Wikivoyage talk:External links

Some things that have moved:

Archives Wikivoyage talk:External links/Archive 2004-2007 (2004-Feb 2007) Wikivoyage talk:External links/Archive 2007-2018 (Feb 2007-2018)

• Audio guides → Wikivoyage talk:External links/Audio guides
• Hidden links → Wikivoyage talk:External links/Hidden links
• Links in listings → Wikivoyage talk:External links/Links in listings
• What to link to → Wikivoyage talk:External links/What to link to

Hitchwiki

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

That looks like a really small wiki, with only 3,538 articles in any language. Furthermore, the amount of hitchhiking information on their Krk page is not so much that it couldn't be replicated here; if we were feeling lazy, we could even copy it word-for-word, as their content is CC-licensed. So no, I don't think we should be linking to this wiki in this instance, but I do feel like their content could be used to complement our own.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I think that if we use information from another wiki, we are obligated under WV:Copyleft to credit our source, such as in an edit summary. Any other views? I suppose this link could be removed within 24 hours if no-one objects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's the relevant language:

Wikimedia projects like Wikipedia have a compatible license, so we can copy relevant text as long as proper attribution is provided in accordance with the CC-SA license. When copying text from another site with a compatible license, you must cite the article from which you are copying in the edit summary and include a link to the license terms.

The way I interpret that is that we should be including a URL in the edit summary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It would also be a good idea to write a note crediting Hitchwiki on Talk:Krk.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I will take care of this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Real estate agents/agencies

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

I would object if you didn't do it. Seems like common sense for a travel wiki. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Mostly deafening silence in reply to my question. I doubt it would be controversial with anyone but real estate agency touters, though, so unless there is an objection, I'll put in a bullet point on this soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead. You could add this to the existing "Vacation rental agencies that do not meet Wikivoyage's rental listing criteria". AlasdairW (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Right under "Vacation rental agencies". Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Linking to official website in the lead

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

I would revert it if the link is working correctly. If not, then it was a good edit to remove the link. It may not be in policy, but it is still helpful to include that link at the beginning of the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:External links says "If an official website exists for the destination, it should be linked to only once, from the name of the destination in the first sentence of the article." —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

thanks! Ground Zero (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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

It should be removed, then, IMHO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I've looked at many articles where these kinds of links are in foreign languages. I'm not sure they're as much of an irritant as you think, since you can translate the pages with Google Translate — and moreover, just because I can read Italian and would look at an Italian tourism page without hesitation, for example, doesn't mean that I don't find it sufficiently easier to read in English that I wouldn't start my research about a place in Italy by reading English-language websites. But though I thought there was some guideline somewhere, stating that a link to an official tourism site or some such should be at the top of the page, if there is one (Wikivoyage:External links?), I think that if we are going to ban links of these types of sites at the top of the page when they're only in foreign languages, we need to discuss that and post a guideline somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to revert it then. I dont thinking it's a useful link for the overwhelming majority of readers, buf I'm not particularly motivated to get into a policy discussion on this. I'm okay reading a couple or a few languages, but Japanese is out of the question for me. Ground Zero (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm most certainly more competent in English than Japanese, but if the only official information about a place is in Japanese, that's what I'm going to read. Even if there is an English version available, I look at the Japanese version as well because sometimes, they don't translate all the information into English. So while I may be a minority here, I'd say leave the link in. You never know who might find it useful. The dog2 (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I find that the online translation using the Chrome browser is easy and is 90% accurate. In the case of Ishigaki, I quickly a page on accessing the airport, which had similar bus details to the article. Online translation is not perfect so I would try to avois using it for bookings etc. AlasdairW (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

And in general, if you travel to Japan, your probability to know some Japanese, have a friend that does or have some translation aid is bigger than for the general public. The same applies to small places with obscure languages. Going to such a place you should not be too irritated when finding text in the local language (and I'd say: if the tourist bureau does't have English pages, the place qualifies). --LPfi (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. But I think "Japanese only" should be added to the link, which means not linking it directly to the island name but using an m-dash to "tourism site: [name of site (Japanese only)]". Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

That works for me. The dog2 (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

If this were a separate ==External link== list, I'd agree. But having the first sentence read "City (Japanese only) is a small city in the prefecture of Somewhere, Japan" isn't great. (Also, maybe just "(Japanese)", to avoid maintenance hassles if they update their website later?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel like seeing only the word "Japanese" in parentheses with no visible context given would look strange. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I think what was meant was something like "City (石垣, tourism site, Japanese) is a small city in ..." (IK's suggestion was not quite like that, but close enough). --LPfi (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I like your solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it should say "official tourism site", though, so as not to give spammers any more ideas than they already have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I think our leads sometimes look drier and more Wikipedia-ish than would be ideal, and a parenthetical like "tourism site, Japanese" in the first sentence might make that worse. I think a reader reading about an off-the-beaten-path destination shouldn't be too surprised to end up at a page written in the local language. Some of the official sites we link to for individual POIs don't have English versions either. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand that as the status quo ante, and I wouldn't fight it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that readers, not knowing our conventions, might miss the link in the current format. I'm inclined to think we should have one or more separate labelled links for "local tourist bureau", "city government", perhaps others? Where might those go? End of lead section? Pashley (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have always found the placement of these links odd. This discussion provides yet another reason why they would be better placed somewhere else. I think they should go in the 'Understand' section. That is where visitor information centres go. Quite often the official tourism website is associated with the visitor information centre, but even when not, the two pieces of information are of a similar ilk. It is not only readers unfamiliar with our conventions who might miss the link currently – I usually overlook it too. Nurg (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe in ==Cope==? The times I can imagine wanting the city government's main website (as opposed to, e.g., the public transit system website) are usually when something's gone wrong.

I would generally support moving these links, if we had a decent place to put them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Pashley, thanks for refocusing on the forest while we were looking at an individual tree. I would totally support moving these links to "Understand". Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I can live with moving the links to the "Understand" section. In that way, we can list both the official tourism web-site and the city government web-site, if they are maintained separately. They usually provide different information, and you never know who might find either of them useful. The dog2 (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If both links are relevant, both would be in "Understand" with nothing linked to the first instance of the article name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd support that change. Ground Zero (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to change policy regarding official tourism website links

Per the discussion above, I propose this change:

Current policy:

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

Proposed policy:

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

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

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

I'm of pretty much the same position as Pete.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

An example for discussion:

Visitor Information

• Marketing Edinburgh Official Guide
• City of Edinburgh Council
• Visit Scotland Edinburgh page
• Edinburgh iCentre, 249 High Street. Walk in information office with leaflets and makes booking for travel etc. (updated Jan 2020)

This has the following:

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

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

I support the new wording and the example. I would say that if and only if there is no governmental tourism/visitors site in a given destination (probably because it's tiny), it could be OK to link non-governmental organizations such as Chambers of Commerce that promote a destination and local business generally without directly profiting as an organization, but I'd respect a consensus against this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. My only remaining question is: where within Understand is the best place to put this subsection? Would it be better at the top, bottom, or somewhere in the middle (for example, immediately after History)? My first thought would be at the top, but then again typically the subsection listing tourist info booths seems to usually go near the bottom (I guess maybe because it's the catch-all for "Here's where you might be able to find any info that isn't already covered in this section").

I'd also suggest rewording or expanding the parenthetical remark slightly, like "(This policy was changed in 2020. Websites should no longer be linked in the lead paragraph, but since this affects almost every article it will take some time to implement this change.)" --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with that rewording. We changed the placement of the "Talk" section in Wikivoyage:Country article template (and optionally in other templates such as Wikivoyage:Region article template) in March, 2015, and as recently as yesterday, I have still moved some Talk sections accordingly. In terms of where to put the "Visitor information" subsection, I'd suggest just before "Climate" if there is such a section, or if not, at the end of "Understand". I definitely wouldn't put it at the beginning of that section, before prose that's hopefully engaging and brings the reader in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Thank you for plunging forward! How does everyone feel about the idea of putting this subsection before a "Climate" subsection, if there is any? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that "towards the end of the Understand section" is sufficent. I don't see a need to go into detail giving the order of the subsections. AlasdairW (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we just change the Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates to reflect this? Ground Zero (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with it going at the end of the Understand section and suggest saying "at the end" rather than "towards the end". I also suggest that the visitor centre go first, as it's a place the traveller can physically go to, its listing may have additional content (per Edinburgh) and it deserves more prominence than a plain old external link. Also, I question the inclusion of a civic website in addition to visitor info links - is this a new addition or something that was already covered by policy elsewhere? Nurg (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

No objection from me for this policy change. It will allow us to list all the web-sites that travellers could potentially find relevant. The dog2 (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do you guys feel like it looks better to have this subsection after "Climate" than before "Climate"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I used "towards the end" as a way of dodging the question for now. I'd support listing the subsections in your desired order in the article skeletons as a way of demonstrating the preferred ordering. Ground Zero (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Nurg, your feelings on this? I keep in mind that "Climate" often includes a chart, so for that reason, it's good to put it last in "Understand". Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, actually, it helps to keep the climate chart from running into the 'Get in' section, as in our pilot case of Edinburgh, and I think that's a good thing, though not a big deal. Also, I favour giving readers more of our content before we offer them an exit to another site. The WP model of having external links right at the bottom of the page perhaps doesn't suit us, but I like the principle. And, just as a side comment, I scooted around a few articles and found that the Climate subsection is not always near the bottom of the Understand section - sometimes it's at the top or in the middle. Nurg (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, if it works better to put "Visitor information", or whatever we'll calling it, at the very end of "Understand", let's do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

At the very end is fine. However I prefer the physical office to come after the links. Any link in the office listing should just be about the office, the listing could be much longer than the example as opening times often vary over the year and in small places the listing may just be for the noticeboard in the town square with a map and posters for events. Whether "Climate" should come before "History" depends on the destination, for somewhere like Edinburgh most readers will look at Climate to decide what to wear, but for a beach resort, Climate may be a major factor in choosing whether to visit. AlasdairW (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It's normal for links to be in listings. If a town's Tourism Bureau has a URL, it would be normal to put that in the "url" tab of the listing, regardless of whether it contains lots of online information that readers could use without physically visiting the bureau's office. I can't see a good reason to give the same URL twice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean give the exact same url twice, but two different ones. If they are the same then only give it in the list of links. The reader doesn't know whether the page is purely about the office, or general information about the city. In the example Visit Scotland Edinburgh page (www.visitscotland.com/destinations-maps/edinburgh/) comes before the link in the listing (www.visitscotland.com/info/services/edinburgh-icentre-p234441), and given the layout of Visitscotland's site it is hard to find one page from the other. AlasdairW (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, but if the link is for the same organiation as the one with the visitors' bureau, the link should be given once in the listing, because if not, a bot will eventually "correct" that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Paradoxical violation of don't tout?

Swept in from the pub

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

Interesting.. Why would a firm not want to be listed? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The objection isn't clear to me. My best guess is that whenever the article is changed or updated, the business's website gets a notification even though no-one had actually visited the site from Wikivoyage. This is the first time I've sent this complaint. I have restored the listing without the website because I think it's worth keeping ad a vegan- and vegetarian-friendly place. Ground Zero (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

He seems concerned about search engine optimization. I've followed w:en:WP:External links for years and years, and I've never heard this. I've asked at w:en:WP:VPT#Effects of nofollow.

On the general question, there are a lot of vegetarian and vegan people in Sweden. Vegan-friendly restaurants are not uncommon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The question of what we include or don't include is governed solely by what serves the traveller best, and I think it goes without saying that the traveller is better served by listing the restaurant, including a link to its website, than by not listing or linking. As others have said, I'm unconvinced the link has any effect on traffic to his business website, but even if it did, that's not our problem. I've reinstated the URL on that basis. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

New external link and email icons

Swept in from the pub

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

• Example, ☏ +1 555-555-5555, example@example.com. (updated Jul 2021)

Non-listing email

Non-listing website

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

External links for in depth information from official sources?

Example :- https://visitlondon.com/traveller-information/getting-around-london/walking

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

Official sites can be linked; it's all the secondary sources that are not official (YouTube, etc., etc.) that cannot be. Please read Wikivoyage:External links, particularly Wikivoyage:External links#What to link to and Wikivoyage:External links#What not to link to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I've sometimes included links to official sites with more detail. Examples are at Taxila#Excavations and Shanghai#Understand:

For a more detailed history, see the Guide to Historic Taxila online at the Pakistani government's national heritage site. The story given there is considerably more complex than just the three main excavated areas mentioned above.

There is an Encyclopedia of Shanghai, in English, that is available both as a book in local bookstores and online at the municipal government site. Much of it is rather boring — statistics, photos of the officials in charge of each development project, and project descriptions that give much financial and engineering detail — but there is also some quite useful material. For example, it has detailed descriptions of every museum and park in the city.

I think policy allows this and it is sometimes quite useful. Pashley (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Change proposal: Official destination links

Following discussion in Travellers' pub#What is the best way of linking to tourist information sites?, I propose changing the relevant section to below (Edinburgh example need no changes):

Official destination links: If one or more official/semi-official websites exist for the destination, they should be linked at the end of the lead section with appropriate explanations: name of the site, languages used, well-maintained or not etc. (This policy was changed in 2024. It will take some time to implement this change.) Hnishy63 (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

To make things simple, they should be linked in the Understand section, or in the absence of one, at the end of the lede, as you suggest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the goal of this proposal. It includes a few changes, but the main one seems to be putting the links at the end of the lead instead of the "Understand" section. I'm not a big fan of that idea, at least not as described here. In my opinion the lead is intended to draw the reader in, introduce the destination, and give a sense of what's interesting and distinctive about it. It's a place for descriptive prose that's fun to read. Practical details about a website ("name of the site, languages used, well-maintained or not etc.") shouldn't go in the lead, and I wouldn't want the Edinburgh example (multiple links and a listing with a street address) to go in the lead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan Kekek (i.e. the status quo). It makes things far better when there are multiple sites to link (e.g. Mount Aspiring National Park). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

But some articles, such as Kagoshima (prefecture), have long Destinations and Understand sections - a link at the end of Understand section will be missed easily. Many of our pages, especially those for non-Anglophone country destinations, are out-of-date or simply insufficient - professionally maintained site(s) are more useful for the reader in such cases. Could you give the editor more discretion? I don't stick to my proposal of "at the end of the lead section". Anywhere early in the article is okay.--Hnishy63 (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to emphasize the link so much, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Particularly because we're also a travel guide. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at Aomori (prefecture), having the outside link being given top billing in the article is really off-putting. While I prefer linking it in the name without direct mention, I think the suggestion to put it under "Tourist Information" in Understand is tolerable. Having it in the lede and this whole push to encourage readers to use other websites just makes it seem like we're embarrassed of our own guides. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned about the statement that " a link at the end of Understand section will be missed easily". If everything that is considered to be important is going into the lead paragraph, then we could end up moving "Stay safe" to the front, along with emergency numbers, consulate information, lists of ATMs, etc. "Understand" is the second section of the article. That's still pretty high profile. Ground Zero (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to point out another factor: languages. Even when our article is good enough, official sites may have other language versions. For example, Kagoshima prefecture's official site has two additional languages (Korean and Vietnamese) than us. A Korean tourist with en-1 or 2 may find our page and click the link - he can read about Kagoshima in his native language. The link should be more visible in such cases. Hnishy63 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that people who are reading English Wikivoyage do so because they are comfortable reading English. If they are looking fir information in Korean, they are going to be reading Korean Wikivoyage, or using a search engine. Wikivoyage is not a link farm. Ground Zero (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Their article is available in 6 languages, our Kagoshima (prefecture) is available in 8 languages - if your preferred language is German, Italian or Spanish, you may prefer to stay with WV. AlasdairW (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Ikan. Having it end of Understanding is useful, but it would be overly distracting at the end of the lede and reduce its impact as an invitation to delve in further. Mrkstvns (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be at the end of Understand for City articles and others which have Understand as the second section. For Countries and Regions where Understand is further down (and sometimes quite long) having a single link (tourist board) at the end of the lead is good, but additional links or physical offices should be in Understand. AlasdairW (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with AlasdairW, the main problem is with Regions (as for Japan, Prefectures). Anyway, it's clear there is no community-wide consensus :). So this part of the policy has a weaker basis than others. I will use my discretion to put these links at where I think best. "Traveler first" policy has a much stronger basis, I believe.--Hnishy63 (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The status-quo bias on this site means that in the absence of a new consensus, the links to official tourism sites stay in "Understand." I don't see why it would be important to put them anywhere else, nor why it would be a problem that that section can be somewhat down the page in some articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

In Januari 2006 Wikitravel, now Wikivoyage, started having links to an official website of a destination in the first words of the lead section. So long time users are up to 18 years used to have such a link at that place. Such reading users (not editing) have not seen the changes in this page because they don't know it, and are not informed about it. (There should have been warning messages about changes to come when using those links.) So, when reading an article of a for them new destination that has the link moved to the Understand section, they think there is not such a website for this destination. Changing [[https://www.website.com|First words of the article]] to [[#Tourist information|First words of the article]] could be a good alternative, specially for the mobile view. --FredTC (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't agree with FredTC's proposal. I just don't see why linking to another travel information site would be the first thing a reader sees in a Wikivoyage article, whether directly or indirectly. Wikivoyage has come a very long way in providing information to readers since that style became commonplace. We should continue to include the link to official tourist websites as an exception to our general rule of not linking to other travel guides, but not putting it at the very start of the article. Ground Zero (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I too disagree with Fred's proposal. It seems very deceptive and appears as if it links to another article. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. If the consensus is to put it in the Tourist Information section under "Understand" then we should put it there. We don't need any further links to it. The official website should not be considered an essential part of the guide. It shouldn't even matter if it's not there at all. Adding information to Wikivoyage is infinitely more important than adding official website links to articles. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it might help if we said that the links should be in a "Visitor information" sub-section of Understand. This is what the example shows, but it isn't spelt out in detail. If the links are in a sub-section then it can be found from the Table of contents links on the banner, which I think might address some of the concerns about them being hard to find. AlasdairW (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My main concern is the user. A change that affects thousands of users is discussed by only 7 users is now being performed. The place where this is mentioned is only this discussion page and after consensus there was a change in Wikivoyage:External links. So this change is "law" now, but who knows this? It is very unlikely that read-only users will ever see this. But even most editing users will not notice. If they know the page "Wikivoyage:External links", they might have seen it only once, years ago; it is not the kind of page you reread often. And now changes are done without a (visible) implementation plan. Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates would need some changes, but until now they remain unchanged. And yes AlasdairW, the ToC in the banner is helpfull ... if you know about the change ... and you are not a mobile user. "Traveler first" is not what I recognise in how thing are done now. Another thing is the used terminology "official tourism website links", the links in Delft, Rijswijk, Schiedam and more, are official websites of the local governement, telling you things like which counter in City Hall to use when. I want to say "I agree with moving those links" because it is possible to have more such links in one article, but I also find it very important that more attention is given to the fact that "links in the first words of the lead section" is something existing 18 years and that themobile user is not forgotten. --FredTC (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

But adding sublinks to the lede is also a change that affects thousands of users. Most policies work like this, and requires user participation. and I fail to see how this is different. Change is inevitable and is something that needs to be embraced – a policy existing for 18 years does not make things any different. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, over the last 18 years, Wikivoyage has evolved from being a concept if a travel guide to being an actual travel guide. A link to am official tourist info site is not an essential piece of information that has to go at the very top of an article. Policies will always be set by the few who choose to participate. That fact cannot be a barrier to changing policy . Ground Zero (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

(indent) While I disagree with the notion that change "needs to be embraced" since I believe good and bad changes are both possible, an alternative solution is to not require official links at all. If they have value, such as having special tour reservations, they would be linked where the tours are mentioned but otherwise we could just treat official websites as travel websites (which they are) and just not link to them. Then we don't need to worry about any of this anymore. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the links somewhere, especially for park articles, as the official website is the only source that gives up-to-date and emergency information. The key word here is somewhere; that somewhere isn't the lede. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Also for cities & al, the tourist web site or tourist bureau (or those missing, the municipal site/office) can be very useful when our information is lacking or outdated, and when the traveller wants services we don't list (such as tours). I think it is an "official site" as good as any that we accept in our articles. The Understand seems the logical place; when the Understand is short I don't think we need a subsection, the listing suffices. –LPfi (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hear, hear! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Reconsidering links to municipal websites

I think we should reconsider our policy on external links to government websites. Right now we say,

"If a destination maintains separate websites for tourism and for civic administration purposes, both may be linked in the Understand section and should be identified clearly."

An enthusiastic new contributor has been adding municipal government websites for small towns on Colorado. Here are a few examples:

• Arvada, Longmont, Westminster (Colorado), Pueblo, Grand Junction

These sites address waste colection, paying utility bills, and notices of council meetings. Sonetimes they have business development infirmation, parks and recreation info, and library hours. Some of this may be of tangential interest to a few readers, but it is for the most part out of Wikivoyage's scope.

If we are providing a link to our readers, that link should provide information relevant for travellers. Do travellers really come to Wikivoyage looking for information about local oarks and libraries? If we think they do, we should gave that information in the article, and not send them to a website dedigned to provide information to local residents.

I don't have wording to propose at this point, but I want to get feedback on whether there is interest in clarifying that municipal websites should be included only if they have a section for information for "visitors" or "tourists". Ground Zero (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem is the great variability in the information provided on government websites. Some village (community or parish) councils have useful websites. There may not be a visitors section, but there may be a page on the village history and a page of local businesses by type where hotels and B&Bs are easy to find. Of the Colorado examples you gave, the one for Pueblo has useful information, but the Visit Pueblo page linked from it is more useful. Another thing to consider is how often the website is updated - will it tell me if Main Street is shut today due to a burst water pipe? AlasdairW (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I think having a link to the local government website is useful, even when there is no tourist information. Places that don't have a tourism website (or section) are mostly small enough that the culture secretary answering the phone might be happy to tell you that Johnny Doe has an extra room he sometimes rents to travellers, and that there will be a nice concert in the church (and warn you about the road breakage). They can tell you how to find a taxi, whether the bus really doesn't stop at the village you want to visit and whether the shop there still is in business. And when the tourism website appears, it will probably be linked from these pages. –LPfi (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree with that. Just as we have links to sister site articles, we should have links to municipal sites as references, if nothing else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they're fine to include for the reasons AlasdairW mentioned. They're not hugely useful for travel information, but they're great (and have helped me a few times in Tasmania before) for local updates. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the best way of linking to tourist information sites?

Swept in from the pub

On many pages, the placename as the first word of the text has a link to tourist information site embedded. This way of linking is not satisfactory, I think, for the reasons below:

1. The reader can't know what kind of website is linked before clicking. Some explanations on the site are needed: official or unofficial, what languages are used, well-maintained or not, etc. (In fact, some placename links lead to the local government's site, not a tourist information site.)
2. Some regions have more than one good guide site, say one by the local government and another by a civilian commercial organization.
3. Broken links can't be fixed easily without the site's name at least.

Isn't it better to put the link and explanations as the last sentence of the lead section? Hnishy63 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad proposal. I will say that re: issue 1, it's just our policy that the link is to a tourism site versus say a general government portal or a Wikipedia article or a Web directory, etc. so users should be familiar with what that first link will be based on it being consistent across the travel guide. That said, your point about link rot is valid and there could be templates and bots that can track this. Since our articles typically don't have sources or any other links minus those in listings (and those are at least tracked by the dates in the listing template), this could have some legs. As far as issue 2, do you have a proposal on how to fix the issue of there being multiple valid tourist info sites? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the first word of a Wikivoyage article should be a link to an external site. Let's try to get the reader to read a bit if Wikivoyage first. I agree with Hnishy that the reader shouldn't be expected to know what purpose policy us on links.

A better way that is used in some articles is to put a listing template for the tourism bureau in the Understand section so that it is clear what is being linked (e.g., Bobcaygeon). And there could be more than one listing template if they "have more than one good guide site", each template identifying which organizations is behind the link.

If the link is just to the local government because there is no tourism bureau, that should be noted. Ground Zero (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Putting links in Understand also allows linking to multiple sites if it's necessary which would otherwise seem awkward if it's in the lede (e.g. Mount Aspiring National Park). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all Hnishy's points & support the proposal. It seems to me unreasonable to rely on what "users should be familiar with"; we want the site to work for everyone & given that new editors (even some with much experience on other wikis) often need some advice on local conventions it seems foolish to expect that new readers will know anything that is not utterly obvious.

Having multiple links should not be a problem if there are several good possibilities; just label them as "tourist bureau", "municipal government" or whatever. For that matter, I'd include a WP link since the one in the sidebar may not be obvious to all users, and consider adding other links like a local expat forum. Pashley (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Hasn't this been discussed before? Wikivoyage:External links#External link usage says "If an official website exists for the destination, it should be linked to only once, towards the end of the Understand section. If a destination maintains separate websites for tourism and for civic administration purposes, both may be linked in the Understand section and should be identified clearly. (This policy was changed in 2020. Websites should no longer be linked in the lead paragraph, but since this affects almost every article it will take some time to implement this change.)" —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  Oh...a week ago, my addition of the official tourist information site of Kagoshima (prefecture) was confidently replaced with a first-word link by a more experienced user....Was I right? Hnishy63 (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion and the change of policy probably went unnoticed by some – not everybody engages in all discussions, and there are no wide announcements on such changes (perhaps there should be). If the tourist bureau maintains a tourist web site, I don't see why the bureau listing shouldn't be listed to that site. As I don't read Japanese, I cannot see whether the Yakushima Tourism Association (linked to as the English version of the first-word-linked site) runs the Yakushima Tourism Center, which has an unlinked listing in Understand (Yakushima was given as example in the revert summary). Perhaps ChubbyWimbus just hasn't noted the policy change?

  (I confess that I often link the place name as before in cases where I don't take the time to figure out details about a possible tourist bureau.)

  –LPfi (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In other words, above, I described the official policy, without realizing it was the official policy. We have a lot of policies, and often even experienced users aren't aware of all if them. Ground Zero (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I was not aware of this change, so I apologize.

To clarify a few things:

Are we no longer linking from the lede at all or is this just adding a link to the physical listing of the tourism bureau?

Would we list just a website if there is no physical place to go under "Tourist Information" or leave it off altogether?

The point about listing "multiple good sites" doesn't make sense to me. If a private organization or a personal travel website is better than the official tourism website, I don't think we should care. I think we should still just list the official one. It seems antithetical to our goals for us to scout the internet for better travel websites to send our users to. I also don't like the proposal of adding more Wikipedia links. I'd prefer less annoying Wikipedia links. I also don't like the idea of listing forums. We should be trying to get people to read OUR guides and to use OUR guides. If our own contributors don't think WV is worth using, we should discuss that rather than using WV to promote all of the guides we like better. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Visitor information section in Understand should include websites and physical tourist offices. The multiple websites listed should all be official (primary) sources. In many cases there will only be one, but there may be the local tourist office, the city government, the national park authority for the area (if the city is in or next a national park) and a national tourist office page on that city. They should not be other travel websites. AlasdairW (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've started to move tourism website links from the first line to the last line of the intro paragraph, identifying them as tourist office sites. I'm working on country articles and articles for capitals as a way of modelling the intended approach with high-profile articles. If anyone would like to join me in this, this would help change the norm Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. However, according to Wikivoyage:External_links#External_link_usage they should go at the end of Understand in Visitor information. I think that this policy only considered cities etc where Understand is the first section, and not countries and regions where it is much further down the article, and the end of intro may be a good place in that case. AlasdairW (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I added a change proposal on the Wikivoyage:External_links policy Talk page.--Hnishy63 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)