Talk:Wikiloc

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikiloc article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Apps Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contribute to the project:

edit
history
watch
purge

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Good article nominations : Improve Application software, Facebook and Instagram to good article status
Stubs : Category:Mobile game stubs, Category:Stub-Class apps articles

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it's a globally used online service, with thousands of contributors from many countries, as can be seen in the links provided, both of the service and external pages. If Panoramio, WikiMapia, ... have an article in WP Wikiloc also should. I hope to improve the article in some minutes. --Edupedro (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP also has articles about the related BlooSee and WorldMap. --Edupedro (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the WP:RS. I see links to blogs and the project's site. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appart from them, there are 7 links to third party sites: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Wikiloc is one of the most important sites worldwide about GPS tracks. I was surprised to find that there was not a WP article about it, so I created it. I have nothing to do with them (no employee, even no registered user), but have visited pages of them several times since some years ago. --Edupedro (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS. Blogs, etc. are not WP:RS. The article needs WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links to pages of newspapers and institutions: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Note that Panoramio's, WikiMapia's and BlooSee's most links are to the projects' sites, and the last one is not even in Alexa's ranking: [13]. Regards, Edupedro (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fails A7. It certainly fails WP:GNG. Look at the sources. Look at the results googling the term. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added more links to external pages about Wikiloc: several independent newspapers, institutions, ... tell about the history and importance of Wikiloc. Edupedro (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few erroneous or misleading statements, sounds like an advertisement[edit]

This article sounds like an advertisement. And it has some misleading statements.

"Wikiloc is a website, launched in 2006, that offers for free GPS trails and waypoints that members (free registration) can upload and share". This would lead the reader to thinking that after a free registration, members can access GPS trails and waypoints, but this it not true, accessing waypoints costs 3€ for 3 months. If all you need is a single trail, then that single trail will cost you 3€.

Being "completely made with free software" should not be used as some distinctive quality since (a) a majority of websites are made with free software and (b) it is an attempt to associate the app with the benefits that actual free software brings, while wikiloc is not free software in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrice.bertrand (talk • contribs) 07:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]