Talk:Cruising the Baltic Sea

I've removed the vfd template, as there was no consensus. See Project:Votes for deletion/October 2009#Cruising the Baltic Sea -- (WT-en) Eiland 08:14, 30 October 2009 (EDT)

VfD (archive)

Cruising the Baltic Sea

• Delete. I don't see any reason to split this type of information out from our destination guides. Also, much of the article appears to be a copyright violation . --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 20:32, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Hmm, but we don't really have an article on the Baltic Sea. That title currently redirects to Baltic States, which you linked, but the sea borders other countries as well. Of course, if it's a copyvio... (WT-en) LtPowers 20:57, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

• Keep, for time being. I actually told the user to try his hand at creating this instead of his original attempt at "Baltic Sea", which is clearly a no-no. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:15, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

• There is no copyright violation although some of the stuff was research elsewhere the sentences are my own. Baltic states is only 3 small states and the cruises seldom stop at any of them. The current redirect to baltic states from baltic sea actually makes no sense in my estimation since it is based only one the word being the same so far as I can tell. Baltic states is only a minor destination of three countries and have very little tourist value while the Baltic Seas cruises are quite popular and getting more so. You guys can, of course, do whatever you want. My intent is to provide a resource that can be used to springboard into other articles on the site and easy reference for a person going on the cruise. Of course there are many cruises and they don't all hit the same ports so the general nature is to provide references to all possible ports for the user. --(WT-en) DaleDe 01:20, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Just for the record, the two times I have checked, I get exact matches for copyrighted text (this last time: "sea temperature which, in the late spring is dependent upon the melting of the Winter"). My personal experience has been that cruises on the Baltic Sea that do not feature stops in the Baltic States rarely refer to the sea's name at all. Whenever I've seen "Baltic Cruises" or something of that sort, there is at least a stop in Riga. But my point above is really about content—there's no overwhelming amount of travel content that needs to be split out of the guides.

All that said, I disagree with Jani—I think it would be perfectly acceptable to have a Baltic Sea region article. But the copyvio text has to go. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 02:30, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Perfectly acceptable doesn't (to me) convey the gist of Project:Bodies of water. While I know there have been numerous discussions on this, so far the policy still reads that a destination guide (which includes a region guide, in my understanding) on a body of water is not acceptable. --(WT-en) inas 02:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

That would contradict my reading of Project:Bodies_of_water#Regions. The point of that policy is that we don't create articles to write about the bodies of water, and that is not what Dale has set out to do. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 02:52, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I've been reading it as we don't make articles about bodies of water unless that's the natural name for the region in which they are located. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:44, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

This is beside the point -- in this particular case, it's quite obvious that "Baltic Sea" is not a sensible or necessary region grouping, since a) the countries around are dissimilar (compare, say, Kaliningrad and Denmark) and b) all the countries around it are already slotted in elsewhere.

However, I do agree with the original creator that the Baltic Sea is much larger than the three Baltic states, and that many cruises on that body of water don't even visit them. Eg. of the 7 cruises listed at (#1 hit on Google for "baltic sea cruises"), only two actually stop in any of the Baltics. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:13, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

• Keep, it would be a sub page for all neighbourhoodpages of Northern Europe so I dont see the problem of joining all that into one page (this) and linking it from the get in, get around, do sections. -- (WT-en) Eiland 14:32, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm removing the tag from the page as there doesn't seem to be consensus. -- (WT-en) Eiland 06:54, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

High-contrast page banner

I increased the contrast of the page banner. Better? /Yvwv (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

At first glance, much. But I see some significant moire striping on the right side of the image. Powers ^(talk) 19:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like the striping is there in the original, too. So the lightened image is no worse. Powers ^(talk) 19:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)