Talk:Wikivoyage

Comments

If you have some ideas to improve the quality of this article, please write your proposals down or edit the article directly. --RolandUnger 08:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

More third-party reliable sources needed

I've tagged the article since many of the refs link to either Wikimedia, Wikivoyage, or Wikitravel. There needs to be more citations from third-party reliable sources. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

English Wikivoyage before WMF

Re: "What was the launching date of the Wikivoyage in English before it was part of WMF?", while there was a temporary server hosting the content (now here, it was never publicly launched and was password-protected for most of its life. Jpatokal (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. The passwords were removed in October, and the content was moved to WMF servers (and logins unified etc) to mid-November.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

POV

one that is undertaken without plausible legal grounds for the primary purpose of deterring, overwhelming, or frustrating people engaged in fully lawful actions. I, think this is POV. --Gajolen (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That looks to be the dictionary definition of strategic lawsuit against public participation, if I'm not mistaken. K7L (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That may be true, but this whole article, is IMHO largely POV. I think it is mainly the Wiki-administrator community that has seen the emergence of wikivoyage, for everyone else contributing and using this service the fork is largely negative. And without getting into the specifics of the case, encouraging users of a site to leave it, may cause intentional economic harm to the first party and thus be liable for damages. Therefore, calling the case SLAPP would in my view be POV. No, I have no affiliation to internet brands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.149.1.230 (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Abolition of the Slave Trade caused intentional economic harm. That doesn't mean that the plantation owners should be awarded economic damages.

What you don't seem to realise is that IB does not own the content. It belongs to the authors, who have every right to take their ball and go home. As the frivolous litigation was intended to impede a perfectly lawful activity, it is SLAPP. Unfortunate that funds from a non-profit educational charity should have to be used to respond to the spurious allegations. K7L (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• See current discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Internet Brands. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Logo font

Hello,
What's the font name used for the word "Wikivoyage" in Wikivoyage's logo? It looks rather nice and i wanted to know.
109.65.136.140 (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lenka.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible logo change in future

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-06-05/News and notes. Chris857 (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The intro. is replete with history, which should be moved to the History / launch section

The intro. is overlong, and replete with historic details, which should be moved to the History / launch section, and consolidated with the information there. The intro. is overlong, the history is not germane to the average reader, and there is considerable redundancy between the history in the intro and the history in the history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs)

It doesn't look particularly long to me. Could you be more specific in what you think should be in the intro? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Censorship and SEO difficulties

Should the frequent censorship of opposing points of view (especially with regard to search engine optimisation) on Wikivoyage be mentioned?

[Even though it invariably has much better travel guides than the Wikitravel original, most searches still favour the original rather than the more innovative and better product of Wikivoyage because of the "dupe penalty".] 78.145.9.156 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Cite your sources first, I'd say - then we can discuss it more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What are "good" articles?

The table is confusing; it lists "good" articles and total articles. I wonder - perhaps Good means content pages? Or is it similar to Wikipedia's WP:GA high quality article? If the former, I think we should rename good to, perhaps, main or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

In Wikivoyage there are star, guide, and usable articles; good usually means guide. However, I guess (not 100% sure) the table lists indeed main space articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I also think good refers in this case to main space articles (content pages), so I have changed the column headers to clarify. I clicked on the link in the column now called articles to see where it went and it goes to a stats app. I may have got it wrong, so it would be good if someone can confirm. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)