Hello Jukeboksi! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page.

If you are a Wikipedian then you may notice some differences in policies and the style of our articles. These include:

It may also be very useful for you to check out Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians. If you need help, take a look at Wikivoyage:Help, or else post a message in the travellers' pub or on my talk page. Thanks for contributing!

Tervetuloa Wikivoyageen! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links and "Connect"Edit

Hello, and thank you very much for your helpful edits! Please note, though, that as noted above:

  • External links → We do not use a separate external links section, but incorporate primary links only into the text itself.

It doesn't matter what name a section is given, it still can't be for links.

Also, "Connect" is the section in which the availability of Wi-Fi and the quality of mobile phone reception are covered. Any other issue of how to keep in communication with others can be mentioned (e.g., sometimes post offices are discussed in this section), but it doesn't have anything to do with websites about a place.

I hope this makes sense to you, although it's unfamiliar.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

More specifically, to the links you wished to add, the URL to Raseborg's tourist office goes right at the beginning of the article as you can see in the wiki code (it's already there), and the URL to Fiskars village probably in Understand...and it looks like it, too, is already there. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello and thanks for your contributions so far.

There are a couple of style policies you may be interested in having a closer look at, namely Wikivoyage:Image_policy#Image_alignment and Wikivoyage:Xl-format. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Traveler routers"Edit

Hello, and thanks for being so enthusiastic and adding so much information! On what you're calling traveler routers, I think some discussion is probably a good idea, though. Please have a look at Talk:Traveler routers. Also, I think there's a real question whether a lot of the URLs you're adding may be in conflict with this site's Wikivoyage:External links#What not to link to policy. Some are so useful that even so, an exception should probably be made, but I'm not sure if that's essential for all of them, and it may be best to discuss the links on each page's talk page.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

They may be useful, but there are thousands of these sites, and we're in no position to be recommending one over another for any given destination. It opens up a dangerous can of worms. Powers (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
If someone has the stamina to put up an ecological and user friendly information service somewhere in the world it surely is worthy of a mention in Wikivoyage type of free traveler information service. Lets move this to thread to Talk:Traveler routers --Jukeboksi (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


On a somewhat related note to the above, it has been longstanding practice, maybe even written policy not to link to aggregators (e.g. flight or bus search engines). While I do understand that they can be handy (e.g. busliniensuche.de is better than any single company website of Intercity buses in Germany and usually finds the best rates and connections) it is very difficult to find out which one is the best and to weed out those that tout or advertise specific options that are not necessarily the best. Of course we can debate this issue, but linking to some (types of) aggregators and not to others is probably a bad solution. All the best Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Hobbitschuster. I think I understand the concerns at play. "Not wanting to become the turf in the spammers' backyard." Instead of looking at the external links question deletionistically I would say it would be more productive to store properties in the same objects as the URLs are stored having a 'type' property for URL objects of course requires some technical solutions to be feasible but I bet it would be more yielding for the consumer and the editor alike. The ability to show/hide stuff based on preferences and ability to temporarily alter from the show/hide rules would produce much utility to the consumer. This would of course pose value questions. "How do we determine who gets to say "SEO feed", "Broken site", "Scamster", Illegal aggregator in the 'type' declaration of an URL object?" --Jukeboksi (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Why would we link to websites that we determine to be SEO feed, broken sites or scamsters in the first place? Our principle here has been thus far to WV:be fair, but still avoid negative reviews, unless there is good reason to mention something which should receive a negative review (e.g. an overpriced attraction) we don't mention it, What would be the point in listing scammy sites, boring attractions and SEO feed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

City, ProvinceEdit

Hi, just a small thing (I am sure I made the same mistake at some point in time). The usual format for cities that need to be disambiguated here on WV is City (Province) whereby "Province" is filled with the highest level of geographical hierarchy that is still unambiguous. If there is an Anytown in New York state, it should be Anytown (New York). If there are two in California, it should be Anytown (X County) and Anytown (Y county). If there is only one Anytown in Canada, Anytown (Canada) is the preferred way of putting it. Writing Anytown, New York will result in redlinks in many cases. Thanks. Edited to add: In case a certain city name is overwhelmingly identified with one place, no disambiguation is needed for that city. London does not need to be disambiguated if the one in England is meant. Same for the Rome in Italy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Votes for deletionEdit

Hi, User:Jukeboksi. You seem determined to buck longstanding consensus on this site by continuing to create ever more "articles" of lists of links that violate external links#what not to link to, so I've started nominating articles you've created for deletion. I suggest you find a way to give policy-based defenses of your articles.


Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)