Wikivoyage talk:Welcome, Wikipedians

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Umm... so I CAN'T take the travel articles I wrote for the Wikipedia and paste them in here and say 'look I wrote this for you!'? I started writing travel stuff on Australia for the wikipedia, but I never got very far because I kept getting sidetracked. There's probably nothing I can't recreate anyway so it's not a big deal...

So basically, we can only put stuff in here if it comes straight out of our own heads? (WT-en) KJ 22:00, 5 Aug 2003 (PDT)

Yes, if you have copyright -- if you wrote the stuff -- then you can put it in Wikivoyage. But you can't take an article you started on Wikipedia and which got edited by dozens of people and copy it directly to Wikivoyage. I know that sucks, but see Wikivoyage:Why Wikivoyage isn't GFDL for deetz. -- (WT-en) Evan 22:05, 5 Aug 2003 (PDT)

I've transferred an article that I wrote from wikipedia on Kakadu National Park. I think the only contribution from other wikipedians was somebody closed a bracket. Are you saying that I cannot transfer my own work? (WT-en) Tiles 23:06, 5 Aug 2003 (PDT)

I just asked that. If you're SURE that nobody else has been fiddling around with your text then go ahead and import it. In my case I figure that it's probably as easy to rewrite from scratch because I know that my articles have been re-edited a few times by other people... Your article on Kakadu looks great! I hope you've got more like it! :) (WT-en) KJ
Yes, you can copy your own work. First, check the Page History to make sure that you're actually doing that. Second, put a note on the talk page to the effect that you copied it from Wikipedia. Lastly, remember that there's a difference between a travel journal and an encyclopedia. We need practical travel information, not encyclopedic content. We want articles people can print out and put in their back pocket. Please re-check our goals and non-goals; does the article you've already written meet them? If not, why bother copying it? -- (WT-en) Evan 07:35, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)

Removed link[edit]

I removed this statement about Wikivoyage not being a Wikimedia project: The reason is explained here. The reasons, which are many, are not in fact explained there at all. --(WT-en) Evan 13:17, 25 May 2005 (EDT)

WikiPedia:Template:User Wikivoyage.[edit]

Just add "Wikivoyage" to your Babel box, or use WikiPedia:Template:User Wikivoyage.

Not sure if I understand what WikiPedia:Template:User Wikivoyage should do, especially on Wikipedia site? --(WT-en) JanSlupski 23:04, 4 April 2006 (EDT)


I created a template for the extra welcome bit for Wikipedians - you can type {{subst:wikipedian}} after the usual welcome message (WT-en) - Cacahuate 03:39, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia becoming Wikivoyage-compatible?[edit]

There's a report on Slashdot [1] that the FSF (in cooperation with Wikimedia and Creative Commons) is updating the GFDL to be compatible with the CC-By-SA license that Wikivoyage uses. When this happens, and Wikipedia is relicensed under the new version of GFDL, that will mean that content from WP could be copied verbatim into WT. Not that we want lots of wholesale imports of this sort, but at least it might lighten the task of explaining to newbies that they Can't Do That when they copy-paste a bit of history or geography from WP into WT articles. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:52, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Here's Wikimedia's rather terse announcement. Great news if/when it happens, but I'm afraid we'll still be rapping newbies on the knuckles with rulers for some time... (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:38, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Content from Wikipedia[edit]

Regarding this edit [2], there has been some worry that our license upgrade could lead to lots of copy-paste jobs here from Wikipedia. I suggested at wts:Talk:License upgrade#Wikipedia moves to CC by-sa 3.0, We can use policy to prevent wholesale and detrimental copying of WP content to here. But I very often find a nice sentence to add to a listing or paragraph here, and it's a pain to have to rewrite it entirely.

I think that any significant quantities of copy-pasted text from WP would be very much detrimental to our project goals, as we're aiming to be something quite different from Wikipedia, with content that justifies reading our site, rather than WP! I'm fine with toning down my initial edit, but can we work out a new wording that would preserve patrollers' ability to revert big copy-paste jobs at their discretion? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:10, 4 January 2010 (EST)

I think the rewording that I did still covers that, but if you want to revise again, go for it. However, I don't see it as any different than someone that adds a big paragraph of original text that doesn't flow right or is not travel-oriented.... someone can and should come along after them and make it better, but at least more content is there than before. I'm planning to copy more chunks from their Machu Picchu article over to expand our history on our article, and after I do, I'll copyedit it and make it more agreeable to our goals – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 17:16, 4 January 2010 (EST)

just-in-time regions rule[edit]

As an attempt to prevent misunderstandings reverted in [3] and [4], I've just attempted to describe a rule that we only create a region article when current breakdown is not detailed enough--rather than copy-pasting regions hierarchy from WP or official sources. Please fix/improve as appropriate: [5].

I believe we should also add something similar at the point where a contributor considering to create a city article (and definitely a region article)--any ideas where best to stick it? Definitely in intro to Project:Region article template (what about 2nd para, similar to "Before you plunge forward creating districts"?) Where else? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:30, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

And yes, it definitely merits a mention in Project:What is an article?. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:31, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
(But I'm still wondering what should be the primary / the main place for such a recommendation -- any advice?) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:47, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
Project:Geographical hierarchy? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:00, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
Perfect, thanks! (seriously)
But currently Project:Geographical_hierarchy#Regions looks to have no mention of this rule--anyone willing to help with a first draft for it? (looks too complicated for me for now) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:13, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
Very beta draft for Project:Geographical hierarchy; not sure what to add to it for now: [6]. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:28, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

[7] for Project:Region article template to start with. Welcome to join me in contributing to the rest. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:23, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

[8] for Project:What is an article. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:35, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

Overall, it's a series of duplication--but no idea for now on how best to keep that in one place. Ideas? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:35, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

Wikipedia parameter in special tags[edit]

I propose that we add a Wikipedia parameter to the special tags <see>...</see>, <do>...</do>, <eat>...</eat>, <drink>...</drink>, <sleep>...</sleep>, <listing>...</listing>; please join the discussion at Wikipedia links in special tags. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia text[edit]

A lot of the articles on Wikipedia can be adapted here. What's your policy on adapting their text which might include copying some text? Thin Arm Pi (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We discourage copy-pasting, because we want to be a driver of original content, and because we aim to present information in a different way (according to our different goals).
Sometimes editors on Wikipedia add what is basically travel content there by mistake, though, and that definitely should get transferred here. --Peter Talk 19:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Do keep in mind that the free license (CC-BY-SA) does require attribution - indicate in your edit summary where you got the text and who it's BY. (The same consideration applies when translating content between different languages of the same project, such as en.Wikipedia → fr.Wikipédia). Also, we don't want a whole encyclopaedia article here as that's too much detail for our purposes; a brief summary to "understand" a destination is a better fit here. K7L (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Right... I tried to do that on the Kayenta article. I'll put attribution in an edit summary when I get back to it. There's a lot of content I deleted from the WP article, but some of it was worth keeping. Thanks. And why can't I move pages? Thin Arm Pi (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Only autoconfirmed users can move pages. So you'll have to wait until you become one. --Globe-trotter (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Best approach to handle duplicate information between Wikipedia and Wikivoyage?[edit]

Hi, I am wondering if there are any rules on what to do with pages that should contain the same information as on Wikipedia? Should information just be copy pasted from Wikipedia on to here? Can the information be linked somehow to ensure update on one place gets updated on the other site?

An example is all the sites on Wikipedia per country. More specifically all the "cuisine" pages on Wikipedia would be good to have here on Wikivoyage under "Eat" for each country. Perhaps it would suffice to just enter a link to all "cuisine" pages and other similar duplicate pages on Wikipedia..? Can this be done in bulk?

Requesting some guidance or policy on how to deal with this. Thanks!—The preceding comment was added by Soederman (talkcontribs)

Well, if you read our Wikivoyage:Tone manual, you will realize that texts should not be literally copied from Wikipedia to Wikivoyage. We may have same content, but it has to be written differently. --16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe that this is the same question that was addressed above at #Using Wikipedia text. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It was partially addressed, but there's also the issue that the level of detail which is appropriate for an encyclopaedia is usually too much detail for a city-level travel guide page. Information needs to be summarised, not copy-pasted. w:Motel traces the history of that lodging type back to the campgrounds and cabin courts used by "tin can tourists" in Model T Fords in the 1920's and 1930's but we likely just want to know where to stay for the night. K7L (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange sentence[edit]

Under content sharing you have "Otherwise, if you are planning to copy large amounts of text content from Wikipedia and Wikivoyage, please ensure it is suitable for Wikivoyage." Maybe the first Wikivoyage was replaced for something more meaningful? Ipigott (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've changed that to "copy large amounts of text content from Wikipedia to Wikivoyage", which I believe was the intention. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


I just wanted to thank the authors of this page -- it's a very useful HOWTO and reassures me that I can switch from Wikipedian mode to Wikivoyager mode. :-) Sumana Harihareswara (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

Hi, and thanks for writing this up. The fair use section left me wondering however. You indicate rules are far stricter here than on wikipedia (I think the English one is the only one that allows fair use, and the only one I'm familiar with with regard to its fair use policy), but I don't really understand the distinction. Could you explain what the difference is? From my Wikipedia perspective it seems it's not much of a difference at all, but I'm glad to be educated on the matter. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There's actually a discussion going on at Wikivoyage talk:Non-free content. --Rschen7754 01:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I have fairly strong opinions on fair use/non free content, and as a newcomer to WV I'm not getting my hands dirty there. This may seem like a cop-out (because it is), but you're on your own there. I'm still not seeing the stricter non-free content criteria if apparently non-free images can be used in banners. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Our rules are stricter because the only non-free images we allow are photographs (that are otherwise freely licensed) of copyrighted buildings and important sculptures. Wikipedia, in addition to those, also allows two-dimensional works like logos, covers, and paintings... as well as non-free photos of deceased individuals. Powers (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't allow them either unless they are the subject of a page. Could you give an example of a page here that could have a non-free picture on Wikipedia, but shouldn't have a non-free picture on WikiVoyage (even if that page would never exist on the other project)? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is. We may be less strict in regards to what subjects are suitable for a particular article, but we are more strict in regards to the type of non-free media we allow. Powers (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you give an example of a page where a Wikipedian would think they could make use of the Fair Use doctrine with their Wikipedia hat on, but not on WikiVoyage? Maybe my glasses are (still) to Wikipedia-colored, but I'm still not seeing it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Walt Disney World? Powers (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. While I would argue that that specific logo is in the public domain as PD-SIMPLE (though it's not currently marked as such), there certainly could be logos that would be used under fair use on en.wikipedia, but not on wikivoyage. I think it's fair to say that the restriction on Wikivoyage are stricter in some cases, but less strict in others. Is that reasonable to say? Would it be a good idea to make an edit to this project page to reflect that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe the passage was originally aimed at Wikipedians potentially uploading images, intended to tell them "just because it's fair use on WP doesn't mean it's fair use here". Your concern seems more aimed at what images can be used in articles, which is a subtly different angle. Perhaps it would be better to explain both angles on this page, though we do want to be careful not to overwhelm the reader. (And, of course, it's more important to explain the cases in which we're more strict than those in which we're less, because violations of the former cause more trouble than the latter!) Powers (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
On Wikipedia there must be valid fair-use rationale for any article a non-free image is used in. There is no concept of uploading a "fair use" image, it only becomes fair use through its use in an article. If it's not used under a fair-use rationale, then on en.wikipedia it gets deleted. I don't think Wikipedians are likely to upload images without using them in an article, because that's completely contrary to how fair use works on wikipedia. It also might explain some of the communication issues we sort of seem to have. As a Wikipedian I never considered the possibility of "uploading a fair use image" as that phrase is completely meaningless to me. I can upload a non-free image, and than use it under a fair-use rationale. I think that is what went wrong in our conversation before where I don't get what you mean by uploading a non-free image of a living person. The concept of a fair use image of a living person on wikivoyage makes no sense to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Non-free images (e.g., images of copyrighted sculptures) that are not being used in articles have to be deleted on Wikivoyage, too. What do you mean by a "fair use image of a living person on Wikivoyage"? We don't have articles about persons on this site. Did I miss an earlier discussion in which someone was suggesting that there is such a thing as a "fair use image of a living person on Wikivoyage"? In what context? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your first point: I wasn't saying you aren't (I don't know enough about your policies to jump to conclusions about them), just what I do know about en. policy. About the second (non-free images of deceased persons (I mistakenly said living just now), it's right here in the thread. I didn't "get" there why you would argue that Wikivoyage is stricter about not allowing fair use on that, while Wikivoyage has no articles on it, which may have been mistaken for a snooty "you don't even have biographies", which is really not what I wanted to say. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not making an argument about which website is stricter about fair use. I do see now where User:LtPowers wrote "Wikipedia, in addition to those, also allows two-dimensional works like logos, covers, and paintings... as well as non-free photos of deceased individuals." Wikivoyage does not allow non-free photos of deceased individuals because, as you said, it wouldn't make sense to do so — they would be off-topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, I can't see how a wikipedian would think they would. A phrase in the project page "Don't assume that just because a photo is "fair use" on Wikipedia, that you can also use it here!" is pretty meaningless. I'm also not saying you are saying WV is stricter than Wikipedia, but that "However, our non-free content policy has a much more limited scope than that of the English Wikipedia." sounds misleading. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
To me this line of thinking seems too binary, like either Wikivoyage has to be stricter than Wikipedia, or that Wikipedia has to be stricter than Wikivoyage. Those aren't the only options here; both could be more strict in different areas. --Rschen7754 10:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
To be fair to me, Martijn, I never said anything about "uploading a fair use image". Of course fair use is use-specific; my point was that an image that could be fair-used (fairly used?) on Wikipedia (depending on the specifics) might not necessarily be useful or usable here. Perhaps you're right that it's an edge case that would rarely come up, but I can certainly see someone potentially trying to use a non-free image of an important personage on a destination page. In fact, our Walt Disney World article used to have a picture of Minnie Mouse up top, which would not be allowed under our current understanding. (Setting aside, for the moment, the uncertain nature of costume copyrights.) Powers (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Argh, we seem to be getting on eachothers nerves more than needed. Lets stick with possible confusion for new Wikivoyagers that are experienced Wikipedians. As an experienced Wikipedian and new WikiVoyager, I am surprised that presenting an image as a banner is allowed under fair use. I'm also slightly (but pleasantly!) surprised that non-free logos are not allowed. All in all, I don't think fair use on en.wp and Wikivoyage are one of the most important differences between the two. I'd like to suggest to move the section down between consensus and terminology, and phrase it as follows:

We really want to keep Wikivoyage free for everybody. But we also want to create a great travel guide. Accomplishing the latter sometimes means we want to show readers pictures of important artworks and buildings that may still be covered by copyright. Just like the English Wikipedia we created a non-free content policy to allow them to be uploaded locally, here.
The only non-free content allowed on Wikivoyage are photos of important copyrighted artwork and architecture, and the remainder of the photo has to be licensed freely just like any other photo. We do allow such photographs as banners for pages or sections that are not primarily about the non-free work.

Does that sound good?
Sure, if you think that would be clearer. I have only been trying to explain how the current wording got there. =) Powers (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. --Rschen7754 19:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Note Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg. --Rschen7754 03:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Are we doing a bad job with regards to users who come over from other projects?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Hi. Maybe in part to the isolation in which en-WV seems to have lived for some time, there seems to be some sort of difference in culture both to other language versions of WV (insofar as they have enough users to have a culture) and WP. (I don't know enough about other Wikimedia projects). It appears that from time to time we get a user whose primary activity is either on some other language WV or WP. And if I am not mistaken we do not necessarily retain a very high percentage of them. Some even seem to have left in a rather "You know why I'm leaving" way. And I fear I may have been to blame for some of those cases. Do you see this as well? Or am I imagining things that don't exist? And if those things do exist (and I am quite certain there will always be differences between WP and WV by the pure nature of the projects), what can we do to make the experience more pleasurable to all involved and retain more quality contributors from other projects? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Many, if not most, of our contributors came over from Wikipedia initially. It's natural, though, that some people would find one project or the other more to their liking. Haven't you ever tried out, say, Wikinews or Wikibooks and found that you preferred contributing to a different project? Powers (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of the discussion at #Paper_on_Decline_of_WP.3B_are_there_lessons_for_us.3F may be relevant. Pashley (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Content sharing[edit]

Does this section need to be edited?

While Wikivoyage and Wikipedia have different goals, we do have overlap in some of the content we produce, and ideally, we will be able to take advantage of our Creative Commons licensing to share that content.

I'm not sure the word "ideally" is the best word, but the major thing that's left out here is that any use of Wikipedia here requires credit. How's this rephrasing?

While Wikivoyage and Wikipedia have different goals, we do have overlap in some of the content we produce, and it is permissible under both sites' Creative Commons licenses to quote, summarize or paraphrase as appropriate from Wikipedia articles, providing credit is given to the source in an edit summary or note on the article's talk page.

Is that clear enough? Because right now, there's nothing in that section stating that credit needs to be given, and that's important, not merely ideal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This change looks good; we do need to summarise and paraphrase because otherwise we're just mirroring content already on the Wikimedia servers - which is not helpful. We need to distinguish ourselves from WP both to attract contributors and to avoid SEO duplicate content penalties. A brief, properly-attributed summary of the history or geography of a destination makes sense in ==Understand==, but we're not a pastebin into which to dump the whole WP page. K7L (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I'll make the change in a day or two if no-one objects or suggests a better phrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek - While the changes look good overall, I'd prefer if we went a bit further and added language specifically discouraging editors from copying material verbatim from WP to WV, even with attribution, due to SEO concerns. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Would you like to give a suggested phrasing? I don't think we want to discourage Wikipedians too much. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)