Talk:Natural wonders of India

Provenance

This is quite nice. Where did the content come from? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Images from Commons - The latitude and longitude positions came from GeoHack (link from Wikipedia), those already in Wikivoyage, Wikimapia, Wikidata, GPS Geoplanner and Google maps. I created the list of names first, then went ahead and found most information in Wikipedia (articles of same name or mentioned in other Wikipedia articles), UNESCO World Heritage list, Wikidata and Wikivoyage. Added more names to the list as I went through and added reworked text. Some names actually came up from looking at the National Parks and Reserves of India etc. Part of the list of names came from searching but only used the place names that came up and compared to Wikipedia etc.. Matroc (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Images

Having rows of images on the left and right really isn't Wikivoyage style as laid out on the image policy page. But that aside, the images extend way beyond the bottom of the article: I count 5 images on each side that are fully or mostly beyond the last word.

In addition, why is there a picture of a clownfish in the Australian Barrier Reef? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

VFD discussion

Where does this kind of list end? More importantly, though, see here. All of the places listed there are also found in the Natural wonders of India article. Copyvio, or at least something similar to it? Or the text, "Monsoon brings the Sea of Milk or the magnificent Dudhsagar Waterfall from the high peaks of the Western Ghats. Dudhsagar Falls is listed among the top 10 highest water falls in India and one of the most beautiful in the world", which is exactly the same in both articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, compare these two ungrammatical sentences - one from the external link you gave and the other from the Wikivoyage artice:

The Root Bridges of Cherrapunji are also known as Double Decker Living Root Bridge are made from the roots of the Ficus elastica tree, located in the Indian state Meghalaya.

The Root Bridges of Cherrapunji are also known as Double Decker Living Root Bridge was made from the roots of the Ficus elastica tree.

The next attraction alphabetically looks very slightly edited from the source:

The third largest crater which is two kilometer in radius and about 100 meter deep is located near Mehkar in Buldana of Maharashtra. Lonar crater lake is the world’s oldest meteoric crater and the only one formed in basalt rock.

The third largest crater with a two kilometer radius and approximately 100 meter deep. It is perhaps the world’s oldest meteoric crater and one formed in basalt rock.

I think the case for deletion due to copyvio is strong. But the counter-argument is that this is a list of 53 attractions, not 10, so maybe it would be reasonable to demand a thorough edit of the attractions in common to any source and this article, the removal of excessive images, and the keep the article. It would be a lot of work to go to waste, and it seems like a very valid travel topic, as I could easily imagine people building itineraries around visits to some of these attractions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It's possible, though, that the 43 other items on the list are also copyvios, from other, unacknowledged sources; when I did a web search for some of the content, I saw text that was very similar to other text on Wikipedia, although I think that was from the list of 10 (maybe WP has a copyvio as well!). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm seeing a couple of copyvios from other, unacknowledged sources in this edit. They're not exact matches, but definitely close, on the descriptions.

You can get a good idea of what I mean here or here. It is, of course, possible that the copyvio is reverse — the WV article was written first, and people have copied from it. That's something I'm not sure about. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

If others are copyvios, then the article absolutely must be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree that if the article is full of various copyvios, as it seems, a speedy delete would probably be the best solution. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed possible the plagiarism went the other way, but probably not where there's non-standard grammar more typical of Indian English. I seriously doubt Matroc would ever plagiarize. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, and I'm surprised that there would seem to be any plagiarism under the name of a long-term, trusted Wikivoyage user. I'm not sure what the explanation is, but further research may be necessary on my part. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not await Matroc's input? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘(edit conflict — sorry that it goes exactly against what you are advising, I did not intend that) Looking back, I found this earlier and I was surprised by it. The edit on the left was the edit that created the page. Then, text was removed, for a reason. It seems strange that you would write an article including information that is negative about a place, and then hours later remove that content. The only reason I'd ever do that is if I copied something from a source and then found some text I didn't agree with. Sorry to put anyone under any suspicion here, especially a trusted contributor, but we have to look at everything.

Also, the contributors to the article (I get this by looking at article history) are: me (today), you (in November), ShakespeareFan00, Traveler100, T100's bot, DaGizza, Nurg, and Matroc. All trusted contributors. Strange. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that the article is worth keeping... I will be glad to go ahead and rewrite/reword/simplify each of the descriptions if that would resolve any issues one may have. -- Matroc (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Matroc, I think you should address the issue squarely. Did you copy and paste from one or more sites, sometimes with very slight paraphrasing? Because if you did, that would have violated Wikivoyage:Copyleft and require the article to be deleted. Do you know whether any of the listings are not plagiarized from somewhere? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Squarely, I did read various sources and basically all had virtually the same text. If I remember correctly (from over two years ago) I probably did alter the text I read and not just paste and copy. Not as an excuse, but there are just so many ways one can say "xyz is the largest waterfall in India" is there? I just rewrote all the descriptions on my desktop but that is neither here nor there. I won't argue if you want to go ahead and delete the page for whatever reason. Thanks to all, best wishes for the future -- Matroc (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are many ways to write that, and express it more specifically. "xyz is the waterfall with the greatest drop in India", "xyz is the waterfall with the highest volume of water in India" (not the same thing), "It is at xyz waterfall where you can see the most drastic drop in all of India" "If you want to see the most dramatic waterfall in India, go to xyz, where the water plunges x-number of metres, the most extreme distance of any Indian waterfall", etc., etc. When I used to be a writing tutor, I often referred clients to this page at Purdue Online Writing Lab and similar pages, so they could learn the difference between good paraphrasing and plagiarism. I humbly suggest you look at that page. Meanwhile, I think the solution for this problem may be for you to copy this article to your userspace and work on summarizing and paraphrasing without a bunch of exact or poorly paraphrased phrases and sentences you got from some other source (especially one that no-one is free to copy at will, even with credit). Then, we can delete the article and you can recreate a clean article that's truly in your own words and also gives credit to your sources in your first edit summary.

Does this seem like a good solution to all of you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I think we should check the re-written version to make sure there is still no instance where it is very similar to the original text. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Copied page to Sandbox/Natural wonders of India and edited descriptions.. Will be rechecking page again and thanks for Perdue page link ... Should you look at that page - please leave any notes on its talk page for further improvements that should be made -- Unfortunately, I am not a writer. Also on the original talk page I did note where I looked for information etc. Thanks -- Matroc (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: kept, at least for now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page is missing permission

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page is missing permission information and may be deleted:

• Valley of flowers National Park, Uttrakhand India..jpg

You can see the details at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)