Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Footpaths of Gibraltar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 10:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Footpaths of Gibraltar

[edit]
(
)

Douglas Path, Gibraltar

Created by Prioryman (talk), Gibmetal77 (talk). Nominated by Prioryman (talk) at 10:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC).

Notification to reviewers
Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, Gibraltar-related articles are temporarily being reviewed by two individuals. In addition to the regular DYK criteria, at least one reviewer should also indicate whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review. IP addresses and Victuallers are not allowed to do the reviews. When you have completed a review, please update the respective table below to change the background color to green and note that the review has been completed.
First review done

So there were no footpaths in Gibraltar before this? This seems extremely unlikely, as most inhabited places in the middle ages were filled with footpaths, not for cannons and troops, but for the people who lived there. Fram (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

People lived (and still live) at the bottom of the Rock of Gibraltar. There's nowhere to live on the heights of the Rock, which is where these footpaths are. They were created for military use, not to allow people to go to where they lived. That's why they lead to fortifications, not houses - a fact which is quite obvious to anyone who's walked on those paths (as I have). The hook fact is cited and the source is quite explicit on that point. Your objection is a classic argument from ignorance and I note that you've not bothered to assess the article against any of the DYK criteria. This is quite clearly POINTy behaviour motivated by your long-standing opposition to Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you are going to abuse the process like this, you should not be reviewing any Gibraltar-related nominations. Prioryman (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • At most that requires a change to the hook, regarding "footpaths on the rock of Gibraltar". Fram, don't be so quick to use the X symbol when we can still fix the issue easily. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If the article is about the footpaths on the Rock only, then both the hook and the article need a lot of work to indicate this. The "footpaths of Gibraltar" are not just a bunch of selected non-notable footpaths on the rock (note that e.g. the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's Gap Footpath was recreated nearly verbatim in "footpaths of Gibraltar"; this is now a copyvio by Prioryman. Talking about "abuse of process"... Fram (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It takes a retitle and attribution in an edit summary (or I could do a history merge, easy enough). That being said, if you were looking for an issue with the article, you could point that out and see if there was a 5X expansion from the existing material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
First, the hook issue that Fram raises can be resolved very simply by adding "many of" to the hook, which I've now done.
Second, the article is not simply a recreation of the deleted Devil's Gap Footpath; I have reused only some of the content from that. I was already working on a separate article on Royal Anglian Way when the deletion discussion happened and decided to combine all of the footpaths into a single article. It's not a 5x expansion from any previous article and given that Devil's Gap Footpath was deleted, it would be inappropriate to use that as a baseline anyway.
Third, talk of a "copyvio" is absolute bullshit. Gibmetal77, the author of the Devil's Gap Footpath content, has absolutely no problem with it (I asked him).
Fourth, a history merge sounds fine to me. I had already credited Gibmetal77 in this nomination to recognise his contribution to it, but I was already discussing with TheOverflow how the other article's contribution history could be reflected (see User talk:Prioryman#DYK Nomination of Footpaths of Gibraltar. Prioryman (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Prioryman, attribution still needs to be given (CC-BY-SA, right?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely, I just wasn't sure what the best way of giving attribution would be. I specifically credited Gibmetal77 to acknowledge the three paras that he wrote and I reused. If you think a history merge would work, then please do so. Prioryman (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, that's resolved that issue at least. Prioryman (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that the rejected hook is not the hook at the top of this nomination, it was changed after the rejection instead of adding an Alt1. Anyway, if the article is only about footpaths in the Upper Rock Nature Reserve, it should change its name to reflect this. If it is about all of Gibraltar, it should change its contents. And recreating a deleted article verbatim is bad practice, no matter if you have permission of the original author. To recreate a non notable article nearly completely and verbatim as part of an overview article of non notable subjects (and one which may be notable, the Mediterranean steps) is just an end-run around community consensus. Fram (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All right, I will make it an ALT1 if it will keep you happy (fat chance!):
Second, the footpaths are not wholly in the nature reserve and I wanted to leave scope for local editors to add other footpaths. Third, the deleted article was not recreated "nearly completely and verbatim" - I reused three paragraphs which I edited further. This discussion would be a lot more conducive if you avoided lying about my contributions, frankly. Prioryman (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Original article[1] vs. your unattributed recreation[2]

  • The Devil's Gap Path commences at the eastern boundary of the Upper Town at the junction of Devil's Gap Road with Baca's Passage. It proceeds in a mostly southerly direction until it reaches a viewing point where a flight of steps link it to Green Lane just south of Devil's Gap Battery in the Upper Rock Nature Reserve.
  • The path commences at the eastern boundary of the Upper Town at the junction of Devil's Gap Road with Baca's Passage. It proceeds in a mostly southerly direction before reaching a flight of steps which link it to Green Lane
  • Although difficult to say for sure, it is thought that the path has been in existence since at least the early 18th century but definitely since the Great Siege of Gibraltar (1779-83). Older maps of the area show paths leading from the town to the Upper Rock but none seem to follow the current route. Luis Bravo de Acuña's 1627 "Plan of Gibraltar" shows that the eastern limits of the town were well below the current level. The natural route from the town to the Upper Rock at the time would have been via Charles V Wall.
  • Although difficult to say for sure, it is thought that the path has been in existence since at least the early 18th century but definitely since the Great Siege of Gibraltar (1779-83). Older maps of the area show paths leading from the town to the Upper Rock but none seem to follow the current route. Luis Bravo de Acuña's 1627 "Plan of Gibraltar" shows that the eastern limits of the town were well below the current level. The natural route from the town to the Upper Rock at the time would have been via Charles V Wall.
  • As part of the refurbishment works, the path was widened by pruning overgrown trees and shrubs and the drains were unclogged to prevent the path from puddling after rains. Information display panels carrying historical information about the path and on the wildlife that can be found there, together with a picnic table and waste bins designed to keep out Gibraltar's Barbary macaques were also added along the path. The project was announced by Minister for Health and the Environment Dr. John Cortes and led by Carl Viagas with the Gibraltar Ornithological and Natural History Society and the Gibraltar Heritage Trust overseeing it to ensure the project was carried out in a sensitive manner.
  • As part of the refurbishment works, the path was widened by pruning overgrown trees and shrubs and the drains were unclogged to prevent the path from puddling after rains. Information display panels carrying historical information about the path and on the wildlife that can be found there, together with a picnic table and waste bins designed to keep out Gibraltar's Barbary macaques were also added along the path. The Gibraltar Ornithological and Natural History Society and the Gibraltar Heritage Trust oversaw it to ensure the work was carried out in a sensitive manner

You reused three paragraphs, of the original four... Fram (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    • Comment History merge completed, so that issue is settled (as it relates to this article... if it is a habit of Prioryman's, that requires discussion elsewhere). My count indicates that 5X from material derived from that article has been attained, so no worries about length there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Article for Deletion discussion was closed as keep on 7 August 2013. It can have its second review. - tucoxn\talk 02:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
After the false start above, I think it would be best to find two new and most importantly uninvolved reviewers to look at this with fresh eyes and open minds. I'll post a request at WT:DYK. Prioryman (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me just reaffirm my rejection of this DYK. The supposed source for the hook, [3], gives two examples of footpaths that were "originally created" etc, 1790 path (which isn't even in the nominated article) and Douglas Pass (presumably the same as Douglas Path(?), and Signal Station Road which isn't a footpath. So "many" actually equals "one" footpath now present in the article? Clear fail... Fram (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Rejecting an article because of the hook is really stupid. As a reviewer, you should be suggesting an alternative hook that you feel would be better and have the nominator agree and then it's good to go. That's the normal process of things. Furthermore, an issue with the hook would be merely a , not a rejection, since it is a minor issue to be fixed and isn't an actual issue with the article. SilverserenC 09:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
If it had been the only issue with it, yes. In general, when an issue has been raised (like here, with the hook), and after a few weeks, nothjing has been done to address the issue, I see no reason to keep the nomination alive indefinitely. If the people who feel that the article is front page ready can't be bothered to address such problems, then the nomination should be rejected and closed as a waste of time. Fram (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've not changed the hook because it's not wrong - you are. To repeat, all of the footpaths in this article were created for military purposes. All of them. They link gun batteries and observation posts. Who or what else was going to use them other than artillery and soldiers? They weren't even open to civilians - what's now the Upper Rock Nature Reserve was, for a long time, fenced off for military reasons.[4] I'm told by a local that it was only opened up as recently as 1992/93. Gibraltar was not a civilian settlement for the vast majority of its history - at the time these paths were built it was one of the most heavily militarised places in the planet. What you have done is a completely illegitimate and frankly abusive exercise of using your personal (and mistaken) opinion in place of historical fact, without even bothering to review the article, which you still have not done after a month. Please refrain from reviewing articles where you obviously have some degree of personal animosity towards the subject matter (in your case, going back to your failed bid last year to delete Gibraltarpedia itself). Prioryman (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
What you are told or not told by locals is of no interest whatsoever though. Please provide reliable sources backing up your assertions. The source that supposedly is used to support the suggested hook (it isn't really clear from the article where the hook and its source can be found) does not support it. Everything else you are writing here is irrelevant (your various attempts to get me removed from these reviews have failed to gain any traction, probably because they lacked any evidence; perhaps it is time you drop that angle and focus on the article and the hook. Comment on the contents, not on the contributor, remember?). Fram (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Note also that you are again mixing two concepts; "all of the footpaths in this article" is not the same as "all of the footpaths in Gibraltar", now or throughout its history. You are free to move your article to "Footpaths in the Upper Rock Nature Reserve", or even better, to merge it there, if only those paths are supposed to be the focus of the article. Fram (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The military decommissioning of the Upper Rock and its opening to the public as the Upper Rock Nature Reserve is covered in J. Cortes, "Wildlife in Gibraltar", Sanctuary magazine, issue 22 (1993), pp. 38-41. The hook fact is supported by the source: "Most of these passages were at a much later time widened for vehicular transport and are still in use today. Some passages were kept as paths for they provided short cuts and concealed troop movement". The source makes it clear that the roads and paths were constructed for military purpose. All the paths in the article are links to and between fortifications. I have made this clear in every section. They were not accessible to civilians. I have made this clear in the intro. It's nonsensical to claim that they were created for any reason other than military purposes, as the military were the only people able to access them in the first place. As for merging the article, you don't get to unilaterally overturn the results of an AfD which was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping it. And as for commenting on the contributor, your persistent history of obstruction and your false claims about the contents of this article - "copyvio", "tainted beyond repair", "end run around the AfD" - have made that unavoidable. Prioryman (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Your hook is about the footpaths in Gibraltar, but again, as usual, you are only discussing the footpaths in the Upper Rock reserve. There are and were no other footpaths in Gibraltar? Wrt to the AfD and merging: the AfD agreed that footpaths in Gibraltar could be a notable article subject, it didn't make any ruling on the current contents or on how comprehensive they are. Finally, that you still don't agree that your creation was a copyvio until the history corrections by Crisco 1492 is your problem, not mine. Crisco 1492 left you a quite clear message on your talk page on 31 July. Perhaps you should reread it.
The source you now give is used to reference the sentence "For many years, the Upper Rock was reserved exclusively for military use; it was fenced off for military purposes,[4] but was decommissioned and converted into a nature reserve in 1993". The hook is " that many of the footpaths of Gibraltar (Douglas Path pictured) were originally created to enable cannons and troops to ascend the Rock of Gibraltar?" How anyone was supposed to know that you intended that source to be the one for the hook is not clear. But even with that clarification, all we see is that "Some passages were kept as paths for they provided short cuts and concealed troop movement", which says nothing about how or why the paths were created in the first place, or to which paths this refers, or whether this applies to paths outside the reserve as well. Fram (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Second review completed
  • New enough, long enough, neutral, sourced, no close paraphrasing issue. ALT1 is better, short enough and sourced. (As Fram points out, some paths lower down would have been created by normal human traffic. I read somewhere that Neanderthals once lived on the rock, although they have gone now, and they may have made footpaths too.) If this is allowed, I suggest ALT2 (below) may be better again. It avoids the "many" question and avoids "originally created". A well-written, informative article. Not promotional in my view. Just the facts. Good to go. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I'm entirely happy with ALT2. Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Third review completed
  • I have suggested that the page be merged to Upper Rock Nature Reserve, so this should be delayed. My perspective is that these footpaths are not independently notable, but that the information is noteworthy enough to be included in that article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
This article has been on the waiting list for months. Nominate away, but it's been delayed enough already. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I would have proposed a merger after the AfD closed, but I had forgotten about it by that time. Still, a merge discussion should be allowed to continue before there can be any talk of a front page appearance.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no such requirement for DYK. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 04:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It's also completely unnecessary as the option of a merger was put forward and rejected by a large majority in the AfD. TDA is just trying to relitigate the AfD only a few weeks after his earlier merger proposal was rejected. Prioryman (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
People rejected a merge to the fortifications article, but my suggestion to merge to the reserve article was not really discussed. By the time I commented the AfD had been open for roughly four days and most of the people who weighed in had weighed in before that.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 13:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
None of which has anything to do with DYK. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 13:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I cannot allow this approved until the merger discussion is closed. --George Ho (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Again: There is no such requirement. And I don't need you to "allow" anything. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 12:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Given that there's clearly a disagreement over this point, I've asked for some input at WT:DYK#Should a merger proposal hold up a DYK?. Prioryman (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that merger is closed as unsuccessful, I hope other issues are resolved, like sourcing. Also, Gibraltar-related articles and noms are no longer restricted. --George Ho (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

George, this article has already passed three reviews. Can you please put down the stick? The horse doesn't need any more beating. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
That the Gibraltarpedia/WMUK fan club quickly jumped in to block the merge so that uninvolved editors couldn't have the chance to make their opinions known doesn't change the fact that this article is based almost entirely on tour guides and primary sources with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Such an article should not exist, let alone get featured on the main page.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we all heard you. Like ten different times. You still don't get to have your way. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Complete bullshit from start to finish. There is no "Gibraltarpedia/WMUK fan club". The merge discussion ran for the regulation 7 days. Nobody prevented anyone having their say. There's nothing wrong with using tour guides - many of them are very well researched indeed (my Good Article on Volubilis draws heavily on several guides). And as someone else pointed out to you, this article is not being "featured" anywhere, it's only going to appear for a few hours as a link in a single short line of text. It's about time you people from Wikipediocracy stopped this insane harassment of content contributors and let us get on with improving Wikipedia. We are not going to have a situation where you get to exercise a pocket veto in defiance of the outcome of three reviews here, an AfD and a merge discussion. Consensus is against you. You need to recognise that and move on. Prioryman (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
It is one thing when an article uses tour guides along with many high quality sources, and another when an article is based almost entirely on tour guides. That aspect of this article is clearly reflected when reading it. Most of the article reads like a brochure.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • - We have wasted more than enough time with filibustering. As the merge discussion was the only thing holding this back, and that's closed, this is ready to go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Footpaths_of_Gibraltar&oldid=1022762439"