes that are specifically there to give extra information someone might like to read up on. For example, Hawaii has infoboxes with Wikipedia links to reef triggerfish, forceps butterflyfish, and Father Damien de Veuster. United States of America now has an infobox about the date of Labor Day which mentions the Haymarket affair, which I had never heard of before that info was added; it's not currently linked to Wikipedia, but it seems like a good candidate for such a link.

I completely agree with the stated goal that "Wikivoyage articles should be as complete as possible in and of themselves. Essential information about a topic should be included in the Wikivoyage article, rather than relying on a link to Wikipedia." But I'd like to suggest allowing exceptions in cases such as these, where the subject in question is specifically mentioned for the purpose of providing extra information just for the sake of curiosity, rather than essential travel information. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although a suggestion that off-topic WP links be limited to appear only from within infoboxes may perhaps be a slightly new twist, before bringing this all up again, I would encourage anyone tempted to join the discussion to thoroughly read the previous discussions here, here, here and elsewhere on those three pages before getting too excited. We have have been through this discussion many times, so if you really want to make another proposal for this, you'll need to be able to have an answer for all those previously expressed objections, offering very clear criteria for how we could patrollably identify and allow only a small number of such links without opening the floodgates and without relying on arbitrary rules which seem to defy common sense in allowing some sorta-useful links here but denying some perceptibly super-useful ones over there, and doing all that in a way that identifies to the user when they would be leaving us for a WP page, but keeping the numbers of links low enough that such markers don't stand out like a visibly distracting shotgun blast of wormholes throughout the text. Texugo (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, indeed. I favour loosening the policy, as some of my comments at the links above show, but I've given up advocating the idea because I cannot come up with clear nough criteria for when it is a good idea. Pashley (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While it may be indeed useful in some cases it is very hard indeed to come up with a good way to draw the line. Also, if you want to know what the Haymarket affair was, you may just type it into WP or open the WP app if you are using a mobile device. Disallowing WP links also somewhat reduces the risk of this here website becoming too encyclopedic.. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That directly contradicts the repeated refrain of "we don't want WP links because we want the info here" that comes up every time this is discussed... by that logic, "Short description. (See X on Wikipedia for more info)" becomes "Long description, which carries on with a mass of encyclopaedic detail because we don't want a concise summary with the encyclopaedia-level detail left to WP". K7L (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hobbitschuster, I'd like to respond to this comment: "if you want to know what the Haymarket affair was, you may just type it into WP or open the WP app if you are using a mobile device."
The entire point of hyperlinking things is so that you click a link and get taken to other content, which might in some cases be on a different web site.
If we followed the logic you describe, then WV is not leveraging one of its major advantages over print guide books. In a print guidebook, sure: they don't have room to explain everything, particularly when it's not directly relevant to the issue at hand, so if I see mention of the Haymarket affair I have to grab an encyclopedia (either print or online) and look it up myself. But WV is an online guide, which is why we have fewer limitations on length or amount of content. Why shouldn't WV have hyperlinks for this kind of thing? I don't buy that "it's easy enough to find the relevant content by yourself" as a valid reason. --Bigpeteb (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think all of us understand the arguments for and against more links per article to Wikipedia, since the argument has been made exhaustively on long discussion threads. I consider the pro and con arguments both to be sound. However, it's been clear for quite a long time that it is impossible to attain a consensus in favor of change on this question. I would say that things are unlikely to change unless we get a very large number of editors from Wikipedia who establish themselves and then form an overwhelming majority in favor of new policies. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, the inflexible "we do it this way because WT always did this" attitude is hurting our chances of attracting Wikipedians. We're already at a disadvantage as "sibling project" on WP tends to mean "poor cousin" (Can you name all the siblings off the top of your head? I can't, although I can name a few - some of which I've never looked at.) We also have to deal with the perception that WV is either (a) merely an un-sourced, non-neutral version of info already in WP or (b) a yellow page directory of restaurants and hotels. A policy that states that The Greasy Spoon. can link to the restaurant's own promotional website but The Louvre. a famous museum can't link to the WP page specifically about that museum is *not* helping matters. K7L (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you making a new argument? Why do you think making this argument again will increase the chance of a consensus? We've debated this ad nauseam without advancing the discussion. Without any disrespect for your points or viewpoint, I would suggest that continuing to go over the same arguments over and over is a waste of time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikivoyage will benefit moreso if there are links coming from the "big sibling" going to the "poor cousin" than the other way around. There are many destinations and travel topics on Wikipedia that still don't have a Wikivoyage link in the "External links" section. We haven't yet exhausted all our interwiki advertizing opportunities. See wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects for a guide on how and when to link. Gizza (t)(c) 11:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure that Wikipedians will love you using (or abusing) their project as an "interwiki advertising opportunity". Interwiki links to us from WP should only be placed where they are beneficial to WP and its readers. Interwiki links to WP from us should only be placed where they are beneficial to WV and the traveller. Anything more is spam. K7L (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously there should be only links when it makes sense and is beneficial to the readers or either WP or WV but my point was that these useful links are missing in many places. And adding these links will create a greater awareness of Wikivoyage. Anyway, I'm more of a Wikipedian than a Wikivoyager, having been an active contributor at the former for about nine years more than latter. I know what's allowed and not allowed over there. :) Gizza (t)(c) 10:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
K7L, I spent a while last year adding links to some of our best articles here, and exactly zero of them were reverted. If we've got a good page, the community at en.wp seems to be pretty tolerant of the links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(starting at the left again) Well I said what I meant precisely because I know my own browsing behavior.... Sometimes I see a link and think "oh, that might be interesting" click on it and two hours later I have opened three hundred elevnty tabs and my browser crashes, while totally forgetting the original subject. IF people who came to read a travel guide on the USA really care all that much about a subject entirely unrelated to travel such as the Haymarket affair, they can still look it up on their own. There is a reason, why some other sites call excessive links "potholes", because the potential to "fall" in them and get distracted rises by their density... Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow a link at the top of a section?[edit]

See also X, Y and Z on Wikipedia

X, Y and Z are the best-known attractions of this region, which...

In other words, allow a "see also" link from a section header to a WP page wherever we allow a "see also" from a section header to a WV page. This would seem narrow enough? K7L (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would solve the issues of number and of warning the user they're going off-site, but I'm not sure how I'd feel about allowing a large percentage of our article sections to start off with hatnotes inviting the reader to leave and read non-travel-focused material elsewhere. It would seem odd to pick up a travel guide where every section starts by encouraging you to read a non-travel guide. Moreover, given that you can't really use it to list more than three or so links without it turning into a paragraph of its own, I also imagine it would pretty quickly come to be seen as an arbitrary rule that would do senseless things like:
There are lots and lots of situations where no matter which 3 things we choose, it would still just look like an arbitrary sampling of what WP has to offer. This system would also be arbitrary in that it would either a) allow WP links in prose sections only, disallowing WP links for listing items, which many seem to feel is more useful; or b) allow them in listings sections too, but force us to debate which 3 listings in each section to highlight and which to leave out, in the many cases where a WP article exists for more than 3 items. Texugo (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paris#History should hatnote w:History of Paris (the same topic), because that article already has the others as its subtopics on WP. One could also link to a WP category or a WP list article, which then links to the individual subtopics. We want more than "I stayed in a Holiday Inn express last night *yawn*" as the description to "Understand" a city or destination, but let's leave the encyclopaedia-level of detail to the encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point is that there are many different situations and most of them are not cut and dried as to what and how many links we would allow. If your answer for Paris is just w:History of Paris because it's an umbrella, then my answer is that we already have w:Paris in the sidebar, a more comprehensive umbrella and already undoubtedly links to the others. Texugo (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bottom of the section would be better than the top, but otherwise I agree with Texugo's objections. Powers (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, we do often need more than one link. A region which consists of multiple incorporated municipalities usually gets an article for each on WP, while it's likely to be treated as a single community here (unless it's huge, or at least MSP-sized). There's also the problem that one has to click through multiple levels of "umbrella" to get from Paris to w:Paris to w:History of Paris to the individual subarticle about one historical era. That's awkward, and users either won't bother or will stay on WP after they've done all that searching. K7L (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No matter what website I find myself on, if I want to learn more about a specific person/place/thing mentioned, I always know how to find Wikipedia. We still need to attract more readers TO our site, so I don't see any great use in trying to place as many links as we can to flush people out to a site that they probably are already quite capable of finding and navigating. It's only a slight inconvenience to bring up a new window and type (or copy and paste) the desired search term. How much of an issue is that really? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. ChubbyWimbus just perfectly summed it up for me. Wikipedia is already my de facto source for information like this, and I think we can take it as a given that most people know how to use Google. I just don't see any real benefit to adding more direct links to Wikipedia here. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By that standard, why do we bother creating wikis at all if (in many browsers) a search engine is just a right-click away and all the info is already available elsewhere? K7L (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how in the world you would draw that conclusion from my statement. Much of the time all the info isn't already available elsewhere, or as neatly summarized as it is on Wikipedia. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia linking should be allowed and consumer comfort maintained by having a tiny wikipedia 'W' favicon.ico concatenated to each Wikipedia link[edit]

I think the current policy of not allowing to link to Wikipedia articles where-ever it seems appropriate is unwise. Sometimes Wikivoayge does not have an article on X but Wikipedia does. Sometimes it just gives more information. Instead we should have the Mediawiki software insert tiny 'W' graphic to the end of each Wikipedia links. This way user does not need to hover over link to determine if Wikivoyage or Wikipedia and is allowed convenient access to further reading. --Jukeboksi (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The matter is actually being debated right now at Wikivoyage_talk:External_links#Revisit_policy_on_linking_to_sister_sites.3F. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. Jukeboksi, please share your reasoning there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to revise this article[edit]

The External links guidelines, with a few exceptions, preclude inline links from Wikivoyage articles in the Main namespace (travel articles) to Wikipedia articles.

No longer true. We need to explain how to include Wikipedia links in listings. In my opinion, we also need to make Wikipedia and Wikidata fields standard parts of listing templates, but perhaps that's better discussed at Wikivoyage:Listings. In the meantime, someone who is quite familiar with how to create Wikipedia fields in listings should please add language in this article explaining how to do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggested revision (and Nurg, please confirm that Wikipedia/Wikidata are now standard in all listing templates):
Wikipedia and Wikidata are now standard fields in all Wikivoyage listing templates. Links to the relevant Wikipedia and Wikidata pages should be added to these fields in listings whenever possible. However, inline links to Wikipedia are otherwise generally not used on this site, with primary links (such as to an attraction's own website) added instead, in keeping with Wikivoyage's bias toward primary external links.
What do you think? And which other policy/guidelines articles need updating now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I confirm: Wikipedia/Wikidata are now in all 7 listing templates. Nurg (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I just edited Wikivoyage:External links accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In-line or Inline?[edit]

I've seen "inline" more. Shall we change the subheading? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Either is acceptable. Usually words like this start with a hyphen and then over time usage gradually switches to discarding the hyphen. We might as well drop it now - not just in the heading, but also the other use in that section. Nurg (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. If no-one objects within 24 hours or so, I'll make the edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot about this. Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article should be more actionable[edit]

Recently i had a change reverted due to using inline links. I was linking sights to wikipedia articles.

I think linking is an essential part of the web and what makes it great so was very confusing about the revert.

I was pointed here but it wasnt clear to me what was wrong. While we want articles to be self contained to wikivoyage the things I was linking from where sights so didnt belong in a Wikivoyage article. I later learned about the See and do template.

Had I been a new editor to be honest that revert would have stopped me editing.

While i think this policy is misguided *, at the very least, please update this page to make it clearer about how editors can solve solutions without resorting to inline links (or places thry can use them) so new editors are guided better rather than discouraged from editing alogether.

  • links when used correctly, regardless of where they point enrich any article and do good in the name of seo. Of course links to wikivoyage should be preferred but in their absence wikipedia is a good alternative.

Jdlrobson (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where outside a listing template would you think an inline link to Wikipedia a good idea? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They can also be included in markers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm seeing lots of opportunities to use these in outline articles e.g. Trinidad_and_Tobago and many of its cities. Information is a little scarce here and I think links to wikipedia would be a good incremental step towards increasing the quality and provide future editors with the information to upgrade the article to a higher status e.g. usable.

While I can see we wouldn't want to encourage wikipedia links in more developed articles they seem essential in these embryonic articles where any links and context are helpful to the traveller.

San Ignacio, Belize makes good use of wikipedia links for example. Jdlrobson (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also... if important, we could make the wikipedia icon show next to any interwiki links to wikipedia regardless of what template they use to make it clearer where links point to wikipedia.

Happy to help write the CSS rule for that if that would be helpful. Jdlrobson (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In many sparse articles I have added listings by looking at the WP article and simply adding the WIkidata thing in the appropriate field (which creates a wikipedia link) Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jdlrobson, which version of San Ignacio (Belize) do you want us to look at? I'm not seeing any Wikipedia links out of keeping with WV:Links to Wikipedia in that article. Anyway, my feeling is that there are lots of links to Wikipedia that could be useful, but the problem is, it's very difficult to create guidelines or a policy that separates something useful like w:Intarsia from something useless like w:Dirt - and that's quite apart from the fact that a viable Wikivoyage article about intarsia could be created, and falling back on a Wikipedia link serves to discourage editors from creating content on this site, one of the main reasons for restrictions on Wikipedia links here. And believe me when I tell you, some users have introduced all kinds of totally pointless inline Wikipedia links. Therefore, to make things easier for editors and patrollers, we've limited Wikipedia links to those on the same subject as the article title, listings in listing or marker templates, with other exceptions requiring a consensus on the relevant articles' talk pages. I don't know if you've read through any of the very long threads we've had on the topic of inline Wikipedia links (if you haven't, you should, and I hope someone links them, because I'm not sure what page they're on), but if you want to make a specific proposal, clearly indicating the boundary between useful and non-useful inline Wikipedia links, go ahead. But opening up Wikivoyage to unlimited Wikipedia linking ain't happening any time soon, and a majority will and should oppose it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
" falling back on a Wikipedia link serves to discourage editors from creating content on this site".
... But, reverting an edit that adds links is also discouraging a very entry level way of creating content on our site. Unlimited linking is not what I'm talking about here. It's about explicitly saying it's okay to link to Wikipedia and Wikidata on sights and attractions, even if inline, provided a red link doesn't make more sense. Ideally users should be guided to do this within the appropriate template e.g. See, but it's not always practical to use templates. I have a lot of trouble with them when mobile editing.
I must admit one of the reasons I liked editing wikivoyage was due to you both (Ikan Kekek and Hobbitschuster) providing useful guidance - writing on my talk page (Notability+Some format and style stuff) to help me improve my future edits. You "showed" me rather than "told me". I felt like if I made mistakes my editing path was corrected not halted and you led by example. I've been put off editing on Wikipedia because the whole experience is so impersonal (links to policy pages with no further discussion). There is a lot of historic information to take in and my brain (and others) can only take in a little at a time, so enforcing a policy requires taking the time to understand the motivation behind such changes.
I see 1 actionable item here which is discouraging more seasoned editors from reverting such changes (unless they are clear vandalism) - instead encouraging these editors to guide the user to use the more appropriate templates rather than linking directly at the page. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, of course some users will be put off by any kind of reversion or edit to their edits. But if you feel there is no call for a full listing, why would a marker template be a problem? There's an optional field for a Wikipedia link in a marker template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remember my first n00b mistake here in 2012. Wikipedia has a good featured article on w:Ontario Highway 401. Wikivoyage doesn't want one. What we may want, though, is an itinerary through the beaten-path region which that road serves, the Windsor-Quebec corridor. My edits weren't rolled back and deleted; instead, someone patiently explained the error and allowed me to fix it.
I also remember the lengthy discussion on links from {{listing}}s to Wikipedia articles, which began soon after this project's 2012 move to WMF servers. It wasn't "a majority opposed" to the links, it was an even split - right down the middle - which left the community deadlocked on this one issue for months or years. I am not in principle opposed to links where they are useful to the voyager, but we need enough information here that a traveller carrying a printed copy (or a downloaded file offline) with one of our articles has the information they need. We also need to be able to distinguish local links from links to other wikis or external sites. As such, there's a difference between:
* Intarsia is as old as dirt.
and wording like:
* Intarsia, a form of wood inlaying which first appeared in Egypt before the seventh century, is as old as dirt. (See intarsia and dirt on Wikipedia.)
If I'm offline and carrying a copy of Wikivoyage on a microSD card, the first version tells me nothing. What is intarsia, anyway? The second version, while it probably also does not follow the policy, is at least usable. If I can't get to Wikipedia, there's just enough here to tell me what I need to know while sparing me every bit of encyclopaedaic detail on the history of dirt.
For something like the individual Trinidad and Tobago beaches? The beach would have a {{listing}} in its home village; that listing should have a wikipedia=... link where available. Similarly, Wikivoyage will indicate that the Louvre is a landmark museum in the 1ère arrondisement of Paris; the description of the history of each notable painting in the museum is in the encyclopaedia, along with a full page on the museum itself. We would say how to get to the museum and devote a paragraph to what's inside, but we wouldn't explain who exactly La Gioconda (the lady depicted in one of the paintings) is nor her family history (as w:Lisa del Giocondo and w:Mona Lisa and w:Louvre and w:Leonardo da Vinci give the historical detail of this fragment of the w:Italian Renaissance. We provide enough for the voyager to find the museum and decide whether it's worth a visit; once there's too much info, the rest belongs in an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there actually was a majority against inline links. But anyway, it's not clear to me what guidelines you are proposing that would allow us to police links. The biggest problem with allowing inline links outside of listings and markers is that it is likely to cause us to waste loads of time arguing about why x link was removed by not y link. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My experience of adding links was a revert and a link to this page (which had a lot to take in and I wasn't sure where to start). This page like all policies is not particularly newbie friendly. I don't want other people to experience that, especially newbies. Users like myself and (and maybe User:K7L) stick around because editors took time to help them understand where they went wrong. I guess what I'm getting at is I want "less policing" and more "teaching/nurturing". Right now the article talks about what shouldn't be done and gives clear detailed directions on what to do instead, but not how editors should use this article and its contents when dealing with other users. I see it more as a reference for those in the know rather a reference for reverting.

Concretely, how would you feel about adding the text "Remember that not everyone is aware of the many rules and policies around Wikivoyage. When encountering editors constructively using inline wikis, rather than reverting their edits, consider showing them better ways to include those links in the article (markers, listings) and writing on their talk page and pointing to such solutions." IMO all policy documents should have these kind of reminders. Helping others become advanced Wikivoyagers should be a goal for us all. I know I'd like to be one!

User:K7L thanks for sharing your opinion here. I completely agree with everything you have to say there. Jdlrobson (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jdlrobson, I am sorry that you and I got off to a bad start. I do not want to do anything to put you off contributing to Wikivoyage, and look forward to seeing your future contributions.

As I've explained to you, your first round of edits on Trinidad_and_Tobago was so problematic because of the errors that you later told me were introduced by the listings editor, that I had to revert them. It wasn't just that they violated policy, some of the links were just plain bad links. Although I provided a link to the policy on Wikipedia links, you restored them in violation of the policy. I removed the links again, and posted comments on your talk page to encourage you to propose a change to the policy on its talk page instead of ignoring the policy. So then you posted in the pub. I do feel I've tried to coach you on this, and that you haven't really being listening. The idea of using the listing template to create Wikipedia links did not occur to me. If it had, I would have proposed it. I don't think I can be expected to think of everything.

With respect to your specific proposal, the issue of how to deal with "unwanted edits" is not unique to creating links to Wikipedia. It relates to all of out policies, so we have a special page on that here. I don't think we need to single out this policy for special treatment.

I believe that I have responded to this situation in a way that is consistent with that policy -- maybe not perfectly, but let's be clear that it does not recommend letting a new editor make mistakes in editing just because they disagree with the policy.

Joining a collaborative project is always going to involve a learning curve, and making mistakes is how most of us learn. It is certainly how I learned to edit in Wikipedia and then in Wikivoyage. I do hope that you continue to learn and continue to contribute. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks User:Ground Zero for chipping in and my frustration is by no means aimed at you, but the policy itself. I know you were just following policy and I'm sorry for the confusion in our exchange - I had originally thought the reverting was due to the bad links that were added to articles like "Wales" due to VisualEditor trying to be clever and autocomplete "W:". With my head clearer, I can see that my reaction could have been worded better, and I'm sorry for that. 🙇

I guess where I am finding frustration, is that I do not see a link to a Wikipedia page as an "editor make mistakes" but rather "an editor not following a policy that they have not been involved in the creation of that they may not understand". I personally don't understand, nor agree with this policy, having read it in full, so it's hard to know what to do in this situation, other than to avoid editing sights where I don't have the time. This policy, in fact prevents me from making edits, that I feel push us towards where we should be aiming to get to. To me, adding a link to a Wikipedia page for a sight, seems like a stepping stone to migrating an entire "See" section to quality article status, with a map, but I can see I'm in a minority here. 😫

I've hit a couple of policies now which personally I think are fundamentally flawed and IMO hurt the collaborative building of a travel guide - this one and the discouragement of adding images to articles Wikivoyage:Image_policy#Minimal_use_of_images - with my limited understanding of the project and energy it seems to require, I just don't now (yet) how to drive change against them. I'm not giving up yet! ✊ Jdlrobson (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But you understand, right, that you can and should be adding Wikipedia links for sights, within the listings or markers for those sights? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One point which is not made clear in the documentation: what's the appropriate level of detail at each point in the hierarchy (country, region, city)? Trinidad and Tobago is country-level; should it contain just a brief mention of the beaches and direct the reader to the city/town-level articles for the rest of the info?
Also, is our position on images the same as pre-split WT's? I presume the voyager is no longer trying to access Wikivoyage on EDGE/EVDO or dial-up speed connections? There's also {{listing|image=... which is only partially documented (it causes an image to display when clicking on a dynamic map marker, but wouldn't appear at all on a print version). I presume our position on these images is less restrictive than on galleries of inline images in the destination guide? K7L (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the answer to your first point is clearly indicated in documentation for WV:Article templates, but if it should be clearer, by all means edit it accordingly on any relevant page or propose a change in wording.
On your second paragraph, Wikivoyage:Image policy#Minimal use of images still applies, within reason. We had a long discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Image policy#Minimal use of images - not appropriate. I'd encourage you to read through it and post your thoughts if you're inspired to do so after you've finished reading. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listing (including WP link) instead of marker for cities/towns (on region level) that do not have a WV article yet but only a WP article?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

... this way, travellers have the opportunity to head to the WP article to find at least a little information. As long as we do not have an article ourself.

Would you agree with something like this? Could we make it a general rule? Example: Valles Calchaquíes.

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's a good idea, but it would take a lot of work because we have created so many markers for towns and cities. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's definitely no reason, I feel, to use listings over markers. However, it should be possible to add some code to the marker template so that, if there is no WV page, it displays a Wikipedia icon automatically. I'd be happy to work on that, but, coincidentally, there's an ongoing RFC on the cosmetic look of the Wikipedia icon in our listings that should be settled first. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If wikidata id is present in the marker, should be able to get the appropriate language wikipedia entry... relying on the name parameter not so much as the article title in wikivoyage may differ from that of found in wikipedia... (from adding wikidata ids I noted that some have neither a wikidata id or a matching wikipedia article) just a thought. -- Matroc (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess it would be hard for the marker to identify whether the name is a WV link to an article or not, wouldn't it. But if we add the WP and WD functionality (I actually thought it was there in the past), we can add this information gradually. Never was there the need to do everything at once.
Also, I would not treat markers and listings different in this sense, by just having the WD id, and deriving WP somehow. Furthermore, many markers now have the WD id, so adding WP would not be so difficult and could even be achieved through a script., would you be able to achieve something like this?
Everything that needs to be changed is that the marker also displays the WP link, if it is available. But, on second thought, if it could be achieved, showing the WP link based on the WD id if there is no WV article sounds also like a good approach. What do you guys think?
Either way, I think the travellers would appreciate more information on-site. And we would push the importance of the Wikimedia Network by keeping users in the network instead of letting them find the information through Google or such.
Cheers, Ceever (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ceever, Matroc: Please take a look at Valles Calchaquíes now. I've made an experimental change to the marker template to do what I proposed. To see the cases where it would apply, see special:permalink/3749906; as that page shows, the icon will appear only in one specific case. As soon as a Wikivoyage article is created for one of these destinations, the Wikipedia icon will disappear. Any thoughts? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 19:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ARR8: Looks marvellous. I believe this could be a good solution.
The only other case I would cover as well, would be where there is not WV link (weather dead or alive) at all, but a WD reference (and no WV article). Such that also Charyn Canyon would be covered. I think there are no cases where this would cause in-text issue - I have never seen a WD marker used inline anywhere. However, city listing sometimes contain no WV link, because it would be a dead one (and look ugly). Why should we omit the WP icon in this case?
Before introducing this change, could we have the consent of a few more people?
Cheers Ceever (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ceever: Thanks for the feedback.
I don't plan on making this change without community consensus. I'll make this an RFC after the changes are done. Maybe they're already done, I'm not sure.
Regarding the Charyn Canyon case: this is covered. So there is already a Charyn Canyon article on WV, so that is why there is no Wikipedia icon. However, that listing has no link in the title, so it's not helping the reader. In this case, there is an added maintenance category Category:Marker with Wikivoyage article but no wikilink (see the categories of the graffiti wall; the category doesn't exist yet). That way, an editor would notice and hopefully fix it. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, I think I know what you mean: if there is a marker with a wikidata ID, but there is neither a wikivoyage nor a wikipedia article? I'm not sure what to do in that case; currently nothing. You're suggesting the Wikidata link should appear? Maybe the wikidata link should always appear, like in listings. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, my bad. Just noted that the case was already covered, but there was no example for it on the Graffiti page. Now it is and works: no. 5. Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ARR8 Apologise for being bit late in looking at things; have been busy with some TEX issues. Looks pretty good to me - it would be up to members etc. for consensus - RFC would probably be best way to go... Matroc (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe we should set up a place where we can have a clear-cut vote on this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Matroc: No worries; there's no deadline here. As I said above, I recognize the need for consensus. Any feedback on the implementation?
@SelfieCity: As I said above, I'm not yet ready to roll this feature out. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm replying to Matroc's comment that "it would be up to members etc. for consensus". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this proposal should be discussed at Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia. I could easily see opposition to it on three grounds: (1) Once the WP links are added, it will be hard to remove them; (2) That will lead to creeping addition of another category of WP links without a consensus having developed in advance; (3) The WP link may make people lazy about creating needed WV articles. I, for one, would tend to oppose this additional scope of WP links on those bases. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3) Regular traveller for which the WP link is actually a help to, would not create new WV articles anyhow - I have never seen a newbie create an article. And I do not see how regular editors would have a problem with the WP link. It would instead actually help them to already fill the Understand of the new WV article. But it is funny to see what suddenly seems important to encouraged editors to contribute, while enthusiastic writers are regularly shied away with stiff bureaucracy elsewhere.
2) We already have WP links with regular listings, and they are comprehensively and happily maintained, which I think is a good thing. Why should a marker be an exception, especially where this link would contribute added value to the travellers. And yes, a consensus is what we are looking for - not an argument against it.
1) It is not much different from the WP links that appear to the left of WV articles. They are also there automatically. Even more reason to leave WP links with missing WV links, so editors are encouraged to finally create WV articles for the subject instead of having an "ugly" WP link.
I think it is a great and useful enhancement and would be an added value to WV ... Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you've never seen a newbie try to start a new article, I think you don't patrol recent changes very much. I've seen it dozens and dozens of times, and sometimes, they do a very good job and it becomes an excellent article. I have no problem with WP links in markers in many situations, but when we're talking about destinations that should have WV articles and don't, I think that's problematic and definitely requires a thorough debate, probably someplace other than just the pub. And as for "yes, a consensus is what we are looking for - not an argument against it", I guess it's too bad you don't get to unilaterally dictate policy changes on the site, then? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Created the rfc at Wikivoyage_talk:Links_to_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_in_markers ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia in markers[edit]


This is a continuation of a discussion at the pub, Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Listing_(including_WP_link)_instead_of_marker_for_cities/towns_(on_region_level)_that_do_not_have_a_WV_article_yet_but_only_a_WP_article, seeking opinions from the whole community. Ping the users involved in that discussion, @Ceever, SelfieCity, Matroc, Ikan Kekek:.

To make a long story short, I've created, on request, an experimental version of the {{marker}} template we use for listing destinations in region articles. Here's what it does: if we list a destination with no Wikivoyage article, it automatically links the Wikipedia article. As soon as a Wikivoyage page for that destination is created, the Wikipedia link automatically disappears. That way, there is always a WMF link for readers to go to find more information on a destination. At no step along the way is the Wikipedia link added or removed by editors. You can see this in action at Valles Calchaquíes.

I've opened this discussion to get feedback on the idea from the community. Please comment with your thoughts. I'll add some of my own arguments on why I support this below.

Without this, a reader looking for more information is stuck, link-wise. If they really want more information, they will likely go to a search engine. From there, they will most likely find a Wikipedia article, but they may also find the destination at other travel sites. It is in our interest to try to ensure that readers stay in the WMF network: if someone is reading a WP article on a destination we do not have here, they may nevertheless click a wikilink there to yet another destination, and, there, there will likely be links back to Wikivoyage. Someone entering a Wikitravel link they found on Google will not be led back here through interwiki links. Additionally, it will help cement the Wikipedia-Wikivoyage link in readers' minds, and readers who go straight to Wikipedia when looking up topics of interest may begin to go straight to Wikivoyage, rather than doing an internet search.

Some of the oppose arguments raised up in the pub aren't valid due to the technical implementation being presented here. Ikan did bring up, however, that having an interwiki link next to a redlink may lower the rate at which new and anonymous users create articles, a relatively common occurrence. I have no answer to this, but I will add that many newly-created articles were not created from redlinks, but for destinations which were never linked at all, and linked subsequently to the creation of the article. I can list some examples here if needed. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As already mentioned, the concerns against this change could also be considered in such way that they would speak for (pro) the change. I do not believe the change would be of disadvantage on the editors side. But they will certainly be of advantage on the readers side. Also, they coincide with what we already have as status-quo for listings anyhow. I noticed that listings also automatically show the WP link even if just having the WD id (correct me if I am wrong).
I support this solution, available in the sandbox currently.
Sorry, had to drop it here. The article structure became too interconnected. Cheers Ceever (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a really clever idea that I quite like. How easy would it be to implement this? Would editing the template be all that's necessary? If it's that easy to implement, then I'm definitely a supporter.
How does it work, though, if there's neither a Wikipedia article nor a Wikivoyage article for a destination? What should we do then? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. The edits are done in the sandbox version and all it would take to roll out across the site would be copying them over to {{marker}}.
Good question. Currently, nothing. The other option that comes to mind is to add a link to Wikidata. This would be easy to implement if it is decided that that is what the community wants. I like the idea of Wikidata links, but I get the feeling that not everyone will, so I am not pushing for it. I wouldn't mind being surprised, though. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, while Wikidata links may seem like a good idea, Wikidata entries aren't very user-friendly and for someone who's looking for travel guide information, it wouldn't likely be what they're looking for. But I'm not opposed to the idea; I guess you could say I'm neutral about it, since a link to Wikidata is better than nothing at all. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks good. I see that one of the cities in Valles Calchaquíes has a detailed WV article in german - de:Cachi. I only got to this by going to the WP article and then Wikidata. Would it be possible to offer Wikivoyage articles in other languages when there isn't one in English?
If there is no WP article, I think that the average reader would rather see the Commons page than Wikidata - I think only experienced editors would know how to use WD to find other language WV and WP articles. AlasdairW (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very interesing ideas. From a bit of research, it should be possible to get all language links, but a module would have to be written for it. The other alternative would be manually curated: if an editor notices a redlink with a detailed corresponding article, such as this German one, there could be a field in {{marker}} for those and only those languages to be linked as long as there is no local link. This is the easier-to-implement alternative. Presumably, that field would not do anything if an English WV article exists.
Regarding Commons: I agree that we should be linking to Commons more, and such a link would be a great candidate for the neither-wikivoyage-nor-wikipedia scenario. However, I'm not sure how many places there are with Commons categories in Wikidata but no Wikipedia articles. From what I notice, the Commons community doesn't bother linking their categories to Wikidata before a sitelink exists. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about cities, but a lot of WD entries were created for historic buildings as part of Wiki Loves Monuments (at least they were for listed buildings in the UK). Wiki Loves Monuments was keen on adding photos to the WD listings of these buildings and some Commons links were added as a by-product. AlasdairW (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the best thing to do is to just go with WP for now and then later we can consider WD and Commons. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the argument for these links to Wikipedia, but I remain skeptical, concerned that linking to Wikipedia for destination articles is at least somewhat likely to provide a distinct disincentive for the creation of Wikivoyage articles on those destinations. Therefore, at this point, I'm continuing to oppose. If a consensus develops behind this, I would suggest the requirement of a statistical analysis 6 months after the provisional adoption of links to Wikipedia destination articles in markers, seeing how many of those links turned into Wikivoyage links. Of course, that presumes someone's willingness to do such an analysis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm as concerned as you are about article creations. I think my page traffic argument above is also valid, though. Which of the two downsides is greater? We have no way of knowing, of course, without some kind of data, so I think an analysis would be a great idea. What did you have in mind that would be possible with the constraints of the platform? Maybe we should reach out to the meta community, which frequently runs technical surveys? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Special:NewPages currently lists 39 articles created since 1 March. This is a rate of 1.34 articles per day. Unfortunately I don't know a way to get figures over a longer period. AlasdairW (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support reaching out to the Meta community. It could be a good idea to do this as an experiment if we can get data. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reached out to a WMF researcher at meta. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: (though of course anyone is welcome to answer) Have you got an idea how I should answer this question? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 21:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a 5% drop would be statistically significant, but 2% probably wouldn't be. What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ARR8: I think it may be worth waiting a while to see if you get any other responses. If not, it's unfortunately going to be difficult to make clear that, as I understand, you want them to do the data collection and not ourselves. But is it possible that we could do the data collection ourselves? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are currently running at 1-2 new pages per day. In 2018 there were 570 new city pages. To get 5% drop being significant we would be looking at 6-12 months after introducing the change. I need to play with Petscan to get some more figures to see how things normally vary month to month. I think that the threshold might be a 50% drop in the first 1-3 months . AlasdairW (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you mean by threshold in this instance? Also, there's another stat I'd consider relevant: How many of the Wikipedia links turn into Wikivoyage links because someone created an article or considered that the term was appropriate as a Wikivoyage redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By "threshold", I meant the amount of change that we would regard as a big enough reduction in new pages to cancel the use of the new template. I am going to look at the past year or two's data to see how much random or seasonal variation we can expect if we look at quarterly new page figures. AlasdairW (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SelfieCity, AlasdairW, Ikan Kekek, Mx. Granger, Ceever, Ground Zero: We now have arrangements for the research team to analyze our page creation counts by IP users after implementing the change. It seems to me we have consensus to try the new template, and to keep it if there is no significant drop in page creations; if someone disagrees with this reading of the discussion, please let me know. Otherwise, I will make the sandbox version live soon. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 14:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm...I think the standard should be, if it causes an increase in page creations, it should be kept. But how are they measuring this? I think part of what we measure should be how many of the WP links turn into WV links in 6 months or whatever period is being measured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I think you may be alone in that. I, for one, am perfectly fine with keeping the change if it has no significant effect in either direction on page creations, which honestly seems the most likely outcome to me. At that point, this change is simply a SEO and usability enhancement with no downsides...
The measurement is simply on page creations by anonymous users. It seems we have no way of measuring the precise method of page creation. If this is insufficient for you, please feel free to weigh in at the talk page I linked above.
The testing will go on for two months (potentially three). Any longer than that will give diminishing returns on measurement significance. The plan is to discontinue the test if a large negative effect is recorded. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, to what are you referring, when you say the standard? IHMO, if ARR8's idea works better than the original and results in more page creations, we might as well stick with it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand it, we currently have four support votes (ARR8, of course; Ground Zero; Ceever; and myself) against one oppose vote Ikan Kekek. Seems like the direction is support, though is that quite strong enough consensus yet? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe Ikan was also in support of the quantitative test, as was Granger below. That's unanimous for all those interested enough to participate. Seems like that's enough to me. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but I fear the wrong thing will be measured. The most relevant question is how many of the WP-linked destinations are turned into WV articles within the experimental period. If very few are turned into WV articles, I'll consider the experiment a failure and revert to opposition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: My understanding is that, if we assume article creations from redlinks are some constant portion of total page creations, which makes intuitive sense, then looking at page creations is a useful proxy for measuring what we need to measure. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 20:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we can assume that. But let's please include stats on how many of the red links turned blue whenever the statistical report is done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support using the new template, with some monitoring of the statistics. AlasdairW (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with you. If we're being consistent about this, any red link should be for a plausible Wikivoyage article subject. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statistics on new articles[edit]

I have run a few Petscan searches to build a picture of how many articles are being created in each quarter. A couple of the searches are provided as links. If using these, enter the date range in the Last Edit field on the Page Properties tab, and note that the end date goes on the left and the start date on the right. I have used Category:City articles as the main selection, as this is the main page creation which could be impacted by the change. Unfortunately I could not find a way of selecting by type of editor, as it would be interesting to exclude articles created by experienced editors (autopatrollers).

  • 578 new city articles in 2016 (726 destination articles)
    • 200 new city articles Jan - Mar 2016
    • 83 new city articles Apr - Jun 2016
    • 160 new city articles Jul - Sep 2016
    • 135 new city articles Oct - Dec 2016
  • 460 new city articles in 2017 (604 destination articles)
    • 112 new city articles Jan - Mar 2017
    • 111 new city articles Apr - Jun 2017
    • 116 new city articles Jul - Sep 2017
    • 121 new city articles Oct - Dec 2017
  • 572 new city articles in 2018 (737 destination articles)
    • 162 new city articles Jan - Mar 2018.
    • 125 new city articles Apr - Jun 2018
    • 168 new city articles Jul - Sep 2018
    • 117 new city articles Oct - Dec 2018
  • 125 new city articles Jan - Mar 2019

I have not done proper statistical analysis, but I think that we should investigate if less than 110 city articles are created in the quarter after the change. We should also investigate if there are less than 26 new city articles in the month after the change (this is number from last month). AlasdairW (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appearance of the content[edit]

  • As I understand, this is not how it would work if San Francisco had a WP article and not a WV article:
  • 1 San Francisco
I assume it will look like the original plan,
  • San Francisco. San Francisco on Wikipedia
I support the second but not the first. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You understand correctly. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me it should look like neither of those but rather like
Right? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point, that would indeed be typical. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, I tentatively support this proposal. I share Ikan Kekek's concern about encouraging article creation, but I think on balance it's worth trying. If we can find a way to quantitatively evaluate the effect of this change on article creation, that would be ideal. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. If we do this, it should be in the second format, as SelfieCity also alluded to above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Granger, you're right. It should be a redlink. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: I'm late to this discussion, but have read it through. The redlink+W approach looks ideal to me: it balances indicating that an article is needed with providing a useful link for the reader. Making WV more useful to readers is the best way of attracting more readers and growing the project. Siloing Wikivoyage harms readership and growth. Ground Zero (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Redlink and icon link is logical. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge Template[edit]

Why is the merge template there? I see no merge discussion... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No indeed, but let's have one now. This page existing separately to Wikivoyage:Sister project links is strange, and I would support a merge of this page into that.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThunderingTyphoons!: As there has been no opposition, I think it is safe to implement your proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I'll have to get around to this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been one year, and the page is still not merged... Veracious (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]