From Wikitravel

This turned out to be easier than I thought, so it's now in production on Wikitravel. 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. --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. -- Colin 16:06, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)

How about moving the regions to something like Template:hasRegions? Talk about some busy work. -- 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). Majnoona 18:21, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)

Or Las Vegas and Atlantic City. --Evan 20:39, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)

[edit] Nowiki Undereffectual

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? -- 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. --Evan 16:17, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)

OK, I think it's fixed now. Comments and nowikis should hide RDF code. --Evan 16:34, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)

[edit] Bi-directional?

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? 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 – cacahuate ^talk 03:03, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Not in "What links here"

Why are related pages are not in the "What links here"-overview? -- 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. --Peter ^Talk 03:24, 2 November 2009 (EST)

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

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? --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. -- 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. --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). --DenisYurkin 17:09, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Added both expeditions and region-related policy pages as well: [1]. --DenisYurkin 18:54, 28 January 2011 (EST)