Template:Did you know nominations/Tourism in Gibraltar
The following is an archived discussion of Tourism in Gibraltar's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination's (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the DYK WikiProject's (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Tourism in Gibraltar
[edit]... that tourism in Gibraltar is one of the territory's main economic pillars, with nearly 12 million people visiting in 2011?
Created/expanded by Prioryman (talk). Self nom at 21:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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 are not allowed to do the reviews.
- Review 1:
Article has not been expanded 5x since its creation according to DYKChecker. Peter.C • talk • contribs 03:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the original version before I started expanding it - 146 words. Here is the current version - 1415 words. That's a 10x expansion. Prioryman (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
You are right, for some reason I misread the date you provided when you nominated this article. Sorry for the confusion. Everything seems to check out on this article including refs. Peter.C • talk • contribs 11:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Review 2:
New enough, sufficiently long, hook claim occurs in the article. Agf on the hook references and plagiarism; the main sources are all offline. An article of this sort, about a territory that indeed has significant numbers of visitors, is necessarily somewhat promotional; this article does not negatively stand out if compared to other "Tourism in" articles. However, I see two issues:
- The picture is unsuitable. It does not add much value to either article or main page, and in the light of the GibraltarpediA discussions should in my opinion be rejected as being purely promotional.
- I find the hook rather boring, considering the wealth of interesting information about the topic. How about (the year would have to be confirmed):
ALT1: ... that in 1985, Gibraltarians made space for the vehicles of visiting tourists by pushing 1,000 old cars into the sea?
- I also find it strange that this article does not mention GibraltarpediA at all, wasn't this primarily aimed at improving tourism? But this is not a DYK issue, just an aside. --Pgallert (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure ALT1 really works - that was nearly 30 years ago and it lacks current significance. How about this instead, which works better with the marina image?
ALT2: ... that tourism in Gibraltar took off after World War II when the area's first marina (Ocean Village pictured) was built there in 1961?
- As for Gibraltarpedia, I've not mentioned it because (1) it's much too recent and its long-term significance is unclear (see Wikipedia:Recentism) and (2) frankly, it feels too self-referential. I wouldn't advise adding it to the article. Prioryman (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that hooks like ALT1 really bring page clicks, and I found it outrageous. Be that as it may,
for ALT2, picture occurs in the article, has a suitable license, and the hook is referenced, and- for the original hook without picture. Still absolutely acceptable. If someone wants to back ALT1, that one would have to be approved by someone else. --Pgallert (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have removed the main hook's unapproved "pictured" and picture, per the above review, to prevent a promoter from mistakenly using the image. Agree with Prioryman that GibraltarpediA is best left unmentioned. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
According to the source, there were not "nearly 12 million people visiting every year", but only one year, 2011. The years before were 2010 (11.5 million), 2009 (10.3 million), 2008 (10.1 million), 2007 (9.4 million), 2006 (8.1 million), and every year before that had less than 8 million visitors. Please change the hook to the correct "nearly 12 million people visiting in 2011" instead. Fram (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Note also that according to the source used for the 12 million count, 1.8 million of those 12 million were in reality frontier workers, not tourists, reducing the number of visitors to 10 million for that year, and comparable lower figures for the other years as well. The hook may need to be further changed to match this fact (not mentioned in the article either). Fram (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the fact that the hook you're objecting to is not going to be used. ALT2 has already been decided upon. Please read more carefully in future. Prioryman (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset did not "adapt" the main hook, they removed the image that originally accompanied it so that the promoter would not get confused with the replacement image provided for the agreed ALT2. I'll ask them to clarify this, as you've obviously got the wrong end of teh stuck here. Prioryman (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are still confused, apparently. There are now two hooks approved, one with a picture, and one without a picture. The one without a picture was wrong, but no one noticed that apparently (been there, done that, haven't we?). Even though you believe that Alt2 is the one that will run and that the original hook was not approved, you still corrected it (without leaving a note of it, making the discussion here rather confusing for later readers). By the way: this is one of the "two reviews needed" articles; the first review clearly apporved the original hook. The second review approved both the original hook, and ALT2. If ALT2 is to be used, a second review is still needed. DYK reviews need to approve the article and the hook, not one or the other. Fram (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Based on Pgallert's review, which I thought meant that while ALT2 was preferred, the original hook could still be used as long as the original picture was not—"still absolutely acceptable" along with an AGF tick—I removed the picture itself and the word "pictured" to prevent both from being included in a promotion to prep. Otherwise, I would have removed the picture and struck the entire hook. You never know what the person promoting a hook will prefer: my favorite of the ones proposed was ALT1, but Prioryman didn't like it, so it was not pursued (and I've just now struck it to prevent it being chosen for promotion).
- As for Fram's point about the visitors number, the article and hook say "people", which I tend to read as unique visitors, but (looking at the sources) appears to simply mean visits; the 1.8 million worker visits for people who have to cross the frontier to get to work may be treated as a footnote by Gibraltar, but I think the article has to treat it with more clarity whether the hook uses this fact or not. Basically, there were about 10.13 million "visitor arrivals" in Gibraltar in 2011 when you exclude "Non-Gibraltarian workers", who certainly cannot be considered tourists and will be assumed to be so given the subject of the article. The intro says "nearly 12 million people a year visit the territory", which is the 2011 number and says "people"; the Visitor numbers section is more careful in its wording—"In 2011, 11,940,543 visitor arrivals were recorded"—but should really note that 1.8 millon of these (15%) were worker visits (people who likely entered dozens if not hundreds of times each year, each entry of which would add to the total). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Fram, please keep the tone of the discussion constructive. To clarify, I did indeed approve the original hook without picture. When checking the source for that statement, I missed the footnote on page 16 of the report. However, even the report designates those workers as "visitors", so technically we have a source for that claim. Sources for tourist arrivals are necessarily and always somewhat dependent, as only governments can collect those numbers via their border controls. I did not make that explicit but probably should have.
- I still favour ALT2 over the original hook, and the unapproved ALT1 over ALT2. I'm not sure of the interpretation that every new ALT needs again 2 reviewers, though. --Pgallert (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please check the edit summary of Prioryman's comment before my reply, and you'll get part of the context (his comments on Bluemoonsets talkpage provide more of the same). I can't keep the tone constructive when destructive statements are being directed in my direction (which time and again have been shown to be incorect as well). The original (since changed) hook was wrong anyway, as even without the footnote the claim was not that that number was reached "every year", but "once". As for Alt2, see below, that one is clearly incorrect as well (and in fact a lot worse than the original hook in that regard). Fram (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- As for Fram's point about the visitors number, the article and hook say "people", which I tend to read as unique visitors, but (looking at the sources) appears to simply mean visits; the 1.8 million worker visits for people who have to cross the frontier to get to work may be treated as a footnote by Gibraltar, but I think the article has to treat it with more clarity whether the hook uses this fact or not. Basically, there were about 10.13 million "visitor arrivals" in Gibraltar in 2011 when you exclude "Non-Gibraltarian workers", who certainly cannot be considered tourists and will be assumed to be so given the subject of the article. The intro says "nearly 12 million people a year visit the territory", which is the 2011 number and says "people"; the Visitor numbers section is more careful in its wording—"In 2011, 11,940,543 visitor arrivals were recorded"—but should really note that 1.8 millon of these (15%) were worker visits (people who likely entered dozens if not hundreds of times each year, each entry of which would add to the total). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Concerning Alt2: does anyone really believe that there were no marinas anywhere in the Western Mediterranean prior to 1961? None of the ports in this 1841 book qualify as a marina, even the ones named "Marina"? The source used in the article claims that it was the first "in that area of the Mediterranean", not "in the Western Mediterranean".[1] What the source actually means with "that area" is unclear, just as it is unclear how Prioryman translated this into "Western". But it is an unacceptable hook as it is clearly inaccurate, and not even corresponds with the source given for it. Fram (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I AGF-ed on the source for ALT2, as I was not aware that the book text is available online, and no url was given. Despite that, the article says "Gibraltar's first marina", not "Western Mediterranian's"---that was an oversight on my part, and I apologise. ALT2 should be changed accordingly. As the phrase "in that area" will be hard to quantify, the hook should just repeat the article claim, imo. --Pgallert (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, this is easily sorted then - I've amended the hook accordingly. Hopefully this will put to an end to this needlessly hostile discussion. Prioryman (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's very hard to keep track of what hook we're talking about when their texts keep changing. Under the circumstances, can we please have new hooks instead of editing the old ones that have previously been approved and then called into question. At this point, I don't feel I can promote ALT2 in any form; call the new one ALT2a or ALT3 or whatever you want, but for clarity's sake, no more editing of earlier hook texts. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Bluemoonset, plus, Prioryman, if you don't want a needlessly hostile discussion, then a) get your hooks to match the source b) don't patronize people, not when you're right, and even less when, like here, you are wrong each single time, and c) don't spread lies about people to influence discussions, like you (unsuccessfully) did as Bluemoonsets talk page. As for the modified Alt2; no, "that area" is too vague to be used in the hook; while it matches the source, it gives no useful information. Fram (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- As I recall, you were the one who started throwing around words like "bullshit" - if you want a cordial discussion don't start attacking people. As for the hook, here's a slightly modified version which (per BlueMoonset) I've termed ALT3. This replaces "the area" with "the territory" (i.e. Gibraltar). Since there's absolutely no dispute that Gibraltar's first marina was built in 1961 I don't see why this should be objectionable to anybody. I suggest we use this hook. Prioryman (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Bluemoonset, plus, Prioryman, if you don't want a needlessly hostile discussion, then a) get your hooks to match the source b) don't patronize people, not when you're right, and even less when, like here, you are wrong each single time, and c) don't spread lies about people to influence discussions, like you (unsuccessfully) did as Bluemoonsets talk page. As for the modified Alt2; no, "that area" is too vague to be used in the hook; while it matches the source, it gives no useful information. Fram (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's very hard to keep track of what hook we're talking about when their texts keep changing. Under the circumstances, can we please have new hooks instead of editing the old ones that have previously been approved and then called into question. At this point, I don't feel I can promote ALT2 in any form; call the new one ALT2a or ALT3 or whatever you want, but for clarity's sake, no more editing of earlier hook texts. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, this is easily sorted then - I've amended the hook accordingly. Hopefully this will put to an end to this needlessly hostile discussion. Prioryman (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that tourism in Gibraltar took off after World War II when the territory's first marina (Ocean Village pictured) was built in 1961?
- "After world war II" can be removed to make a clearer sentence, something that happend in 1961 will always be "aftre World War II" of course. But the source claims that it had become "significant" between the wars, "grew noticeably" after WWII, was "spurred on" by the 1961 marina, and collapsed between 1969 and 1985 anyway... I don't feel that the proposed hook really matches the source (without flatly contradicting it). Fram (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- ALT4: ... that tourism in Gibraltar was boosted when the territory's first marina (Ocean Village pictured) was built in 1961?
- Can the phrase "nearly 12 million people a year visit the territory" please be revised in the article's intro—as noted above, the wording in the "Visitor numbers and demographics" section is more accurate, and as I pointed out, both places "should really note that 1.8 millon of these (15%) were worker visits (people who likely entered dozens if not hundreds of times each year, each entry of which would add to the total)". Right now, it's a known inaccuracy, and needs to be fixed.
- Once it is, can Fram or one of the earlier reviewers please formally approve the ALT4 hook (with the appropriate approval tick)? Many thanks. I have just struck the original hook (due to these numbers issues), and ALT2 and ALT3 due to the points raised by Fram above, so there is no confusion for the person who eventually promotes this. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)