Talk:Bay of Quinte
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bay of Quinte article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"The bay is subject to algae blooms in late summer which are a naturally occurring phenomenon and do not indicate pollution other than from agricultural runoff." - Any references for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The following note was in the main text; I have moved it here. Radagast 13:52, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Note: The distances of the legs of the bay are probably wrong. I couldn't find actual measurements, so I eyeballed it based on known distances.
Municipalities had been editied out. Please note that the Greater Quinte Region as it is now includes those municipalites evident in the main article as it stands. RyanRiWilliams
The following links need to be re-inserted into the article:
The Official Tourism website of Bay of Quinte Country. (www.bayofquintecountry.com) This site represents combined Tourism efforts and is endorsed by the Municipalities of Bay of Quinte, and their mandates through Municipal Tourism for Regional Tourism.)
The Municipality of Brighton, Ontario The Municipality of Greater Napanee, Ontario The Municipality of Picton, Ontario
Ryan, I removed the link for a couple of reasons. First of all, most tourism sites are meant to promote businesses, which is not permitted on Wikipedia (see wp:ELNO). As you go further into the site, there are many business links. Second, there is a conflict of interest problem. Since you are associated with the site, you cannot add links to sites with which you are associated. This would be perceived as you trying to promote your own business endeavours. I have no "beef" with the site other than this. I think tourism should be promoted, but Wikipedia is not the place to do this. Cheers. BC talk to me 19:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: Re Tourism Link
Brian, Tourism is a mandate of Municipal government. The Bay of Quinte Tourist Council is a government representation of the municipalities and Chamber of Commerce of Brighton, Quinte West, Belleville, Prince Edward County, Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, and Greater Napanee. Furthermore, Bay of Quinte Tourism is recognized and the tourism organization through Ontario Tourism. As I am an elected representative through the Chamber of Commerce which holds the municipal mandate for Tourism, and furthermore Elected as President of the Bay of Quinte Tourist Council, this is not a conflict of interest. The same site exists on Prince Edward County's Municipality wiki site and because Economic Development is linked through the same 'business' as you call it, your cities own wiki site with Kedco.
I would suggest you do some research on Tourism before you assume on a wikipedia passage that Tourism is private business promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- No need for me to do research, I understand tourism very well thanks, having been in the tourism business for several years. I did not say that tourism provides private business promotion (although it does help businesses, which, of course is fine, and why tourism is promoted in the first place). I said the site does. A tourism site serves to promote tourism and indeed, to (usually) provide a vehicle for private businesses to advertise, or at least, to provide them with an Internet presence (even linked). This site does all these things. Also, if you are associated with this site and tourism promotion in the area, there is definitely a conflict of interest. Please see wp:COI. Discussing tourism in the article is fine; more detail on places to visit could be included, but it should be done in a non-promotional (i.e. in a neutral point-of-view way). But the linked site isn't appropriate. Other articles that may have similar websites linked, may have the same problem. Perhaps they need some cleaning up. It often depends on the site. For instance a tourism-related site that adds real value to an article would include info that may complement or supplement the article (e.g history, demographics, wildlife to see, etc.), but one that has myriads of links or advertising would not. See wp:EL for more info. BTW, don't forget to sign your posts (use four tildes). BC talk to me 22:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tourism isn't just a shop or a tourist activity anymore. Furthermore, Tourism isn't promotion in the basic of terms, or just signage. Tourism involves economic development, municipal strategy, and employs more people than the fisheries, retail, or paper industry in Canada. Furthermore, since you live in Kingston, and you are making the point that the 'site' provides a private business to advertise, then perhaps since you live in Kingston you should edit the Kingston site and take down the Kingston Economic Development link, that by the way links all industry and yes - Tourism from Kingston. If this is successful, then perhaps you can do the same for Bay of Quinte. However, I suspect that you will have the same problems, as when talking about the economic success, strategy, and actually region demographic of a region today, you talk about Economic Development and moreover, tourism, which brings in more economic strength and is more important today than any one industry to our areas.
Regionalism, in this case, uses the region Kingston, or Bay of Quinte when defining a specific area for Tourism. Therefore, stating that the actual geographical boundaries are insignficant to the article is both ignorant and moreover unfounded as the main site in question actually is factual to its areas and municipalities. And most importantly, by definition, a region is tourist specific because of name and its relation to identification. (if you have questions - please see Belleville, Napanee, or Kingston!). The main point to this discussion is if you remove this link again, then remove Kedco from Kingston's site, or leave it be. RyanRiWilliams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
And Finally, for the end of this conversation and debate - If this is how your ruling goes: Please goto and fix the following sites that follow suit: Thunder Bay, Ottawa, Banff, Vancouver, Toronto, New York, San Fransisco, Chicago, Paris, Las Vegas, Rome........
I do think that you have done a good job cleaning up the page, and I thank-you for that - however as you see, the Tourism site belongs.
- I have to agree with Brian on this. The Bay of Quinte Tourism link and the Quinte Economic Development Commission link do not meet the requirements of the guideline on External links. Both constitute Linkspam and do not belong in the article. BTW, the fact that other articles contain such links is not justification for their inclusion. I have removed these links. Please do not re-insert them. Sunray (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sunray, Then I expect to see you remove the same in Kingston, Toronto etc. within the next week.
Rules from Wiki:
Links to be considered Shortcut: WP:ELMAYBE Repealed. (Professional reviews should instead be used as sources in a "Reception" section.) Very large pages, such as pages containing rich media files, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the of Quinte Bay of Quinte at DMOZ template. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. Links normally to be avoided
Shortcuts: WP:ELNO WP:FANSITE Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,
Since www.bayofquintecountry.com is the official page of Bay of Quinte - I argue that it is fine.
- Since the link is promotional, it is considered spam. As Brian Crawford has pointed out it is a conflict of interest for you to include it. Also, you seem to have missed the part of the guideline that says that the existence of similar links in other articles is not justification for its inclusion. If you would like an opinion from WikiProject Spam, I would be willing to refer it to them. In the meantime, please do not reinsert it. Sunray (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The link is not promotional to any product, and is not a business. I would like an opintion from WikiProject Spam. Please submit.
The the Wikiproject Spam Site - on Microsoft's test for spam site - it is listed as non-commercial.
The official site: www.bayofquintecountry.com lists more information about the area than the wikipedia article, does not engage the user in 'selling' anything off the page, and is an informative event listing, imagery, area primarily based website that is through each of the municipalities of said region.
Brian Crawford - please let me know if you will be looking into the Kingston,_Ontario page to remove those links.
WikiTravel will be updated to reflect this area. All areas or regions are incorrect as Tourism Ontario has realigned the travel areas. This will all be updated as information is released. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- The link in question is http://www.bayofquintecountry.com/ It appears to be the website of a government-run multi-city tourism agency; the article in question is specifically about the same multi-city area (but not merely "tourism in...").
The editors seem to have a bit of an edit war going on. One editor believes that this website qualifies as an WP:ELOFFICIAL website, like a city government website would be listed at an article about a single city. Others say that it's promotional spam. I don't think that the Truth™ is obviously on either side. I think that it would be helpful if multiple editors looked at the site and the article and left their opinions on the talk page. In particular, I think it might be helpful if independent editors considered this question from the common-sense perspective of "What best serves the readers of this encyclopedia?", rather than "What bit of Wikipedia's guidelines can I quote (out of context) to 'win' this dispute?" Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)