Talk:Simony Hut

Austria Low‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climbing Low‑importance

	Climbing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climbing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climbing 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.ClimbingWikipedia:WikiProject ClimbingTemplate:WikiProject ClimbingClimbing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Article name

Hello all- Unless we can show a well-established use of the translated name "Simony Hut" in English, which I find unlikely, I think this article should retain its German name and be moved to Simonyhütte. Examples: Pont du Gard as opposed to Gard Bridge, Notre Dame as opposed to Our Lady. Eric ^talk 04:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Approach, crossing, and ascent listings

Hello Bermicourt and all- I'm on the fence about having this article list the approaches, crossings, and ascents as the German one does. On the one hand it could be seen as useful, valid info for an encyclopedia; on the other, I can see an argument that it comes across a bit like a travel guide. In any case, I think Bermicourt might have been a bit heavy-handed with the repeated restorations of the lists, and the IP editor would have done better to offer more helpful, less contentious edit summaries. A more conciliatory tone, and a discussion of the utility and appropriateness of the lists here before reverting back and forth, would serve the project better. Eric ^talk 04:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that a discussion should have taken place here and that is what I encouraged the unregistered, currently blocked, editor to do. My restoration of the lists was only following WP:BRD. The article was originally translated from German Wikipedia and, in common with others, they usually list the approaches, ascents and crossings, probably because it is of interest and utility to those living in and visiting the Alpine region rather than for tourist purposes. My sense is they are relevant to the article as long as they remain factual and avoid tourist guide language. Bermicourt (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me. Well, maybe the IP editor will come back after the block and discuss things with a less peremptory approach. Thanks for your input. Eric ^talk 13:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Partialitarian: With respect to your recent edits: if the section is too long, it can be trimmed, but I am opposed to removing it entirely -- most of these peaks are blue links, the ascents clearly exist. Per this, and the above talk page discussion, please quit reverting without discussion. jp×g 20:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You falsely accused me of not explaining my edit, as a pretext for your malicious revert. You are not editing in good faith. Partialitarian (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was a link to WP:NOTGUIDE, which doesn't seem relevant to me (the ascents to various mountains are directly relevant to the purpose of the hut's main use as a base station for mountaineers). Is there a reason why they need to be removed? jp×g 21:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed deletions of approach, crossing, and ascent listings

Just want to record that I've reverted renewed deletions of the above sections by an unregistered user and encouraged them to follow WP:BRD not least because of the discussion above. This is definitely a subject that needs consensus before we blank entire sections as it affects a lot of other articles. Bermicourt (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTTRAVEL. 194.228.16.63 (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion and please have the courtesy to engage in a construction discussion with other editors who may have views. You are bordering on WP:EDITWARRING which is not a helpful way to go. Bermicourt (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously wanted an edit war. You reverted without even bothering to give an explanation. That's not the act of someone who wants to be constructive, is it? Wikipedia is not a travel guide, so stop adding travel guide material to articles. 194.228.16.63 (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this editor has now been blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, so that this and other articles have been restored. Bermicourt (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all- For what it's worth, I reiterate the comments I made in the above sections. And I have just now fixed some of the problems that were inadvertently restored via the reverts of the IP editor's edits. That editor's approach notwithstanding, I find some of the issues he/she brings up to be valid. Eric ^talk 02:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]