YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel talk:External links"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
(Official links at the beginning of articles: same official link for a region article plus multiple sub-region articles)
(Official links at the beginning of articles)
Line 280: Line 280:
  
 
Do we also want to link to http://www.paradisecoast.com from the top of [[Everglades City]], [[Marco Island]], and [[Naples (Florida)]]? ~ [[User:203.144.143.4|203.144.143.4]] 15:08, 9 January 2008 (EST)
 
Do we also want to link to http://www.paradisecoast.com from the top of [[Everglades City]], [[Marco Island]], and [[Naples (Florida)]]? ~ [[User:203.144.143.4|203.144.143.4]] 15:08, 9 January 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
:I think we should only link subregions to dedicated pages for that subregion. So if there was a paradisecoast.com/Naples, that would be allowable, but otherwise multiple links to the same website across many pages seems too spammy to me. --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 15:18, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 20:22, 9 January 2008

Some things that have moved:

linking policy

The policy of not linking to local culture, news sites and blogs is a real disservice to wikitravel visitors. Locally-written sites help a visitor know and understand a city better than wikitravel or any travel guide ever could. This policy is extremely self-defeating. It also will discourage local sites from seeing wikitravel as a partner. The internet is all about interconnection and this policy is an anti-social one that serves only to pointlessly isolate wikitravel from the wider community. What is the process of having this policy changed? [re: zgberlin.com] --85.178.16.181 12:11, 29 January 2007 (EST)

The process for changing the policy is to discuss your opinion and to try to build a consensus that the policy should be changed. I don't think there is any disagreement that there are lots of good sites out there that would be useful to travelers, but it will be an uphill battle to change the current policy for a few reasons:
  1. We don't want our guides to simply be link farms for every web site out there with a remote connection to a travel-related service. This is a huge issue, and we need a clear guideline that allow us to police links easily.
the policy is simple: "If I was traveling to Berlin (or any other place) might I be happy to have this link? Wanting something simpler than that is unrealistic and a cop-out. This wiki is human edited, not machine edited. The ability to distinguish fuzzy categories is among the things that distinguish humans from machines.--85.178.2.208 14:56, 29 January 2007 (EST)
  1. It is very difficult to determine what is a "good" site vs. what is junk. As a result we've implemented the "primary site only" policy, which makes it crystal clear what sites are appropriate. It is not realistic to expect editors to extensively research every web site to verify its quality, so we simply state that if a site is not the official site of a hotel, museum, restaurant, etc then it should not be included in the guide.
how is this different for a news site vs. a hotel site, the hotel, museum, restaurant, etc could be bad too, or even fictitious, how are online sites of interest to travellers different or somehow more work to manage for quality? --85.178.2.208 14:56, 29 January 2007 (EST)
  1. There is also an incentive issue. We don't want to allow links to other sites at the expense of including content within Wikitravel.
I agree with this, but news sites and blogs are time-based dynamic content, wikitravel is evergreen data, they serve different purposes. Wikitravel can not give a personal impression of a city and what goes on there like a blog can. --85.178.2.208 14:56, 29 January 2007 (EST)
Please read the other discussions on this page, and if you have a suggestion of how the policy can be changed and still address the three points above please let us know. -- Ryan 12:27, 29 January 2007 (EST)
The policy should be same as the rest of the information on the page, if it is usefull to travellers it should be kept, "no reason, just policy" is an incredibly short-sighted reason to alienate the community news sites and the blogger communities, who could and would contribute to the success of wikitravel. --85.178.2.208 14:56, 29 January 2007 (EST)
There are hundreds of sites on the Web for aggregating lists of Web sites located in or related to a particular place. We have links to one such project, the Open Directory, as a service to readers. Aside from that, direct links to the sites and services we describe in our guides makes sense. Roaming further afield in our guides doesn't. --Evan 13:45, 29 January 2007 (EST)
Another cop-out. Might as well say they could just google it. Check this link: http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=berlin] Can you honestly claim that serves any useful purposes at all? Please let me know how many clicks it took you to find even 1 interesting news item or blog entry from or about Berlin? --85.178.2.208 14:56, 29 January 2007 (EST)
1. The correct link is [1] (which is on the Berlin page).
equally useless, please provide the click count I asked for to demonstrate the point. --85.178.2.208 15:39, 29 January 2007 (EST)
2. Right on the page is Cityvox Berlin, which looks sorta interesting.
sorry, I failed to see any news items or blogs on that site. Just a commercial listings site. I am talking about local community news sites and local blogs about the city. Sites that give you local flavour, that is exactly what I look for when I travel. --85.178.2.208 15:39, 29 January 2007 (EST)
3. To the extent that the dmoz links are uninteresting, it shows why we don't want to start collecting that sort of thing here. -- Jonboy 15:23, 29 January 2007 (EST)
It is exactly a lack of human editing for context that makes them uninteresting.--85.178.2.208 15:39, 29 January 2007 (EST)
You are wrong -- dmoz is edited by humans. That's why we're pointing at it: if they are "uninteresting" when their entire purpose is to make a human edited directory, imagine how much more poorly we will do the same job when our main purpose is to write a travel guide! -- Colin 16:35, 29 January 2007 (EST)
Sorry Colin if my comment was unclear, the key words are for context, dmoz categories are much broader than wikitravel articles, making it far more difficult to manage and entirely unlikely that they may produce a handy set of links for local community news sites and local blogs to match a particular wikitravel article, since that is not their goal.--212.91.238.97 04:07, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Policy Suggestions: 1. Only allow external links to sites which publish content under a compatible "share alike" license. 2. Have a maximum number so that after a certain number of sites is reached consensus is needed to replace one if a new one is recommended. 3. Perhaps have a link-back policy, only allowing links to site that link to wiktravel 4. Of course, the primary language of the site should match the page it is being linked from.

IMO, The above rules would be manageable and would eliminate pretty much all overtly commercial, bad or spammy content. --85.178.2.208 15:39, 29 January 2007 (EST)

85.178.2.208, I would second your ideas in theory--but it's even better if you have a number of news sources/blogs that, in your belief, complements wikitravel content in a proper way. Maybe having several examples in hand would make your suggestions even more convincing? --DenisYurkin 16:04, 29 January 2007 (EST)

http://www.zgberlin.com is the one in specific that I though would compliment the Berlin article, as I am involved with the project I know that the site is intended to be useful and interesting for those who are interested in visiting Berlin, as for others I might recommend a few of these: http://www.ethanlindsey.com/blog/, http://hermann.blog.com/, http://raskal.typepad.com, http://bowleserised.blogspot.com/, etc, these are the sorts of sites that I look for when I travel, finding hotels is easy, they advertise and have conspicuous signs, finding a place to eat is not so hard either, getting a feel for the flavour, tone and goings on in a city from an insider is far more difficult and interesting. --212.91.238.97 04:07, 30 January 2007 (EST)

85.178.2.208 and 212.91.238.97 is now: --Tricknik 04:12, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Reading through the different here's my suggestion:

1. As the internet is becoming a handy tool even while travelling one could consider certain blogs and personal pages as information sites like a physical existing tourist information. Thus such a blog's URL would be primary in the sense of hotels, museums, etc.
2. as WikiTravel is meant to be unbiased these external pages would be adding to the idea and information WikiTravel caters without breaking the rules on the page.
3. in return the bloggers (supposed to be locals) could add unbiased info to WikiTravel, which is one of the main rules anyway (don't make rivals, make friends). A certain special area would be needed, maybe even added to the templates like: Locals, what locals say - whatever..
4. The external link to the blog then could be in the sense "more of my local opinion"
5. the link back then could be in the sense "more general information about..."

All I am saying is - it's not either that or this, but something in the middle. But like advertisement in newspapers, these local opinions should be separate and not confused with general information in the "TravelGuide".

And for all those PageRankers you just invent a special format or make it a rule, that a NO-FOLLOW tag must be used..

have fun

SonarTom 13:15, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I like the idea of "opinion from real people's blogs" criteria, linking in return, showing it in special section and NO-FOLLOW (is it really pagerank-neutral?).
One question is to define criteria for that "opinion from real people's blogs". I don't think it should be from locals, BTW--as we're focusing on traveller's point of view (resident's point may be quite different for variety of reasons). --DenisYurkin 14:09, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Just a quick note to say that even when nofollow is enabled for external links it unfortunately doesn't usually have any effect on people adding links; most of the time people just want advertising for their site, and nofollow-or-not, having a lot of links out there accomplishes that goal. At the moment while blog links aren't allowed in articles it's generally considered OK to add them to talk pages, and Wikitravel Extra will allow a place for recording personal experiences.
Regarding any attempts to change external links policy, it's been stated repeatedly elsewhere, but any new external links policy must be totally obvious, and there hasn't really been a suggestion that meets that requirement. By "totally obvious" I mean:
  1. There CAN NOT be ambiguity about what is OK and what is not.
  2. It must be EASY for someone who is unfamiliar with the link or destination to patrol, since it's not reasonable to wait for someone from Jaboo to come along and say whether or not jaboo-nightlife.com meets a guideline. Similarly, if an article has fifty blog links there needs to be some way to determine when a personal blog by someone living in Jaboo is inappropriate.
The present guideline is overly restrictive, but it meets the "totally obvious" criteria. Until someone comes up with a new guideline that allows additional sites and still meets those criteria I don't see that changing the current policy would be a good thing. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:24, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
I think that we've done a pretty decent job of expanding space by adding a shared bookmark feature to Wikitravel Extra. That means we have a place for photo albums, blog entries, newspaper articles, and all that other stuff. It won't be there when you print out an article to take with you, but that's really a good thing. --Evan 16:16, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Maps

Should links to maps be allowed?

See also Mapmaking_Expedition

As long as there are none in Wikitravel itself, yes. Good maps, and route planners are sometimes hard to find. For instance, it´s not obvious that map24's route planner for Brazil is also valid for the whole of South America. These kind of facts are very useful for travellers. I think in general, these rules are too focused on rules. The question should first be "is this useful information for travellers?", which is a bit vague of course... Guaka (not capable of locating tildes)
No -- this is one of those things where we're supposed to be self-contained, and like the "don't extlink other guides" rule, we ought not lean on outside content while waiting for our own content to happen. -- Colin 02:33, 25 April 2006 (EDT)
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Wikitravel cannot ever hope to complete with pro-grade searchable map sites like [2] or [3], and links to these should be allowed. I do agree that ordinary "flat" maps can be ruled out. Jpatokal 02:39, 25 April 2006 (EDT)

I'm curious as to why the ban on links to "map services" in the first place. Sure, you want a printable guide, but you can get *far* more information with, say, Google Maps than you could ever capture into a single picture or a group of pictures.

For example:

* Getting directions from where you are going to be
* Finding obscure locations
* Huge amounts of detail that could never be captured by a reasonable sized map (for example, zoom in on Tokyo and scroll around)

In the case I've dealt with, for Japan, there's a huge list of campsites in Japan available (http://www.campjo.com/Campjo_AllList.asp). We're talking almost a thousand campsites. There's no way that these are all going to get their own page on here. Probably no more than a few will ever get their own page; perhaps a handful will have directions to them mentioned. Yet, knowing where campsites are is critical to backpacking in Japan.

By not allowing map links, we're, in short, making it more difficult for users to figure out where they're going. With Google Maps, they can paste the campsite addresses into the map and figure out where they are -- even figure out what bus stops they're near or how to get directions to them from a different location. It'd be a very helpful link to put alongside the campjo link, but it's currently not allowed. Sure, it wouldn't come up in printing -- but that's no reason not to add something helpful for those who could use it.

I see no good reason to force the handicapping of readers. Just my two cents. -- 70.57.222.103 22:24, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

It's not a question of handicapping anyone; they're just as able to consult online mapping sites as they are now. We just aren't hand-holding anyone, by pointing them there. The reason is based more on the fear of limiting Wikitravel: linking to Googlexpedia for a map is (fundamentally) no different from linking to Rough Planet for accommodation listings. Sure, that'd be a handy shortcut, and it would useful to the (online) reader in the near term, but it would effectively stifle the motivation to produce our own accommodation listings, which we could distribute offline. Same with maps: a free-as-in-speech map is better than a free-as-in-beer map. (analogy explained) I'm not dogmatic about that preference (and I realize how daunting a task it is to produce maps for these articles), but if we're going to link to external maps, that has to go hand-in-hand with a decision to mothball the Wikitravel:Mapmaking Expedition. - Todd VerBeek 19:02, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

I'd like to bump back this discussion, especially in light of IB's new ideas over at Shared. While I agree that external links to mapping services for individual listings are bad for the reasons listed above, the Get around section should list the one (1) best interactive mapping service for the place. For example, Helsinki has a great online map run by the city itself [4], and Singapore's Streetdirectory.com [5] whups the butt of the competition. The "evil competition" argument just doesn't fly with me here: the Mapmaking Expedition's goal is to produce tourist maps, not massive searchable online databases of every single residential street in the city, and Helsinki and Singapore both already have WT maps, making the argument doubly moot. Jpatokal 23:42, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I think it's clear that there are a lot of external links out there that would be useful, but we don't have any way to easily figure out where we draw the line between useful and not-useful. I don't think there's any way we can create a clear set of guidelines for that situation that is less stringent then the current "primary links only" guideline. The only alternative I can think of is some sort of external link nominations page. That would be a lot of overhead for something as simple as an external link, but it would at least give us a way to deal with some of these "hugely useful but non-primary" cases that come up.
If that idea is something people support I'd suggest we come up with criteria for what should make it through a nomination process. First thoughts are that a link should provide a service that is out-of-scope for Wikitravel (and WikiExtra/Wikipedia), something that provides an obvious service or benefit to travelers, and something that at least three Wikitravelers support with no unaddressed objections. There should be more - those are just some ideas. In addition, I'd suggest some sort of template to use when including these links so that we can easily track what's gone through the nomination process - something like {{extlink|url|text|pointer-to-nomination}}. That's a LOT of overhead for a simple external link, but it would also keep the barrier for entry for external links high while keeping patrolling easy. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:27, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Jani, can you propose an alternative policy for us to evaluate? I presume you want something that allows Streetdirectory.com (since you reverted my removal of it), but do you want this sort of edit? I'm generally pretty hard-line on external links, but I'm willing to keep an open mind. --Jonboy 18:14, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Frankly, at this stage, I'm beyond caring how we approve the extlinks, as long as it's done. I've previously suggested just allowing one of each for maps, restaurant guides and nightlife guides, but Ryan's style would be more flexible in the long run and easier to monitor. I'd cut down the "votes" needed to two though. Jpatokal 23:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
If we go with a nomination process here are some criteria that might be useful:
  • External link must provide a service that is out-of-scope for Wikitravel, Wikipedia, and WikiExtra. That means no links to personal travelogues, photo galleries, or travel guides. Sites that might be OK include online event calendars, location-specific booking engines such as Expedia or hotels.com, Jani's interactive map example, or something like the "how to get your money back in the case of getting duped in a gem scam" site that is referenced elsewhere on this page.
  • The site must provide an obvious benefit to travelers. If there is any question as to how the site would be useful to the average traveler, it should not be listed.
  • At least two Wikitravel users must support the nomination, with no unresolved objections. In the case of objections, consensus determines whether the link is appropriate or not.
  • Webmasters should not list their own sites. If a site is useful for travel then users of that site will eventually nominate it, and this helps prevent Wikitravel from being used for advertising. This one is a guideline that would be impossible to enforce, but it's probably worth stating just to make it clear that Wikitravel isn't an opportunity for webmasters to improve page rank.
  • Nominations must be listed for at least one week before the link should be added to an article.
  • Once approved the nomination should be archived, and the link can be added to an article using a template that contains the link, the link text, and a pointer to the nomination. That will make patrolling easy.
  • Removing a link would be the same process in reverse: consensus to remove, with a minimum one week waiting period.
  • I'd suggest the nomination page be named something like "Wikitravel:External link nominations". Having a single page will make this easier to manage.
  • Links should be nominated for addition to ONE article. Just as an attraction is listed in only one place, an external link does not need to appear in numerous articles.
That's a ton of red-tape for approving something as simple as a URL. I'm not hugely excited about the idea, but if it addresses some of the concerns with the current policy then it may be worth the hassle. Thoughts, additions, flames, other? -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:42, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
I support the overall idea and Wrh2 nomination process, with only exception:
 :Webmasters should not list their own sites.
Beyond non-enforceable, we should also welcome useful links regardless of their initiator. If there's anything wrong with the link, the rest of the procedure will prevent it from appearing. If a better link appear for the same purpose, it will quickly remove the previous one. The only problem is to have enough eye pairs to expect objections--what about requiring that article should be at least Usable status? --DenisYurkin 03:56, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
OK, now that I've trimmed this page down to size so I can *find* this discussion again...
Is "WikiExtra"="Wikitravel Extra"?
I generally oppose the idea, but I am sympathetic to the desire to try this out.
If we're going to go forward with this, could we test it out on a subset of Wikitravel first? E.g., Mid-Atlantic (United States of America) or Western Europe, so that it's easier to roll back if it turns out poorly? --Jonboy 11:18, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm generally opposed to the idea as well, but would suggest a longer comment period if it goes forward--say two weeks. Also a requiement of 3 people supporting. OldPine 16:14, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

deletion of last "External links" sections

I just deleted the sentence "Although some older articles still have an external links section, these sections are currently being removed" because (as far as I can tell) there are now only 4 such articles left:

  • Cheap airline travel in North America - Todd VerBeek 16:58, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Discount airlines in Australasia - deleted (12 August 2006)
  • Buying or renting a car in Australia - the last "External links" section heading, removed 28 April 2007
  • Renting a motorhome in New Zealand - moved into other sections (12 August 2006)

plus

  • Aberystwyth - moved to Talk:Aberystwyth (22 July 2006)
  • Driving in Australia - moved most into other sections, deleted remainder (12 August 2006)
  • Electronics and entertainment shopping in Thailand - moved into other sections (12 August 2006)
  • Hitchhiking in Europe
  • Leuven - moved to Talk:Leuven (22 July 2006)
  • Orkney Islands - moved to Talk:Orkney Islands (22 July 2006)

~ 125.24.3.14 16:18, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

Vacation Travel Guides Content Approval

Archived from the Pub:

My question to you guys, is that we would like to provide this content to WikiTravel if we could post a link back to the original source. What do you think?

Below are some examples so you see: (forget everything at the bottom of the guide, that’s something I added on, so just look at the main content excluding the bottom links they do not go with it)

View Maui Vacation Travel Guide

View Key West Vacation Travel Guide

View Kissimmee Vacation Travel Guide

View Gatlinburg Vacation Travel Guide

View Hawaii Vacation Travel Guide

What do you think of these and do you think we could essentially contribute these and a lot more to WikiTravel? I am not completely familiar with WikiTravel and I didn’t mean to bug you but would rather contact you as I see you edit information then just spam the wiki page for each city asking for help.

Please get back with me or forward me to the correct location and how to submit.

Thanks and have a great day!

The above is from User:Richhoward and his user page covers the licensing issues. I think we should try to work out how to use these contributions, but there are problems in relation to policies like Wikitravel:Don't_tout and Wikitravel:External_links. Pashley 09:53, 14 November 2006 (EST)

No other comment, and no contributions from the user, in some months. Can someone who knows Hawaii take a look and work out if there's valuable stuff there? Mostly advertising, but some of it might be worth taking or linking to. Pashley 23:39, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The problem is that form of attribution he's requesting doesn't fit with the ex-links policy. He gets a gold star for being a nice guy by asking rather than spamming, and even though the statement on his user page technically authorizes us to start copy-pasting and attributing the source only in the edit summaries (i.e. no links), I don't think we should. - Todd VerBeek 09:38, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

External links

swept in from the pub

Hi Ryan so I cand post only pages for south america, i Post the chat becouse I see people posting it also so i figueroa i do it. Thank you Giovanna I don't knnow How to send messages on here" Sorry

Please feel free to create or edit pages for any city in South America or anywhere else, but you may want to read Wikitravel:What is an article? first to understand what topics normally get their own articles. In addition, Wikitravel:External links has guidelines about what types of sites we normally link to - a short summary is that we discourage external links unless it is to the official site for a hotel, museum, or other primary source that is in an article. Thanks for contributing! -- Ryan 21:29, 18 November 2006 (EST)

links to current exchange rates

We have the following piece for checking exchange rates in Egypt:

Online rate check: USD | GBP | EUR | AUD | NZD | CAD | JPY | INR |

I wonder whether it complies to ExtLinks policy, or maybe should be just removed? --DenisYurkin 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like it doesn't comply. If necessary, we can give an approximate exchange rate in the text. If someone's off-line, it's more useful than the links. If they're on-line, they can just Google the exact rates fairly easily. --Jonboy 18:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
No! I pretty much agree with what Jonboy said, though I'd really like to see my tech request become implemented to solve part of the problem. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 21:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, I'd possibly support something that actually shows the current rate/cost, but not in the form that is shown above... I've come across that recently on a few pages... they should probably go... Sapphire, I think your tech request has potential, but that's not my area of expertise... looking forward to how it develops though... – cacahuate talk 01:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Google Transit

For areas where the public transit is serviced by Google Transit, is a link to that kosher? --Improv 13:30, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

We typically just don't lean on external services like that. --Evan 15:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Guide services

Is it appropriate to link to guide services? I don't mean online travel guides that compete with Wikitravel but websites of people that work as travel guides. If it is appropriate, where should such links go? To exactly understand what I am talking about, take a look at article Lucerne. Tristram Shandy 13:23, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

This is a bit of a gray area, as are travel agencies in general. I'd be tempted to say they are OK, because a good guide/agency can be invaluable, but it's a definite slippery slope because most larger cities have hundreds and it's difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Jpatokal 13:31, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Use short readable links - tinyurl.com

As a Newbie who's made a few mistakes with external links (hey, I have to learn somehow!), I have been directed to the External links part of the MoS.

One of the sub-sections here states that we should try to use short readable links wherever possible. Something that may help here and that people may not be aware of is a site called http://tinyurl.com. Baiscally it provides a shortened version of any url entered (for example, the url http://tinyurl.com/3b4ykj links to http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel_talk:External_links, i.e., reducing a 55 character link to one of 25 characters). The longer the original website page is, the better value the tinyurl link would be.

Are these links allowed? I think they'd be very useful, particularly if a traveller prints off the guide, but then wishes to check out a website. Any thoughts? --The.Q 10:09, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

P.S. Just to point out, I'm not in any way affiliated to tinyurl, but I do use the service, and find it very handy.

--The.Q 10:09, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

I believe that "short, readable links" is meant as a way to tell people to use http://www.example.com instead of http://www.example.com/somedirectory/someurl.html. Using tinyurl would make it more difficult to police links to make sure that they actually go to the official site of the place in question - currently I can tell that http://disneyworld.com/ is likely the official site for Disney World without clicking on the link, but I couldn't do the same with an article filled with http://tinyurl/12345 links. The idea is good, but the implementation would likely end up being more work for those patrolling articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:36, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

WorldFlicks [6]

Please see the discussion at User talk:RonaldR regarding links to this service. Due to my sense of fairness (and well-known wishy-washyness), I'm soliciting comment on external links to this before it becomes an edit war. OldPine 06:43, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't think links to WorldFlicks are appropriate. It's a nifty idea, but it's not an official site for anything, nor is there much to distinguish it from a link to my image gallery or Flickr itself. Jpatokal 07:37, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
I agree. Best wishes to the people who run the site, but Flickr "selected by millions of users" is still Flickr. Gorilla Jones 11:02, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia "Different subject" links

Can anyone provide an example of an acceptable Wikitravel:Links to Wikipedia#Different subject link? - ie one that does not conflict with Wikitravel:External links#What not to link to? ~ 203.147.0.48 04:15, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

The only thing I can think of is linking to articles about the Wiki-Wiki web and how it works, and then only from the Wikitravel namespace. -- Mark 04:26, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
OK, lets revise that slightly - as before, but acceptable in a "Main namespace" article? ~ 203.147.0.48 04:32, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
In that case I can't think of a reason to do it. Remember these guides are meant to work when printed out on paper. Each guide should have a single interwiki link to the cooresponding Wikipedia article, and that's plenty, since the Wikipedia article will have lots of links going off to different things. If you want to add encyclopeadic information about a destination then that should probably go there, in Wikipedia. -- Mark 05:32, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Ah, now I see why you're asking. You're helping us get the policy page wording right. Thanks! -- Mark 05:36, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

wedding agencies

How do we deal with wedding agencies, and others "special occasion" travel agencies, like [mentioned in Santorini]? Is it just the same as any other external link to a booking agency, or someone sees a reason to keep them? (personally, I don't) --DenisYurkin 15:36, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

I can see how an exception might be made for a place that is an internationally famous place to get married, like Las Vegas, but otherwise I'd say kill it. The percentage of wikitravellers for whom that listing would be useful is bound to be extremely low, and no one should expect to find wedding planners for every destination in a travel guide. When people post chamber of commerce info about available venues for planning a massive seminar or conference, I delete it for the same reason. Texugo 20:35, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
I don't think evan Vegas should list wedding agencies or planners. Chapels and other places that actually perform weddings, though, are OK. Jpatokal 23:24, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, I removed links to wedding agencies from Santorini. --DenisYurkin 17:10, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Condo booking sites

Do we allow these? Refer specifically to Breckenridge (Colorado). If they also listed restaurants, I'd revert them without asking, but what if they do not? OldPine 15:55, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

See Wikitravel:Accommodation listings#Apartment listings ~ 202.79.25.170 06:44, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

further reading / movies on destination / music from destination

Please join the discussion in Wikitravel talk:Where you can stick it#BUMP recommended media. --DenisYurkin 02:55, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I'll join that discussion, but want to quickly note here that I don't think that external references are appropriate for these categories. --Peter Talk 03:24, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Official links at the beginning of articles

Where there's one official website for a region, and an official website that's linked to from the very top of the region article, should that same official link be placed at the head of each article for each place in the region?

Example - region: Collier County & official website: http://www.paradisecoast.com

Do we also want to link to http://www.paradisecoast.com from the top of Everglades City, Marco Island, and Naples (Florida)? ~ 203.144.143.4 15:08, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I think we should only link subregions to dedicated pages for that subregion. So if there was a paradisecoast.com/Naples, that would be allowable, but otherwise multiple links to the same website across many pages seems too spammy to me. --Peter Talk 15:18, 9 January 2008 (EST)