Talk:List of articles every Wikivoyage should have

Suggestions for prominent articles that should be added

Hey. I looked a bit on the list. Regarding Romania, Cluj-Napoca and Sibiu should definitely be included. As of 2019, Cluj-Napoca is the most modern Romanian city. Both Cluj and Sibiu are on the top list regarding cultural events. Recently, Sibiu was also the place of an EU Summit. Nevertheless, its huge history and its place in the heart of Transylvania makes it an exciting place to visit. Regards, Winter^eu 22:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, while I appreciate your intentions, I must say that Romanian Wikivoyage is not really an active project. Many thanks for your message, Winter^eu 22:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

On the long run, I am sure that at one point or another, romainian Wikivoyagers would pick up the work where it stopped, and create the Romanian Wikivoyage. It is only a matter of time. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I second the proposal to add Cluj-Napoca and Sibiu. Moreover I would add Hua Hin and Sukhothai; Bordeaux, Dijon, Nantes and Rennes; Brno; Lublin, Poznań and Szczecin; Debrecen, Győr and Szeged; Innsbruck; Berne and Lucerne; Aachen, Erfurt, Halle, Potsdam, Weimar and Würzburg. --RJFF (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

My two cents

My two cents on this:

• Subdivisions of cities are probably not top priority for a new Wikivoyage so they should not appear on this page. Completing the main city article itself would be a more preferable goal.
• The list of countries seems a bit arbitrary; we have Nauru but not e. g. Tunisia (even though we have its capital Tunis, why???). We should have either all countries of the world or make an educated guess about which are the most popular touristic destinations.

-- 109.91.35.133 10:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the good things about such a list, of the 1000 most vital articles, is that it forces the community to pick the articles deemd as the most relevant to travelers based on page view statistics and common sense. This means we have to choose some as being more important than other - for example, Florida over Iraq... or Machu Picchu over Syria. You might say though how could you even compare two completely different travel destinations to determine whom is in the list and whom is out - do you know all the destinations in the world that you could make such an assesnment? We'll, no one has traveled to all the destinations in the world, but still... using the page view statistics + our own common sense would help us determine which articles are more important to focus on than others for the benefit of our readers (and yes, I do think that more travelers would benefit from articles about Florida and Machu Picchu than Iraq and Syria.

For the especially large cities which are considered to be the cities with most tourists in the world I do think that presenting the more detailed sub-articles only for the most touristy areas of those cities might be very useful to our readers, and that this should be made a priority over writing articles about less touristy countries/regions/cities/towns. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Phrasebooks

In my opinion, phrasebooks of languages with only 2 or 3 million speakers or even less are not important enough to be on this list. There could be exceptions for tourist hotspots but even then it should be rare. According to the World Bank, Cambodia gets more international tourists than Estonia, Slovenia, Malta and Iceland [1]. So Khmer Phrasebook should be in before these other languages. DaGizza (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if that should be the rule here mainly because travelers don't necessarily go to the places with biggest amount of speakers for specific language (for instance, many regions of Africa...). In my opinion, it is therefore better to go with our common sense + Wikivoyage pageview statistics regarding which language phrasebook is more sought after among travelers. Nevertheless, we got 51 phrasebooks on the list, which changes do you suggest? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Splitting Destinations

Currently the destinations section is too big to compare and understand. I've started the split into continents, countries, regions, cities, national parks, etc. but there's a long way to go. DaGizza (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Will help you with this. Need to find the time. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Strange...

This is a mandatory list for all Wikivoyage... I understand that Wikivoyage came from a Wikitravel and blah blah blah.

But all communities should already have separate rules, priorities, cultures. This unique list fights against the liberty from the language communities idea, and this is not health.

I.e., it's quite bizarre Lusophone WY do not allow beaches (Brazil, Portugal, Mozambique, Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau...) all this countries have beaches as one of the main touristic points, and we all uses the names of the beaches as a place, we do not have a entry for Copacaba, for god sack... And the only volunteer that fight back against this addition uses a rule from a Anglophone WY (and he have a lot of time, and a sysop badge...). In the past we saw a lot of volunteers creating beaches entries, and all have being delete, now we do not see volunteers.

If the community do not follow the local culture, you will empty the community, as people will not feel at "home" to edit.

The priorities to a community is not the same for another, again, for Lusophone stand point how you do not have: Luanda, Maputo, Sintra, Manaus, Lubango, Ilha de Mozambique,...

This unified rules, this cross wikis interference, is not close to be good. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 07:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that local community know what is the best for their wiki. But also keep in mind this list purpose is to be a suggestion on what to focus the work of newer, less active or less content linguistic editions of Wikivoyage, nothing here is mandatory to follow. Maybe it should be mentioned why the listed articles are vital or essential that goes across languages and cultures. --Zerabat (discusión) 16:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

My input

Since every travel guide has a different public with different idiosyncracies, each language edition will not have the same way of work and offer the contents, as an user said above. Maybe lusophone readers expect to read articles about beaches and that is not wrong because an anglophone editor says "that is not how it should be done, you should do it as we did here in English edition".

But in tourism, travel and exploration, there are some topics that are inevitably unavoidable since are the core of the subject. A travel guide will have for sure some subjectivity, but trying to be open minded will lessen the collisions. This is my groups of vital articles that should be core or vital. By the way, it must not have to be tied to the number 1000.

(UNDER CONSTRUCTION - IT MAY HAVE SOME CULTURAL BIAS, so I'm working on it to reduce it)

• Topics
  • Core human needs topics: what to and where to do something vital to every person without prejudice of its backgrounds or features. These articles talk about subjects every human being will be interested to know. They are just basic needs every human has. The content of the articles does not have to be the same in every language, just have to be developed the way the linguistic community feels it should be due to their circumstances. Examples: eat, sleep, health, safety, transportation (how to move).
  • Core travel topics: most important travel and tourism topics. They should take in account all cultures. Examples: travelling by plane, customs and visas, weather, communications.
• Phrasebooks: This should not include dead languages with some active communities such as latin or classic greek, neither constructed languages.
  • Most spoken languages of the world. It does not need a lot of explanations. Large linguistic communities of dozens of millions and a lot of people to encounter with while moving. As long as you keep moving around the world, sooner or later you will met someone speaking one of these languages. You, native of a rural community in the south of Kenia, are travelling to Eastern China where millions speak a ununderstandable speach to you. Your culture is so different to their culture but you want to babble some words to be kind with and getting in contact to them. These languages also work as local or global lingua franca, so this other way make them more important to cover. Examples: English, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Swahili, Russian, Arabic.
  • Widely spoken local languages of places that are popular or mainstream tourist hotspots, points of exchange or international commerce, or travel destinations. Examples: Thai.
• Destinations: since this is about travel, what is a travel guide without destination articles? Since Continents are too much broad to cover anything substantially and how much changes the backgrounds within the same continent, I consider them lesser priority, being the only exception Anctartica that should be present along with countries, since there are almost no population there. Districts should not be in the list.
  • Countries of the world. No matter how popular is a country, every country has its own way of living, and so should be part of an universal travel guide. A local community could focus to work on some countries first or before others (for example, major tourist destinations, countries where the language of the community is spoken and countries where the linguistic community is used to travel to) but eventually every country in the world should be covered no matter what cultural background the editor or reader has.
  • Capital cities of the world. Most often they are the point of entry of the countries and where the most services are available.
  • Largest cities and metropolis of the world.
  • Places where the linguistic or cultural community of the wiki has a substantial expatriate population or strong links with.
  • Notable natural landscapes of the world or ancient buildings, etc. worldwide or regionally well known.
• Itineraries: this category will be the most cultural tied and therefore, most likely to be less populated due to cultural differences. I suggest to include only very popular and long time itineraries with significant universal cultural interest. Surely Route 66 is one of the most requested itineraries within United States, but should it be to far or non-western countries? There are richer itineraries that will have precedence before R66. Personally, I think none of the itineraries should be considered vital. Other than some established itineraries, most of the itineraries are suggestions by the editor or some organizations.

Later I will write the precise list of articles I think should be vital. --Zerabat (discusión) 17:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

My proposed list of essential articles (links lead to Wikidata items; "..." means the list is not completed yet)

Category	Subcategory	Articles
Destinations	Countries	...
	Regions	...
	Cities	...
	Other destinations	...
Topics	Core basic needs	Eat • Sleep • Health • Safety • Transportation ...
	Core travel topics	Visas ...
Phrasebooks	World languages	Spanish (Q1321) • Hindi (Q1568) • English (Q1860) • Russian (Q7737) • Swahili (Q7838) • Mandarin (Q9192) • Arabic (Q13955) ...
	Regional languages	...
Itineraries	Historical itineraries	...

--Zerabat (discusión) 18:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Districts

I would argue against the inclusion of district articles. First, the districtification of a certain city may be different in each project. Moreover, it does not make sense to create district articles before the main article of the respective city has enough "meat". Therefore, in my view, district articles may not be essential to every Wikivoyage project. Their priority is always depending on the state of the main city article. --RJFF (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Travel topics

The selection of travel topics appears very generous to me. I do not view e.g. Reasons to travel (which is not even an actual article, merely a list), Solar eclipses, Fishing or Outdoor cooking as vital articles that need to be included in each and every Wikivoyage project. --RJFF (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The same goes for phrasebooks. Why should e.g. Belarusian be considered vital, if everyone in Belarus speaks Russian and most Belarusians use Russian rather than Belarusian in their everyday life. Same with Irish: no one needs to use Irish, because every Irishman and -woman speaks English and only a minority speaks Irish, even among themselves. The urgency of Estonian and Icelandic also seems dubious as they are only spoken in very small countries and many people in these countries have a good command of English. Or Maltese: only spoken in a tiny country and Maltese are known to be mostly bilingual anyway. --RJFF (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)