Wikivoyage talk:Related articles

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This turned out to be easier than I thought, so it's now in production on Wikivoyage. I think it's useful for defining relationships between a destination guide and itineraries; for destination guides and phrasebooks; and for guides and travel topics.

It may be valuable to do different templates, like Template:hasItinerary, Template:hasTopic, and Template:hasPhrasebook, which use the same (or similar) RDF as Template:Related for right now, but later might have a more specific relationship. --(WT-en) Evan 15:39, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)

Yeah, it'd be nice to have the itinerary one since marking the cities on each itinerary looks like a pretty obvious step right now.
We also need some usage guidelines too. For example, for a small city, marking the neighboring cities seems like a thing to do -- I often consult neighboring cities for hotels when planning a trip. But how far should that go? I don't think "Get out" locations should ever be listed as related since generally you should have more than just the name of a city listed. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:06, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)
How about moving the regions to something like Template:hasRegions? Talk about some busy work. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:54, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)
Personally, I'd like to see this used specificially for non "hasRegion" and "Get out" type relationships, since we already have ways of indicating these (ie breadcrumb and Get out section). What I think it is great for is the sort of stuff Evan's done in examples: linking topics with places (Los Angeles and Driving in Los Angeles County) and destinations that may be linked conceptually but not geographicly (Hawaii and the Caribbean). (WT-en) Majnoona 18:21, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)
Or Las Vegas and Atlantic City. --(WT-en) Evan 20:39, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)

Nowiki Undereffectual[edit]

There are some example related items in this article. They are surrounded by nowiki markers, but they show up in the Related box anyway. Any workaround for this? -- (WT-en) Colin 16:10, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)

No, actually not. It's a bug in the RDF code, and it needs to be fixed. I'll take a look and see if I can make it work better. --(WT-en) Evan 16:17, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)
OK, I think it's fixed now. Comments and nowikis should hide RDF code. --(WT-en) Evan 16:34, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)

Bi-directional?[edit]

If X is related to Y, then presumably Y is related to X. Currently, it takes related tags in both articles to express this. Could the parser or a bot deduce the second tag whenever a user enters one? Are there places where this would be wrong? (WT-en) Pashley 19:33, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

One instance I can think of not wanting that would be something like Discount airlines in Asia... where we might want to link to that article from quite a few country articles, but probably wouldn't want each of those countries in a long list in the "related" box on the discount airlines page – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:03, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Not in "What links here"[edit]

Why are related pages are not in the "What links here"-overview? -- (WT-en) Eiland 07:20, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Because the related template, as with the isIn template, relies on rdf, which does not constitute a wikilink. It would be really nice to have an easy way to see which articles "link" to a given article via rdf, though. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:24, 2 November 2009 (EST)

is this used as widely as originally defined?[edit]

This article defines quite many different scenaria, while only few of them are used in practice, basing on my experience. To start with, I never seen destination<->destination relations used here, and it also seems to be somewhat counter to our Geographical hierarchy and other parts of MoS. OK if I remove destination-destination relations from the policy article? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:03, 3 January 2011 (EST)

That would make sense to me. In general I think the "related" tag should only be used for very obvious relations, such as US National Park articles specifying United States National Parks. Using it for random city-city pairings doesn't seem obvious to me and would lead to questions about why two places are considered to be related. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:19, 3 January 2011 (EST)
Yes, this article looks to have never been updated past the initial speculative version! Related, I think, should only be used to link destination-specific travel topics and itineraries with their respective destinations. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:39, 4 January 2011 (EST)
I plunged forward, including also phrasebooks as possible options.
On a related note, does it makes sense to also mention Geographic Expeditions and policies (I believe we used to have US-specific MOS, but currently can't find it linked from anywhere). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:09, 18 January 2011 (EST)
Added both expeditions and region-related policy pages as well: [1]. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:54, 28 January 2011 (EST)

Any objections to reading web team driving new development in the RelatedArticles extension?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I noticed Wikivoyage is using the RelatedArticles extension which I think my team can make even better for you. any objections to us adding developers and development time to it? We plan to work on a beta feature for mobile and desktop so there will be ample time for you to feedback on the work we do there. I urge you to read the talk page and the linked Phabricator bug and please reply on the MediaWiki talk page! Thank you! Jdlrobson (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I lack the pre-requisite vocabulary, but could you explain in less jargon what the essence of your pursuit is? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know we had a "Related Articles" feature, where can it be found? I found nothing on desktop nor mobile. Closest I have found is "Nearby Articles" on mobile. Syced (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to New_York_City you'll see in the left hand menu, hidden away, "related pages" with a link to New York City with children. This is generated by using the `relatedpages` magic word. In mobile apps it has been shown that suggesting new articles to read drives engagement with the app and we are planning some similar experiments with web. The experiments will essentially use our search APIs to generate a list of 3 related articles at the bottom of an article. I'm interested in supporting a way for editors to override the choices where they do not make sense. I see this extension as a good fit, so am advising we build it in here. Jdlrobson (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something to consider as you are doing this is whether in the process you can come up with a better way to organise or link travel topics. The discussion leading to the current situation is at Talk:Travel_topics_index#Change_to_tagging_travel_topics. and breadcrumbs are currently the main mechansim for linking them. A recent related controversy is Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion#Template:EuropeHistory.
As I see it, breadcrumbs were never a good idea, do not work well because they are inherently hierarchical which the topics aren't, and were implemented without consensus so anything that lets us get rid of them would be a fine idea, I suspect others would say I'm being curmudgeonly (guilty!) and beating a dead horse; we have had them for some time and they (partly) work, so they should obviously be kept. Even I will admit that they should be kept until we find something better.
If your work can offer new alternatives here, that would be quite valuable. Pashley (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find the breadcrumbs concept very out-dated and limiting and not too useful in a travel guide, given that usually I'm more interested in where I can go that's nearby from a given place rather than which region/continent I am in. For instance it's possible to get to Linz in Austria from Český_Krumlov in Czech Republic. I'm not actively thinking about this problem but in theory the related articles extension could be used as a more engaging way to do 'Go next' - essentially we'd be showing cards not too different from the cards we show on the Gather experimental feature. I will definitely think about this usecase but I'll definitely leave it up to you as we build this to think about how breadcrumbs fit into this or whether can be replaced by this. Jdlrobson (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about getting rid of breadcrumbs for travel topics. For destination articles, I definitely think we should keep them but they should not be the only thing. We already have a "Go next" section, some articles have route boxes and "related" tags, often the text mentions nearby attractions, ... All those are good, but any new mechanism you come up with might be useful as well. Pashley (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic: We really need a map of nearby articles in the Go Next section. Dynamic, of course :-) But even with that, breadcrumb would retain some usefulness I think. Last week I traveled with only my smartphone and found myself using breadcrumb a few times a day to switch from city to city (tabs are not that convenient on mobile) Syced (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The dynamic map actually has that function, when clicking on the icon with the two inverted drops, the map zooms out and the location of the nearest articles is shown. So it should probably not be too hard to put an icon in the Go next section that would take you to the dynamic map shown like that. (Disclaimer: I don't really know anything about the technical side of the dynamic maps or coding in general).
Concerning breadcrumbs, I do find them useful when working with and organizing articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: nearby articles, that functionality is still in beta but maps use it already. Once the "nearby" functionality is more mature we should be able to more directly integrate it into our articles, either as a link, as a box similar to the routebox, or using some other UI element. See https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Nearby#/page/Concord_(California) as an example, where the format is https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Nearby#/page/PAGENAME. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other projects[edit]

Swept in from the pub

It would appear there is a new functionality that lists the corresponding pages on Wikipedia and Commons on the left of the page. So we now have links twice, once under Related Sites and once under Other Projects. Do we want to keep it like this? Should we consider removing the in article links [[Wikipedia:....]] and [[commons:...]] ? How does the Other Projects identify pages, I assume using Wikidata Item? In which case how do we check for correct and missing wikidata connections to Wikivoyage pages? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to remove the Related Sites box and use the Other Projects. This would be coherent in comparison to Wikipedia and all other Wikimedia projects. The links are generated based on the Wikidata items (see mw:Beta Features/Other projects sidebar). Unconnected Wikivoyages pages are listed at Special:UnconnectedPages. -- T.seppelt (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was probably what you were getting at that I didn't see. On the whole, I like the idea that Wikidata is taking care of this, but what I'm concerned about is whether all the work of matching inexactly corresponding articles is now going to go to waste. For example, the Abbey of Monte Oliveto Maggiore is in Chiusure, but since there was no w:Chiusure, I thought that w:Territorial Abbey of Monte Oliveto Maggiore was close enough, and therefore put that in the sidebar as a "Related article". Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know sitelinks can still be overwritten by interwiki links in the article. Nothing should change at this point. In general the Wikidata information should have priority. -- T.seppelt (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "interwiki links in the article", are you referring to sidebar links (which would then seem duplicative of "Other projects" even if they aren't) or are you referring to inline interwiki links, which are banned per Wikivoyage policy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For town, like the Chiusure, I think the best solution is to create the page on Wikipedia. Other create a few redirects on both thte Wikipedia and the Wikivoyage sides that are then referenced in the Wikidata. The real challenge are the regions which often do not corresponded to pages on Wikipedia. Travel topics and Itineraries can also be a challenge. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also UnconnectedPages(Main) only shows pages without a Wikidata page not Articles without Wikipedia links. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects can't be connected to Wikidata. I mean interwiki links in the text. They are just quite frequently I think. Take per example Sterling (Wayne County). It has an inline interwiki link ([[wikipedia:Sterling Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania]]) but can get all information from Q2888372. The sitelink in both sidelink boxes can be overwritten in this way: [[wikipedia:London]]. This is what we could do if no fitting Wikipedia articles are available. You can get those articles by using Wikidata Query-- T.seppelt (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see we will probably want a maintenance list generated of articles where the two links don't match, so that we can check and then fix incorrect links in either WV or Wikidata. I have checked only a few but I see one where WV is correct and WD is wrong. Nurg (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a simple bot run. I can do this when I find time. -- T.seppelt (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@T.seppelt: In fact, 'Other projects' bar can not read commands like [[w:Territorial Abbey of Monte Oliveto Maggiore]]. Check, for example, Chiusure. It displays 'Related sites', but it lacks 'Other projects' because there is no link to read from Wikidata. I think there is no way to customize such interwikis without modifying the software (and this may be the right thing to do). --Alexander (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Using Related Sites and deactivating the Other Projects extension seems to be the best solution at the moment. -- T.seppelt (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to submit an inquiry to Phabricator and see whether we can integrate some additional functionality into the Other Projects extension. I think that we should try to switch to Other Projects, at least on a longer run, because it supports links to all Wikimedia projects including Wikinews, Wikiquote, etc. --Alexander (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this would be good. Let me know when you submitted a ticket. -- T.seppelt (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@T.seppelt: here you go --Alexander (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RelatedSites at Phabricator[edit]

Swept in from the pub
Tracked in Phabricator (?)
Task T128326
See what we're talking about by going to Rapallo.

Look at the light-gray sidebar on the left. There are three sections towards the end:

  • "In other projects", with links to Wikipedia (article) and Commons (category)
  • "Related sites", with links to DMOZ, Wikipedia (article), and Commons (gallery page)
  • "In other languages", with links to the German, Spanish, and French Wikivoyage articles.
Do we want the partially redundant "Related sites" section on our articles? (WhatamIdoing)

phab:T128326 This issue needs some kind of closure at Phabricator. Unless I am mistaken, this community has had discussions on using RelatedSites a couple of times and has been in favor of it. If we have some kind of consensus here, that would probably resolve the ticket. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support to remove the extension since it is (mostly) duplicating what "Other sites" already does and is no longer supported. There have been a few discussions on this topic in the past, but the only one I found in a quick search was Wikivoyage talk:Related articles#Other projects. Removing the "related sites" extension would mean losing the ability to link to Dmoz in the left nav, something I'd be fine with, and relying on Wikidata for interwiki links, something that others have expressed concerns about. Wikivoyage could easily re-implement any lost functionality with an in-article template (something like Wikivoyage talk:External_links#Example "resources" template), thus allowing customization in the future that wouldn't depend on Mediawiki developers updating an extension. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does anyone even use the DMOZ links? Powers (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @LtPowers: For what it's worth, I have added some and I think they are useful for an all-purpose out-going link. We've discussed this a few times since WMF adoption and while no one seems very enthusiastic about DMOZ, the general consensus was to keep it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't use DMOZ for anything, and I can't remember the last time I heard anyone mentioning it or recommending it (i.e., for their own personal use, rather than to tell some perceived spammer on the English Wikipedia where to stick it). I don't think we'd lose much by removing DMOZ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal as a link to a commons: gallery page (as provided by Wikidata) is not the same thing as a link to a commons:category: (which we usually create using RelatedSites). Many (or most) topics which have a Commons category lack a mainspace topic gallery page. K7L (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closure[edit]

AOL just announced that DMOZ is going offline in two weeks. The community will fork/mirror somewhere else but it's not clear when or where at the moment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is today, these links have been hidden. Now the community should decide what to do with them. MaxSem (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related Pages[edit]

Swept in from the pub

What's up with the Related Pages at the bottom of each article? I can't help but notice that they've recently gotten overly large (and rather ugly). Did somebody unilaterally decide to update a CSS or something? Am I the only person who finds the bigger blocks to be in-elegant and inconsistent with the look and feel of the rest of the page? Mrkstvns (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you change the zoom level in your web browser? Try resetting it and seeing if that looks more familiar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're a genius! I don't remember ever trying to zoom in on anything, but guess I must have.... Mrkstvns (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have accidentally changed the zoom settings on my laptop (usually while scrolling) so many times... WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing related to the zoom, but why is everything now in bold? I'm not a fan of the bold text and preferred the old minimalist approach.--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything in bold. Is it this page? every page? other wikis? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage_talk:Related_articles&oldid=4845011"