This article has a non-English title, a Wikipedia-style format, and is just a long list in violation of Wikivoyage:Avoid long lists. I can't see how it could possibly fulfill Wikivoyage:What is an article. Is there any content that should be merged anywhere? Otherwise, we should just delete it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek This article serves as a guide to ferry travel in relation to the main article on the Stockholm Archipelago Trail. The trail spans 20 islands, making logistics a greater challenge than simply walking the route. Understanding the ferry system is key to navigating the archipelago trail effectively.

In Swedish, the term "replipunkt" refers to a mainland access point used for transport to specific islands. While it is an uncommon word even in Swedish, if there is a more fitting English equivalent, suggestions are welcome.

Swedish archipelago transport systems are primarily designed for moving people and goods between the mainland and islands, rather than facilitating long-distance hiking routes. As a result, the Stockholm Archipelago Trail, which follows a north-to-south path across multiple islands, does not neatly align with existing ferry schedules and infrastructure. This article aims to clarify the logistics and help travelers plan their journey. It is a complement to the main Stockholm Archipelago Trail article, which is still a work in progress.

Hope this makes sense! Ideas for how to improve connectivity between trail sections and recommendations on notable sights are highly appreciated. I have also begun a Wikidata project d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Stockholm_Archipelago_Trail and created several Wikidata objects SPARQL to support this effort.

- Salgo60 (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

So maybe it shouldn't be deleted, but it sure isn't an article, and it looks to me like it belongs as just a map in the Stockholm Archipelago Trail#Ferries section. If we really need such a long list, it would be of "ferry terminals" or "ferry landings". Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That was my first thought but as you say its getting to "big" being the first that has walked the whole trail I spent 90& of the planning just to get with the correct ferry. I gave up and just went back home after every section.....

• is there a way to expanding / collapsing a section on wikivoyage?

- Salgo60 (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Since I just moved a bunch of raw notes containing the pronoun "I" from Stockholm Archipelago Trail, putting them on that article's talk page in case any useful content can be gleaned from them and put into the right tone in third person, there is even more room to merge this content to the extent it's useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I also think you misunderstood something. I didn't say this content couldn't be used in a larger context, although preferably not in a long list format, which is why I suggested just a map. But I said that an article on this site certainly cannot be just a (long) list plus Wikipedia-style "Sources" sections and the like, which are not used on Wikivoyage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd say this clearly does not meet the criteria of Wikivoyage:What is an article? & should therefor be deleted. However it does contain useful information so the question becomes how & where to preserve that.

Just merge it into the main trail article? Make it a map as Ikan suggests? A sub-page of the trail article, treating it as supporting information as we do in Retiring abroad/Table? Pashley (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I too support merging it. //shb (t | c | m) 13:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

it does contain useful information question is if it presented in the best way.... I am the only one who has done a hike-through so I am waiting feedback ;-)

A maybe related question anyone who has experience how Wikivoyage and OsmAnd play together in the best way, they should have some support? I would like give the users the best experience when they are on the trail.... - Salgo60 (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like it could be "Get in" information. If it's too general to be used for the Stockholm Archipelago Trail article, maybe the Stockholm archipelago article is a better fit? Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek It feels I run into limitations of the numbering function (tried reset using counter=1 but didnt work) having a lot on one page see Stockholm_Archipelago_Trail I guess splitting the page into one per section would be better Question: is that ok? - Salgo60 (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd have to see what that looks like to pass judgment on it. Could you do a mockup of it as a subpage of your user page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek here is a version that has problem

As I write on Talk:Stockholm_Archipelago_Trail it looks like I will have

• 21 sections
• have about 400 marker points map / list

if its ok have feel more pages is better as all the sections are rather independent

• the discussion now is if pages should be hierarchical link

- Salgo60 (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what the right approach is here, just wanted to add that this is amazing work! Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Everything moved now see

Stockholm Archipelago Trail sections - Getting in

Alphabetical Arholma • Brottö • Finnhamn • Fjärdlång • Furusund • Grinda • Ingmarsö • Landsort • Lidö • Möja • Nåttarö • Nämdö • Ornö • Runmarö • Rånö • Sandhamn • Svartsö • Utö • Yxlan • Ålö North → South Arholma • Lidö • Furusund • Yxlan • Finnhamn • Svartsö • Ingmarsö • Brottö • Grinda • Möja • Sandhamn • Runmarö • Nämdö • Ornö • Fjärdlång • Utö • Ålö • Rånö • Nåttarö • Landsort

- Salgo60 (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't "moved". The pages have been copy and pasted to a new location with the original page blanked, losing both the edit history and the edit count. -- 80.47.43.223 09:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's no good, so Salgo60, please undo that, so if the content is moved, it's done the right way. Also, There seems to be a consensus at Talk:Stockholm Archipelago Trail that "SAT" should not be used as an abbreviation in article titles. All that said, it's obvious now that this content should not be deleted, just reorganized and renamed. By the way, I did like the old version of the Stockholm Archipelago Trail article that you linked above, except that several maps extended beyond the end of the text on my browser, and that is indeed a problem. But to sum up: No deletion. We need to keep this thread open longer per policy, I think? But I don't think anyone wants to delete this content now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek One more time what is the new naming schema

• I had e.g. SAT Arholma
• I changed to Stockholm_Archipelago_Trail/SAT_Arholma
• do you suggest Stockholm_Archipelago_Trail/Arholma

Please explain "please undo that, so if the content is moved, it's done the right way."

Copy paste and empty the page was the fastest way  ;-)

Just to be clear This is sections of a walking trail

• Arholma d:Q3772710 is an island / SAT Arholma d:Q133374147 the trail
• Landsort is a place d:Q133449160 BUT commonly used by people when referring to the island Öja d:Q294787/ SAT Landsort d: Q133449160 is the trail
  • why make it simple ;-)
• Yxlan d:Q6976423 is an island / SAT Yxlan d:Q133724250 the trail

.... as SPARQL https://w.wiki/EQs7

Salgo60 (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Renaming is done by using the move tab. Cut-and-paste moves break any formal connection between the two pages, so should not be done. However, when you split a page, you cannot "move" it to all the new places. Then please refer to the page being split in the edit summary, ideally using a permanent link to the appropriate version ([[Special:Permalink/nnn|Pagename]], where nnn is the oldid number). If redoing is too arduous, then put the attribution at the top of the talk page instead. –LPfi (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For each of the 21 former SAT pages, the content of page name A has been copy/pasted to page name B, and page name A blanked. Subsequently, page name B has been moved to page name C. The edit history and edit count for page name A has not yet ended up in the history of page name C for each of the 21 cases. 80.47.43.223 13:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For example SAT Svartsö has been blanked and now has an orphaned history which is about to be lost. The content was copy pasted into Stockholm Archipelago Trail/SAT Svartsö which has since been moved to Stockholm Archipelago Trail/Svartsö. The same is true for all ~21 of the "SAT" articles. -- 80.47.43.223 18:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It will need an administrator, or somesuch, to fix those 21 article histories. -- 92.21.141.198 20:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If there were no significant contributions from other editors, it doesn't matter that the history has been lost. Then these blank articles could now be nominated for deletion. AlasdairW (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Stockholm_Archipelago_Trail/Arholma would follow our standard naming scheme (of city districts, but probably appropriate also here). –LPfi (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good point I have the same problem on Wikicommons

I've been working on organizing information related to the Stockholm Archipelago Trail on Wikidata d:Q131318799. Rather than being a hardcore hiking trail, the biggest challenge is navigating between the different sections. I see this as an opportunity for travelers to explore and learn more about the islands along the way.

To support this idea. I’ve created a dedicated Wikidata project: d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Stockholm_Archipelago_Trail . The goal is to gather relevant objects that could contribute to a future WikiVoyage article about the trail, making it more accessible—especially for foreign visitors who may find Swedish-language sources difficult to navigate.

Additionally, I've been structuring content on Wikicommons related to Arholma:

• c:Category:Arholma
• c:Category:SAT Arholma

I believe that Wikidata entries should not only provide geographic data but also reflect the learning experiences each island offers. I approach this with a data-driven mindset ensuring the information is structured and useful for travelers and researchers alike...

If anyone has suggestions for improving accessibility or enhancing the project’s structure, I’d love to hear them! Salgo60 (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wonder a bit about how to split information between Stockholm_Archipelago_Trail/Arholma and Arholma. The latter is now a redirect to Norrtälje, but it could be a normal destination article, and information that would belong there should probably not be available only through an itinerary. This is no big deal right now, but at some point it has to be dealt with. –LPfi (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

My idea is that an itinerary serves as a way to explore and learn more about the landmarks in a location. With a data-driven approach, a single landmark can be featured both in an article about the location and in an article about a walking trail that passes through it.

As I understand Wikivoyage, its goal is to help visitors discover more about a place, and for those who enjoy walking, a well-planned route might be the ideal way to do so. By integrating these landmarks into Wikidata, it will become easier to create Wikivoyage articles in multiple languages.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this approach also aligns with the idea of making travel information more accessible, structured, and adaptable across different platforms and languages.

I feel the wikipedia community have the building blocks and an international community that recognizes the importance of consuming information in one's preferred language, ensuring a more inclusive and enriching travel experience for all. Salgo60 (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I strongly agree with your perspective concerning a data-driven approach. Having the correct data is a huge help to Wikivoyage readers and editors.

About featuring the same wikidata entries in different articles:

There are many wikidata entries that are shared amongst different articles as well now, see for example: Kungsleden, Nordkalottleden, Nordlandsruta, etc.

You can view the entries in these itineraries as "duplicate information", but I think it's valuable to have an article describing an itinerary completely, rather than it simply referring to different trail sections/cabins in order to avoid duplication. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The most important thing is that we gather the data overtime in e.g. Wikidata so Wikivoyage can build upon existing information rather than start from zero...

• maybe Wikivoyage is a natural fit with Wikifunctions ;-)

Salgo60 (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not familiar with Wikifunctions. However, if any listings are being duplicated in 2 articles, that is not in keeping with Wikivoyage:Don't tout, which limits listings to 1, normally listed in a city (park, etc.) guide and not an itinerary article. The solution would seem to be to refer readers of the itinerary guide to the relevant city guides for such listings, and maybe to now and then mention some store or whatever, but without giving it a full listing and instead pipelinking the relevant section of the destination article where the full listing is (for example [[Cityname#Buy|Storename]]. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, please, I do not think we need any aspect of Wikifunctions here. Despite it being a very small project, it is riddled with drama to no end (I've been abusively blocked there) and any attempt at cross-project cooperation will not work. Just a fair word of warning from someone who has dealt with Wikifunctions. //shb (t | c | m) 13:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage:Don't tout feels ok if its ok to use the Marker Template in the itinerary to help the user to get interested locations during the walk on a map? .... Salgo60 (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would agree with that for location purposes, but not a full listing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

How would that work for hiking trails? Would that mean adding cabin listings to a national park or region, and then using markers to refer to them?

This seems to contradict the principle to make articles self-sufficient, which I also read somewhere... Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Where exactly? And note all the things that either shouldn't be in country articles or are spun off from them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's mentioned here: Wikivoyage:What is an article?.

But it's not the one I was thinking of. I'm not sure what you meant with:

• And note all the things that either shouldn't be in country articles or are spun off from them.

Take the example of Kungsleden. The Nordkalottleden trail travels over part of the Kungsleden trail. Does that mean the listings should be split off, and put in Laponia, and both of the articles should refer to this article?

This would mean you could no longer print either the Nordkalottleden article or Kungsleden article, and set off on a hike. There is some valuable information captured in the listings. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

When articles become too long or unwieldy, portions of them are spun off. That's why some cities are districted and some countries have separate articles about cuisine, driving, train travel and so on. We want users not to be directed to sites outside of Wikivoyage for information that should be on this site, but we do make compromises when there is just too much to cover in one Wikivoyage article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you also make compromises the other way around? For example, as is now the case for the Kungsleden and Nordkalottleden (or Nordlandsruta) article?

There's not enough listings to justify spinning them off, probably. But the listings are somewhat shared between the articles, since the trails themselves overlap. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Without looking at the articles, if your description is accurate, merging the articles would be appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

They overlap only partly, and there are aspects that differ, so I don't think Nordkalottleden, Kungsleden and Grensesømmen (and E1) should be merged. One could offload some sections to one of them, or split off such common legs to their own articles, which could be shared without a traveller having to get all the (quite lengthy) other article. –LPfi (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the case of the Stockholm Archipelago Trail, I wonder whether the trail information could be included in an article on the island in question (such as in Do), and having the itinerary article foremost handle the more general information. –LPfi (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

[edit conflict]

The main problem with duplicated info is that whoever updates it may not note all places where it is, and making the same updates for the duplicate listings in three itineraries and a national park article very quickly becomes frustrating. One has to make a trade-off.

I think it is natural to refer to Nordkalottleden and Kungsleden for sections of E1 that coincide with them, but if it is one hut here, one there that gets duplicated it is a harder judgement call.

Often having the huts in a national park article is reasonable – hikers should probably read that article anyway – but Laponia is more or less an overview article, which cannot get into that much detail.

I have created articles for places like Kvikkjokk and Ritsem, which are relevant for several trails, to allow having most info in one place. That's probably not viable for individual cabins, but offloading as much as possible to Wikidata would partly solve the problem.

–LPfi (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree, it would be fantastic if many of the properties in listings could be taken from wikidata directly instead, then there's always a single point of reference.

So another point for a data-driven approach I reckon. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Everyone: Do we need to wait 14 days from the nomination day to keep the article and move this thread to Talk:Stockholm Archipelago Trail, and is that the best place to move it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

[undent]Important: Everyone: This (non-)article was manually cut and pasted to Stockholm Archipelago Trail/Getting in, not moved there, and none of the problems in it were fixed. We don't want all the information deleted, but that is surely unacceptable. I think we need to address this. Ping everyone who's commented here: Bluecoordinationfine, LPfi, Salgo60, AlasdairW, Pashley, SHB2000. Unfortunately, pinging IP accounts doesn't work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd say redirect to somewhere in that case. //shb (t | c | m) 06:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Redirect what content where? But surely, if it's going to be moved, it has to be moved, not cut and pasted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not sure, but the history needs to be kept somewhere. //shb (t | c | m) 07:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

We should restore the contents of this title, shouldn't we? Then wholesale edits can be made and the remainder of it could be merged to Stockholm Archipelago Trail somehow. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The article creator was already made aware that things need to be "moved", not cut and paste, having cut and pasted ~21 articles last week. -- 78.151.51.152 08:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

(also fyi, your ping didn't come through for some reason. //shb (t | c | m) 06:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC))Reply

I think that we should first decide on how to structure our description of this itinerary, only then decide the fate of the replipunkt/…Get in page. I haven't yet taken a look at whether the list could be restructured in a way more compliant to Wikivoyage praxis. Somebody needs to do that, and hopefully it can be made to suite Stockholm Archipelago Trail#Get in. If everybody will need that list (in whatever form it is tweaked into), there isn't much advantage of separating it into its own page. –LPfi (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply