Wikivoyage/Lounge/Archive/2016-10

Kartographer extension

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T141335

As far as you know, there are many cases like it:voy:Pest#Altri parchi or en:voy:Budapest/Pest#Museums in City Park and Area where one kind of listing exceed the maximum number allowed of 99?

The old counting system didn't have this limitation and the explanation I've received is becuase the Maki icons do not allow number above 99. This limitation has been discussed and approved somewhere? --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Inside the Phabricator ticket I've inserted a temporary patch, although I still don't understand why the listing numbering that can be naturally managed by a CSS style has been demanded to a server script. The definitive resolution must be done server side. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata and official tourist website

I've seen that on Wikidata the property P856 is associated to the official administrative website (mainly populated through Wikipedia).

What about the official tourist website?

I've seen for example that the Bremen instance has merged these two data, but I think that would be useful for Wikivoyage to have two separated properties in order to retrive it easily when needed.

Could be worth inject this info into Wikidata?

In the affirmative case, it:voy: has stored in Quickbar templates such information, en:voy: has added it in the incipit of some articles, and maybe other language versions has those information available in some way.

Is there anyone skilled on Wikidata import bot that can take this task in charge? Let me know, --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess it is best to ask bot owners at Wikidata (d:Wikidata:Bot requests). However, first one needs to propose (and get created) the property which stores the official tourist website.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter, do you know which is the process to propose a new property? --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure, d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Sister projects--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to add further datails. Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter (and anyone else), if you think is an usefull information to have on Wikidata, I would invite you to take part to the discussion, otherwise the proposal risk to be abandoned. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, the page is on my watchlist, just did not have time to read carefully and respond.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

What do wikidata do when official administrative website and tourist website are the same? --Zerabat (discusión) 15:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Zerabat, Wikidata just store data. The problem is that we are not able to distinguish which is the touristic one. --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Currently there are two proposals on the table:

1. Create the new "official tourist website" property
2. Store the information on the "official tourist website" in the existing "tourist office" property (P2872). Considering that more tourist offices can exist for each toponym, we should mark one as "official"

Both need to be added to any toponym instance on wikidata once decided which is the best solution and for both is necessary to add the constraint (at least for checking/maintenance purpose) of unicity.

Please participate to the discussion on d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/official_tourist_website in order to determine which is the best solution to be applied. Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be ended with the agreement resumed here. Please adjust the sentences to make them clearer. Thanks to all that took part to the discussion. --Andyrom75 (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Populate Wikidata with official tourist websites

Is there any bot operator that is able to populate Wikidata with the official tourist websites? Detail of the request can be found here. --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The Wikidata Listings Olympics

• French Wikivoyage: 6031 listings with a Wikidata identifier property, 7590 listings with a Wikipedia identifier property
• English Wikivoyage: 4168 listings with a Wikidata identifier property
• Russian Wikivoyage: 2812 listings with a Wikidata identifier property
• German Wikivoyage: 1296 listings with a Wikidata identifier property
• Ukrainian: Wikipedia identifier property present in listing template, not counted
• Greek, Spanish, Hebrew, Polish, Italian, Portuguese, Swedish, Vietnamese: No Wikidata property

as of 2017, counted with the Wikivoyage Listings tool.
Wikidata could be used to:

• Cross-validate listing details,
• Factorize listing details,
• Fill missing listing details,
• Easily add new listings to articles that have too few (what transvoyage does right now),
• Generate static information pages for languages that have no Wikivoyage yet, such as Hindi or Korean,
• And many other things, new mashups appear everyday with Wikidata.

While every Wikivoyage has their own preferences on how far to go with Wikidata, having Wikidata identifier properties in listings is a starting point we should all strive for, I think :-)

Cheers! Syced (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

In Russian Wikivoyage, we do have Wikidata in listings.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Great! Is it the attribute called "wdid"? Syced (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Updated counts with yesterday's data. Syced (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for repairing the links--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I see great potential on this approach, but on the other side, an unskilled used have no idea on what wikidata is and which is the right value to add. It risk to be a time consuming activity for the patrolling users. --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

How could we do this in eswikivoyage? Do all the listings relevant to Wikidata? --Zerabat (discusión) 12:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zerabat: Not all listings are relevant, but certainly (almost) all attractions, and also things like airports and railway stations, are.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)