Template talk:No Wikipedia link

Rationale
(Copied from Script_nominations)

I have been working for the last week to add interwiki links to Wikipedia articles, to test out the scope of the problem. As a result, I'm convinced that there are thousands of articles which could be linked, but are not. Linking these articles would help collaboration between Wikivoyage and other projects, as well as helping drive traffic from Wikipedia via adding links there to Wikivoyage articles which are sufficiently advanced to be useful.

Although I have linked a substantial number of articles, there are way too many articles like this for one person to finish linking within any reasonable time. However, I believe that this task can be handled quite easily by crowdsourcing the task.

Accordingly, I have put together an experimental tracking scheme for these articles, with the intention of helping this process. It uses Template:No Wikipedia link, which generates links to the hidden category Category:Articles without Wikipedia links. The template also takes an optional argument which may eventually be used to add articles to per-country subcategories of this maintenance category if needed. As an experiment, I've added this template to Brouage and Tierra del Fuego National Park.

I would now like to use my bot to add this template to several thousand articles, to start off the process. -- The Anome (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support from me. This type of approach worked nicely when we were migrating images from wts, so there's a precedent for using bots to tag articles for editorial purposes. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 21:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Update 1: see Wikipedia:Template:Coord missing for another example of using a bot-generated template and hidden categories to crowdsource manual effort to deal with a similar task. -- The Anome (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Update 2: I've now scanned the most recent dump, and there appear to be over 6000 articles that are candidates for interwiki links to Wikipedia, but do not yet have them. That is both (a) quite a daunting backlog, and (b) a serious long-term opportunity to increase Wikivoyage's traffic visibility -- The Anome (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi -- is anyone here able to give me a second endorsement for this, so I can go ahead with the edits? Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. In your opinion have we exhausted all opportunities for automation here?  Have we done the interwiki thing to death (links to language versions linking to wikipedia language versions,  linking to en.wp?)  I'm not convinced that this is of a scale we can actually practically work with.  --Inas (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not completely exhausted, no, but I've already handled most of the really low-hanging fruit via automated matching. Doing this will have two advantages: firstly, it will help coordinate the process of manual matching, (which experience suggests can be much more effective than you might think, as some people love to have tasklists they can work their way through -- for example, I worked my way through around 500 such articles in a month, almost one-tenth of the whole job), and secondly, it will hopefully let me see patterns in what remains, and in the patterns of matches being done by people, to provide inspiration for more fine-grained automatic matching processes. Experience from en: Wikipedia shows that this combination of multiple human and manual approaches is highly effective: the Wikipedia:WP:COORD project has worked its way through hundreds of thousands of articles to date in this way. -- The Anome (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * More than happy for you to be right, of course. Let's see how we go. --Inas (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Links to Wikipedia articles are very needed, especially to prepare the ground for Wikidata, and also to one day benefit from the latitude/longitude info from Wikipedia. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this template still going to be used for something, or can we get rid of it? Texugo (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It does no harm and has an obvious use explained below (above). Remove the experimental tag. This whole idea of "template clutter" is problematical in a project like this where server space becomes cheaper every year and the maintenance cost of this kind of template is pretty well zero. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It only has a use if somebody is actually going to run the proposed bot. Otherwise it is indeed useless clutter. Texugo (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Some think patience is a virtue. Obviously there's a limit, but I can't see how this can ever be of use if the "experimental" tag means it's use is only supposed to be restricted to one article. Presumably got frustrated by the whole chicken and eggyness of this and the subsequent lack of action on our part by neglecting to remove the experimental tag long ago. Have you alerted him or her to this discussion? --118.93nzp (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is zero indication of frustration in the above discussion (copied from the script nomination page). It looks like everyone was ready to give this the go-ahead, but then it was somehow forgotten. I flagged the user in my Request for Comment post, but you appear to have removed that mention, so they probably did not get the notification. They should get the ping you just used above though. Texugo (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhh, you mean this edit of mine. My understanding of the notification system is that, if the Anome was going to be alerted by it at all, that would have happened just after you made your original edit. My understanding is that this kind of alerting task is exactly what the ping template is for. (Incidentally, my recollection is that you wanted ping deleted too.) Farewell! --118.93nzp (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Except for adding an @ sign, the ping template does nothing that a regular wikilinked username doesn't, but that is neither here nor there. Texugo (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Script for insertion of this template
Since this seemed to have unanimous support above and since User:The Anome seems to have disappeared, I have plunged forward and adapted an AWB script to make use of this template/category. Details are at Wikivoyage talk:AWB. Texugo (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Related Sites tool
Is there a tool to scan the articles in a country/region category and its sub-categories and list which ones do not have a ... or a ... entry? --Traveler100 (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Related question. There is a tag no Wikipedia link but this is not on all pages that do not have a Wikipedia link, is there a bot that updates this list, and if so who runs it and could they please run it again (maybe also with new tag for no Commons link)? --Traveler100 (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Template talk:No Wikipedia link has details on the bot that added the "no wikipedia link" tag. If the original bot can't be re-run then I could generate lists for missing wikipedia and commons links, similar to what was done for WV:Search Expedition/Missing links from Wikipedia, but I most likely wouldn't add the no Wikipedia link to individual articles since that would take longer to implement and execute. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 15:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK I see the source was a few clicks further. Not the method I generally use but I will give it a test later. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

to delete
This template is now redundant as replaced with wikidata check. All occurrences were checked and corrected if a false positive. Remaining uses, that are also listed in Category:Articles without Wikipedia links (via Wikidata), have now been removed. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/May 2018
Is now redundant as replaced with a wikidata check. All occurrences were checked and corrected if a false positive. Remaining uses, that are also listed in Category:Articles without Wikipedia links (via Wikidata), have now been removed. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete now that it is no longer used. Gizza ( roam ) 22:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no point in leaving redundant material on Wikivoyage. Selfie City (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Would that be consensus, then? Selfie City (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused. – Craig Davison' (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Outcome Delete --Traveler100 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)