This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.
To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
Support as proposer. These footpaths are a noteworthy feature of the area covered by the reserve, but none of them seem independently notable nor do they seem notable as a group.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 21:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Scope of the footpaths article is not entirely within that of the reserve, even if it is currently written as if it was. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - This issue has already been dealt with by the recent AfD, in which a large majority voted in favour of keeping the article and proposals to merge or delete were rejected. TDA is simply trying to relitigate the AfD and frankly I don't think this proposal has been made in good faith - it smacks of a last-ditch attempt to derail an already-approved DYK. As I said in the AfD, this article is similar to hundreds of others for the United States alone - see Category:Hiking trails in the United States - and coverage of trails in dozens of other countries (see Category:Hiking trails by country). The trails here are a subtopic of the nature reserve article, just as (for instance) Trails in Detroit is a subtopic of Detroit. Merging this article (1841 words) would grossly unbalance the nature reserve article (1239 words). Prioryman (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Either merge and trim (to avoid the imbalance and WP:UNDUE; that e.g. some drains were unclogged in 2013 is hardly encyclopedic material, and there is a lot of similar stuff that can be easily removed without losing any real information) or rewrite to cover footpaths throughout all of Gibraltar, past and present). Fram (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The title and topic seems quite clear and descriptive and there are ample sources to support the topic. Warden (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The title and topic are quite clear: the article though doesn't match this, discussing only a very precise subset of the topic, as indicated by the introduction: "The footpaths of Gibraltar provide access to key areas of the Upper Rock Nature Reserve"; well, yes, the ones discussed in this article do, and the sources are about the Reserve, but the topic suggested by the title of the current article is of course a lot wider. I have added the relevant tag to the article. Fram (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Pretty shocking to see a fellow admin being so POINT-y. If you don't like the name, you can start a proposal to rename it. You think it should have more about some footpaths apparently only you know about? WP:SOFIXIT. Don't start slapping random tags on it just to hold it up further when you see this discussion isn't going your way. This is what I mean when I say it's petty harassment. This is unbecoming. KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number 11:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
You are easily shocked, apparently. "If you don't like the name, you can start a proposal to rename it." You may have noticed that I supported a merger (which removes the need to rename it) or a rewrite (which would also remove the need to rename it). But the "topic experts" seem only interested in getting this on the main page, inventing new rules to get there (like asking for a third review when the first one didn't go to their liking), and ignoring existing ones on the way. The tag I "slapped" on the page isn't random, it isn't pointy either, it is "to the point" though, exactly reflecting the problems with the page. Since you have removed that tag and asked me here to WP:SOFIXIT, I have done so. Somehow I think that, despite you asking me to fix it, you won't like it now that I have done so... Fram (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Because of the Afd and the fact that this is a clearly distinct topic that has no need to be crammed into another article. SilverserenC 01:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Most topics are distinct, even those that are not noteworthy on their own. Please point to reliable sources that treat these footpaths as a subject notably distinct from the nature reserve. The AfD decided that the article should not be deleted or merged into an article on the fortifications. It did not decide on a merge to the nature reserve article.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 03:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia expands by splits, and mergers of narrower topics reduce the coverage. We are trying to build an encyclopedia not demolish it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment None of the oppose votes above are addressing the inadequate sourcing provided for this article. Nearly every bit of material is backed by tourism sites and tour guides discussing the Upper Rock Nature Reserve. The material about Douglas Path is supported mostly by Discover Gibraltar, on a sub-page of the Upper Rock Nature Reserve, and the Guide to the Upper Rock Nature Reserve. One sentence and one part of a sentence is sourced to a news source that makes a few passing mentions of the path. With Inglis Way it is essentially the same story with a Let's Go tour guide used as well. Aside from a primary source, the Upper Rock management and action plan, the remaining non-tourist sources do notmention Inglis Way. Royal Anglian Way is the same story with the addition of another tour guide called "History Walking Guides" authored by a Gibraltar lawyer who writes about travel. Only non-tourism source is the newsletter of the Gibraltar Ornithological and Natural History Society, which backs two-and-a-half sentences. The only remaining sections are one about the Devil's Gap Footpath and Mediterranean Steps. The first two paragraphs about Devil's Gap are backed by two primary sources: a display panel on site and the 1627 Plan of Gibraltar. With the last paragraph you have the primary source of a construction company involved with renovations, a speech by a government official where the renovations are apparently mentioned, and thesetwo two-paragraph news articles discussing the renovations. The Mediterranean Steps have an article, but they do not appear to be actually notable as, other than primary sources, only tourism sources occasionally give it more than a trivial mention.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 22:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I should note that the AfD did not decide on the proposed merger and claims that it did are misrepresenting the outcome of that discussion. Some editors commented on a proposed merge to the article on fortifications of Gibraltar, but their arguments are not applicable to this proposed merger. Only two editors commented regarding the merger I proposed and this is likely because most of the other editors had left the discussion by that point.
Any editor commenting here should look at the sourcing provided and they will get a pretty good idea why I suggest a merge to the Upper Rock Nature Reserve article. Nearly every source included mentions those paths in the context of the reserve. Most of these sources are tour guides or tour sites associating the paths with the reserve. The most commonly cited source is the "Guide to the Upper Rock Nature Reserve" and after that is "Discover Gibraltar", which has the pages on the paths listed under the Upper Rock Nature Reserve. It seems these footpaths are known almost entirely for their association with the nature reserve.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 05:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Considering this page is pretty contentious right now, I don't think a unilateral move is in everyone's best interest. Discussion should be held, and I am reverting the move for now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any actual problem with the move, or just a procedural one? The article starts "The footpaths of Gibraltar provide access to key areas of the Upper Rock Nature Reserve,", so it's not as if I invented the scope of it. All the paths in the article are partially or completely inside the Reserve anyway. Fram (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I actually agree with Fram. Unless I'm mistaken, and there's some contention about the new name, the move solves more problems than any procedural questions it might have raised. Seems like a good use of IAR to me. KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number 14:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Mostly procedural. For this case, and any other likely controversial moves, we should get a consensus before moving. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Fram (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Footpaths of Gibraltar → Footpaths of the Upper Rock Nature Reserve – Matches the scope of the article; all but one of the footpaths in this article are completely inside the Reserve, and the remaining one is partially inside it (starting outside it but ending inside); the article also starts ""The footpaths of Gibraltar provide access to key areas of the Upper Rock Nature Reserve,", so it is clear that the intended topic of the article is the footpaths of the reserve. Fram (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
A rename wouldn't change the fact that the most significant mentions in sources are really just a few tour guides talking about the sights of the Upper Rock Nature Reserve. It should be part of that article, which is actually shorter than this one.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The paths were mostly hewn out of the rock for military purposes over hundreds of years. The current designation as a nature reserve is only twenty years old. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a historical perspective, not a travel guide with a current focus, we should prefer the more general title of Footpaths of Gibraltar. Warden (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Why and when they were built is actually kind of irrelevant since it seems the only sources that care about their history much are those interested in the nature reserve. I think that warrants a merge personally since sources don't treat these footpaths as anything worthy of notice on their own.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 22:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. When will this idiotic use of procedural tricks to delay or derail this DYK end? Prioryman (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
How does a rename proposal hold up a DYK? A rename doesn't stop, derail, delay, ... a DYK at all, so please don't use this as an argument to oppose (and please leave out the uncivility as well). Fram (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose As Warden said, the renaming wouldn't actually be accurate. SilverserenC 01:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
But the current title isn't accurate either... 06:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:NDESC allows a title such as this, in an instance such as this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support as this is what the article is about rather than the broader topic suggested. No prejudice to any appearance at DYK whatever the name or state of naming argument. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose As afore mentioned, the historical context of the footpaths clearly has no current relation to the Upper Rock Nature reserve other than co-incidental proximity. (Cesdeva (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.