User talk:Bluecoordinationfine Voyage Tips and guide

Hello, Bluecoordinationfine! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. New users are also welcome to post any questions or concerns to the arrivals lounge. If you want some practice editing, please do so on our graffiti wall. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here. If you want to contribute with information about the place where you live, see Wikivoyage:Welcome, locals. Pashley (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for creating such useful hiking articles. These are a great addition to Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot! I hope Wikvoyage can be an entry point for a lot of hiking trails in the future. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bluecoordinationfine, it's good to see a contributor focusing on hiking destinations. I notice, however, in many cases you've changed lively writing that helps convey a passion for travel into dull, lifeless "just the facts" writing. An AI bot could do that, and it's not what makes for a '''good''' travel guide. I would like to ask that you re-visit many of your recent edits and revert your changes. I don't really want to go through all your changes and do it myself, but they really are a degradation in quality. In the future, please try to use a livelier tone and style that conveys some excitement for whatever you're writing about. Regards, Mrkstvns (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Thanks for the feedback. I was under the impression that I was "doing it wrong" so to speak, when I read some of the other articles on Wikivoyage. This prompted me to make the change.

It's good to know that this is not what's expected, I'll do my best to improve this in the future. Are there any specific changes you're referring to? Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Have a look at Wikivoyage:Tone. Pashley (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link! I'll look through my recent changes. My reason for making some (if not most) of them is that the text was rather vague. In some cases, I also checked the information. For example, some descriptions listed "an open vista" or something similar, while the trail is mapped through exclusively forested regions.

At least the factual basis is good now. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for moving the listings out to the village and town articles. Those are better places for such listings. Ground Zero (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and thanks for the help as well! Some parts could definitely be improved, and I plan to review it again later, especially for a few of the towns in the Pyrenees. I’m also unsure about where certain listings should go. Refuges and mountain huts, for example, often feel more connected to the trail itself than to any particular town or region. Still, I’d prefer not to place them directly in the itinerary sections.

I saw that you could refer to listings like this: Hotel Saltsjöbaden, do you think that's the right approach for hiking trails as well? Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some people like that style of linking, others argue that the reader may be surprised by the link, and prefer to link like this: Hotel Saltsjöbaden in the [[Stockholm archipelago#Grand Hotel Saltsjöbaden| Stockholm archipelago]]. Use you judgment about which style works best in the context.

You could put a mountain hut or refuge in the article for the nearest town, but the only way to get to it is on the trail, so I don't know that makes the most sense. I think I would leave it in the trail article, but I am not a user of trail articles. You know better than I do.

By the way, I saw your comment about times and distances. While you may use an app, not everyone does. A Wikivoyage trail article is probably better for planning, while the app is better for use on the go. I think the times and distances would be useful for Wikivoyage readers. Ground Zero (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply! I'll keep the linking style in mind.

The thing that concerns me a bit about the durations, is that you can definitely go overboard with it as well. It's another way to describe a section of trail, so it would make sense for others to also add a km count, and then, why not add an elevation change as well? We'd end up creating the same kind of structured data that's also in the section headings, but in an unstructured way scattered throughout the text.

I was thinking about whether a wikitext element would help there, so this data would be captured consistently. As an example of an imaginary wikitext element:

A side trail from point A goes to Pretty Mountain B {{duration=3|distance=12|elevation_gain=100|elevation_loss=100|units=metric}}.

If there's no structured element, I worry that it might become hard to read, so then it feels safer to avoid creating this situation, and let users handle it using hiking apps (OsmAnd etc.). For now, I'll keep the durations in the text. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for your improvements to these articles.

I think elevation change would be a really valuable addition to trail articles. I like your idea of a template. That could be really useful. Ground Zero (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hiya, regarding your question about Belgian coast by tram:

I find there's a great amount of flexibility with article skeletons. For destination articles, they very much are the only way to go about them. For itineraries and travel topics, however, there is more flexibility. If you follow the skeleton in spirit, it's often enough for it to get by. As the star qualification states for Wikivoyage:Itinerary status: "The format either matches the manual of style exactly, or is the exception that proves the rule." That last bit can be interpreted different ways, but I take it to mean that the article skeleton is a rule of thumb, and can be moulded to the subject matter somewhat, say for better navigability of the TOC. Belgian coast by tram being allowed that star status more or less confirms that interpretation.

I would personally happily omit the Go section altogether, replacing it with up to five sections, or a geographical division. The Pieterpad, for example, I would regroup along our hierarchy: Northern Netherlands (sections 1-8), Eastern Netherlands (sections 9-17), and Southern Netherlands (sections 18-26) if it were more padded out, which I have been meaning to do at some stage. I hope that answers the question sufficiently :)
― Wauteurz (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Thanks for the answer! I asked out of curiosity/trying to understand itinerary formatting in general. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

You wrote that there are several associations maintaining hiking cabins in Norway. I have had the impression that DNT and its local branches dominate nearly everywhere. What other significant associations are there? We should tell about them in Norway#Hiking and Hiking in the Nordic countries (in one of them if convoluted, with a reference in the other). I assume Statskog isn't an association, but a governmental body, so quite different and not a reason to assume there are others. –LPfi (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey! You're right, the DNT is the largest association by far.

Statskog may not be an association, but they are a major provider of cabins. There are many local associations as well, for example: Mogressfjellet hytteforening (Umbukta fjellstue), Folldal fjellstyre etc. Maybe Fjellstyrene (as a category) could be mentioned.

I wonder if mentioning these would help though, it could just make things more complicated for readers. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Bluecoordinationfine.

A recent change now means that all IP addresses are no longer visible to most ordinary users. However, as per WMF policy, any user who has made at least 300 edits with an account older than 6 months may request the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) permission to view IP addresses of all temporary accounts for up to 90 days. You are receiving this mass message because your account is autopatrolled, or has patroller and/or template editor permissions, and have over 300 edits, and thus are likely eligible to request this permission.

Guidelines surrounding the use of the tool can be found at Wikivoyage:Temporary account IP viewer; if granted, you must also accept the WMF policy in your preferences.

TAIV permissions can be requested at Wikivoyage:Temporary account IP viewer/Requests, or on any admin's talk page.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is your challenge if you seek to fulfill it. I reverted your edit to the Damascus article as unhelpful in not providing clear information to travellers, thereby violating the most fundamental principle and raison d'etre of this site: Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first. Now, it could very well be that the information is no longer true after the civil war and fall of the Assad regime, but what I'm seeing in at least a couple of articles already is that you have been substituting vague euphemisms and circumlocutions in place of clear though sometimes sexist, prostitution-promoting or arguably tasteless descriptions. Any text that violates this site's Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy needs to be edited so as to be in compliance with that policy or deleted; otherwise, if you can substitute equally clear, useful language that says the same things as preexisting language in a more palatable way, please do so, but I will revert any text that turns clarity into opacity or a blur. And do please note that the sex tourism policy absolutely does not state that travellers should not be warned if prostitution is prevalent in a city's nightlife. I hope it's clear that I do not mean to simply oppose change, only to challenge you to find clear language that works for you and for the site in general.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fair points, I'll try to improve on it! I would like some help though. Most of the edits have focused on getting rid of listings where prostitution is mentioned, since that could be taken as a roundabout way of obtaining it. I was wondering about this as well while doing it. Wouldn't it be better to simply mention the general areas as 'red light districts' if any? That way we give the heads-up without making specific venues look like recommendations for it. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Had another go, have a look! Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I like your current phrasing, if it's accurate, which I don't know. I appreciate your work on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

No problem, and thanks for the heads up! As an aside, it looks like there's been a crackdown on both alcohol and prostitution by the recent government. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

You seem to use this phrase frequently: [1], [2], [3]. How will the reader know that you mean (I presume) the mid-2020s? Text in Wikivoyage dates as far back as 2003, so it could just as easily mean the early 2000s. And in five years, will "in recent years" be out of date? Yes, it will. Please don't use relative descriptions of time that will be unclear to readers and will go out of date soon. If you mean "mid-2020s" or "early 2020s", please write that. Ground Zero (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for the feedback. To be honest, I was mostly focusing on cleaning up the content, so I just kept the existing 'recent years' phrasing that was already there. I see your point about it getting dated, though. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

In those three cases, as the links show, you were the editor who added "in recent years" to the text. Please edit those articles to tell readers what time period you mean, and avoid using that phrase. Ground Zero (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done. What I meant was that in these cases the originals were already vague or contradictory about time — I just carried that over while cleaning up the prose instead of fixing it properly. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply