Talk:Burgh Island

Bigbury-on-Sea

I've just tweaked a typo in "Burgh Island Causeway", which describes a holiday complex in nearby Bigbury-on-Sea. Should it be here on the island's page, or moved to the Bigbury page? --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Old Moonraker. The holiday complex described is at the other end if the causeway between the mainland and Burgh Island some 500 yards from Burgh Island. Technically it is in Bigbury-on-sea (everything has to be somehwhere!) but Bigbury-on-sea itself is some 2 miles to the North. PS I am new to this so I hope that this is an appropriate way to carry on the discussion. I will read the instructions soon, I need to to upload a picture. Regards Philip. PhilipMWilliams (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a little disappointed that Jolly Ω Janner has removed the link I put in to Burghislandcauseway.com the basis that it did not comply with your guidelines for external links. That is clearly not true. In complies with your guidelines in eaxactly teh same manner as the link that you have allowed to BurghIsland.com. he link is not there for advertising, it give useful information about the causeway and activities in the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipMWilliams (talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is silly -- Why does Jolly Janner think he can delete stuff with no comment. As I said before the Burgh Island Causeway link is no different in nature to the Burgh Island link, which I will delete if he deletes mine again. PhilipMWilliams (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Both these links fail WP:ELNO as advertisements for tourist accommodation and both have been removed. Please don't look upon Wikipedia as a marketing opportunity. Please read the spamming policy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have read Wikipedia policy and found this quote: "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic". I feel that Burgh Island Hotel is a major organisation associated with Burgh Island, because it operates the sea tractor and is a notable landmark on its landscape. Also "During World War II, the hotel was used as a recovery centre for wounded RAF personnel". The hotel is also a high-end hotel and last time I was near Burgh Island, I saw someone/some people being transported via helicopter. The hotel is thus notable, especialy in comparison to the notability of the island itself. Jolly Ω Janner 16:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of extracting some text of the first page of the re-instated link:

About Us Tariff & Terms weddings & Parties Hotel Accommodation Our Environment Food join our newsletter View the Island <#> The Peacock Bar <#> Dinner Dances <#> The Pilchard Inn <#> The Ballroom <#> sea views, sunshine, waves, cliffs, floating birds and sand surround you. The beauty and intrigue of an island visit has always drawn guests who are looking for something different but an experience that is almost timeless; a genuine step back into an age of sophistication, manners and elegance.

I can't differentiate this from WP:SPAM or reconcile it with the allowed uses at WP:EL. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Burgh Island is a tourism hot spot and the website reflects that status. Also the website's history section has some interesting information, which adds to the user's understanding of the article and to the hotel itself. The hotel shouldn't have its own article and should be merged into Brugh Island along with its external link. Jolly Ω Janner 17:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a hotel's room rates to establish that the location is a tourism hot spot. The history material could be incorporated, rather than linked to externally, and given reliable sources. An example source is A couple who bought an island complete with hotel in "Financial Times" 12 December 1992. de:Burgh Island has getting on for thirty proper references: we should take note. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The German article uses Burgh Island Hotel as an external link. As its references aren't online, I'll have to try and translate it and my German isn't that good. Jolly Ω Janner 18:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Using the hotel's web page as a reference for a specific piece of information is more acceptable than giving it its own section as an external link. I look forward to the results of the translation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But is it reliable? It surely can't compete with those book references on the German Wikipedia. Jolly Ω Janner 22:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, is the German WP article reliable? I have access to "Financial Times" issues since 1992 and, albeit using the index rather than a page-by-page search, I couldn't find one article used as a reference, although of course the European edition may have had different content. English WP would need to provide its own references.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

outdent] More WP:SPAM has been added, using the fallacious WP:OSE argument. As there have been no developments on using the first spamming link as a ref, both should go: Wikipedia shouldn't be seized upon as a marketing opportunity by businesses in the area (literal or figurative) of the article topic. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Burgh Island --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of both links. They are clearly commercial spam links that fail under WP:ELNO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, both were rather blatant spam, well gone. --CliffC (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting that one of the websites, is © PWConsultants, proprietor Philip Williams. A clear conflict of interests on the part of PhilipMWilliams. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Web presence creators": says it all, really. Well spotted! --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

link for Burgh Island Hotel

The Ritz Hotel and Portmeirion articles, to name but two of many, both have links to the hotels' own websites in the "external links" section - why should Burgh Island be any different? Most Wikipedia articles about commercial operations include links to the websites of the companies involved, regardless of how flowery the language used by those sites may seem. I see no special difference in this case and have reinstated the link to the Burgh Island Hotel's website, which is no more "blatant spam" than any of the others, accordingly.Ghughesarch (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

PS - Burgh Island Hotel is notable, with a long history (indeed, it's probably what most people think of when they hear the name), the Burgh island Causeway development isn't.Ghughesarch (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The link still fails WP:EL, and the tag "Official website" is misleading and incorrect because this article is about an island, not a hotel. Per WP:OSE what happens on other pages is not a reason for what should happen on this page.

Is there any information in the hotel web site where a reader might learn something (i.e. something of encyclopedic value and not related to the rates or rooms or views etc). If there is a page of information, it could be used as a reference to add a fact to the article. If there is no such page, the link fails WP:EL. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Note WP:ELYES "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. The official site should typically be listed first. " A substantial part (rather more than half) of the article is about the hotel and / or its notbility in terms of its history, architecture or guests. As I mentioned above, the notability of Burgh Island is largely tied up with the hotel - see also WP:SOAP, "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic". I've changed the wording of the link to make it clear it's the hotel's website, not the whole island's Ghughesarch (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia version of "two wrongs don't make a right" is at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but thanks for explaining your reasoning. As far as I can see there's nothing new to justify the external link to this site offering tourist accommodation. Is there material in it that you have used for your expansion of the article which might provide a inline source? --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read WP:OSE, and note particularly the following:

In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales. (See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid).

When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

perhaps you'd read WP:ELYES and WP:SOAP and explain why you think my reasoning is flawed, and, notwithstanding WP:OSE, why this particular link is not acceptable whereas the examples I quoted (and countless others) are? I believe you are disregarding a legitimate comparison without thought, rather than accepting the consistency demonstrated by similar articles.

I see little evidence of a "consensus" as to the removal of that link - Jolly Janner and I both seem to think it should be linked from the article, you and a couple of others don't.

The link to the hotel website has been present, unmolested, from 2002 to July this year - to quote your query on the Spam talk page, your spam detector is possibly too sensitive. The other link (Burgh Island Causeway) is about a modern development of flats which, firstly, isn't notable in the way the hotel is, and secondly isn't even on the Island - IF it should be linked from anywhere, it should be from the Bigbury page.

Ghughesarch (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue to advertise a hotel. While the hotel is mentioned in the article, it is not the subject - it's a secondary entity. If enough third party reliable sources can be found, an article about the hotel itself would be an appropriate location for hotel's link; but not here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Barek, I don't agree, and neither do WP:ELYES, WP:SOAP and WP:OSE as quoted above. The hotel and its guests take up more than half of the article (as they also take up more than half of the very small island), and contribute far more than half of the notability of the subject as a whole. As I pointed out above, the link remained unquestioned for 7 years on the article page and has only been removed now because it has been dragged into an unrelated dispute about the advertising link for another venture (which isn't on the island at all.) Ghughesarch (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the article. The hotel does not take up over half the article - only four paragraphs mention it, and some of those only in passing. The fact is that it is commercial linksspam, and is a promotional link which does not belong in an article about the island. The hotel may well be notable; and the link would be appropriate in an article about the hotel. I suggest you focus on creating a well sourced article about the hotel if such references can be located. The mention of the hotel in this article could then be wiki-linked to that article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] User:Ghughesarch sees "little evidence of consensus", but there doesn't seem to be much doubt in four editors' opinions above: "clearly commercial spam"; "clear conflict of interests"; "blatant spam, well gone"; "web presence creators: says it all, really". The link that User:Ghughesarch has reinstated, yet again, has been unequivocally identified as spam, and blatant spam at that, and has no place here. It's possible, reading a previous edit, ("[the flats aren't] notable in the way the hotel is") that the contributor is misinterpreting notability: the hotel is certainly notable enough for inclusion in the article, but this does not confer any right to add promotional links, describing its facilities and tariffs, to the article. Deleting.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

two of the comments you quote clearly relate only to the "Burgh Island Causeway" link, ("clear conflict of interest" and "web presence creators") and one of them ("web presence creators") was written by you. So it's actually - at best - two against two as far as the Hotel link is concerned. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Old Moonraker, I would ask you again to actualy read what I have written, and the various WP guides that have been quoted, and explain why the link is not acceptable (bearing in mind, in particular, WP:OSE, which states very clearly that "other stuff exists" is a justification for including links except where the comparison to other WP articles is painfully invalid, and that When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. In the context of this article, about an island that is predominantly used as a hotel (one of only four properties - the other three much smaller - there and the one which is synonymous with the place), it clearly falls into the category described in WP:SOAP, "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic". Ghughesarch (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(OUTDENT) Please note: I've added a sub-header above for "link for Burgh Island Hotel". This is a convenience header, intended for the renewed discussion (as the original discussion was addressing two links). I attempted to select a neutral subject for the header - if anyone disagrees with the wording of the sub-header, please change it to something more neutral. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started a separate article for the hotel, given that we do seem to be agreed that it is notable (?in its own right?), and transferred some information from the Burgh Island article to the hotel article. Is that Ok? Ghughesarch (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems much more appropriate. Although additional refs should be sought out to help reinforce the notability of the hotel in its own article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ownership

"a public island".."the new owners" Slight contradiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.73.87.140 (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not any more: well spotted, and don't forget WP:BOLD. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burgh Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207202459/https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/protected-wreck-sites/wreck/erme-ingot/ to https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/protected-wreck-sites/wreck/erme-ingot/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)