User talk:JuliasTravels/Salar

This article is developing towards eiher a natural area or an itinerary? We gotta find it an appropriate template. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 15:35, 9 August 2006 (EDT)

I think it's an excellent itinerary. The only suggestion I'd make is to change the name to the "N Days in X" format so it's recognizable as such. Great work though! (WT-en) Maj 21:19, 10 August 2006 (EDT)

San Juan (Bolivia)

Shifted the accomodation stuff from the Day 1 section to San Juan (Bolivia) as it is worthy of an article in its own right. Someone who's been there might want to tidy it up a bit though! This is an impressive article, might have to rearrange some travel plans to fit it in! -- (WT-en) Tim 15:08, 11 August 2006 (EDT)

Best way to see the floods?

I'm fascinated by the Salar de Uyuni, particularly for seeing when it's flooded and it becomes the world's largest mirror. How could I modify a tour to increase my chances of seeing it like that?

Page ripped off?

This page is reproduced entirely at http://www.boliviahostels.com/travelguide/salaruyunitour.html ... one or the other must be a copy and probably not properly acknowledged. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Hmoffatt (talk • contribs) 12:32, 17 August 2010

This issue remains today, 6 1/2 years later. If I had to guess, the irregular structure and language suggests to me that this article is a ripoff from that site. Am I wrong that we need to delete this article and start again from scratch? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm... yes, large parts of this article seem to be copied. We'll have to do some very extensive pruning and rewriting at least. Perhaps we should give it a bit of time (with a template indicating the issue) before we actually delete, as this removes the information and history from sight for non-administrators. If someone is willing to puzzle out the copied pieces and the good ones, or rewrite parts, that would be better than a complete deletion. However, being a copyvio, it can't stay around long. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It should probably be deleted at once, perhaps with the content moved somewhere out of mainspace (a subpage of the talk page?), as any partial rewritten versions might have to be deleted also. To get working attribution we have to work on a page that will not be deleted. --LPfi (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If by "attribution", you mean credit for the other page, it's copyrighted, so copying and pasting more than a few lines from there would require written permission. Some form of credit would be insufficient. I agree that this page should be deleted, and that WV:Copyleft demands that. Does anyone object to deleting the article and starting over? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean attribution to those now rewriting the article. Those contributing before all non-free content is removed will see the versions attributed to them deleted. Therefore the article itself must be deleted before real work can proceed (but a copy can remain an a user or talk subpage some time to help salvage what can be salvaged). --LPfi (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

JuliasTravels, what time frame are you proposing for when to delete? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the article and starting anew. Gizza ^(roam) 11:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

JuliasTravels, I appreciate your efforts to clean up the article, but as has been pointed out in other copyright-violation cases, the problem is that the violation remains in the history until the article is deleted. So I'd suggest for you to copy the clean version to your user page, then delete this article and then start over with a clean new article copied back from your user page. Do you agree with that idea? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted by real life :) As far as the copyright infringement is concerned, it's perfectly acceptable, very common and within Wikimedia procedure to simply delete the relevant parts instead of the entire article. Deleting the article with the history as a whole is only the go-to option if there was no (copyright free) material beforehand, which doesn't seem to be the case here. I considered moving it into my personal space and then copying back the remaining free version, but that would violate the copyright of the valid edits by (quite a number of) other users. That's why I decided to delete the problematic texts and see how that would leave us, and whether it would be worth building back on that. In all honesty I have to say that less is left than I first expected, though. Considering that there's also the duplication with that other site, I'll plunge ahead and delete it after all. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek,User:DaGizza,LPfi. Just thinking about how to recreate now... I wonder if an itinerary article is actually the best way to go. This is a huge place, where people often spend the night, although usually as part of tours. From a traveller's perspective, a more destination-like approach (with common tour stops as just an element) would make more sense than an itinerary, perhaps? It's not an official park, but a park template could work, I suppose? I know it's also possible to take a drive through bus, or explore individually by bike and such. What do you guys think? JuliasTravels (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've never been there, but your idea sounds fine. What is the official status of Salar de Uyuni? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Me neither, but if people are coming here in different ways, a park article sounds right. For the deletion thing, if there are non-trivial edits that are not copyright violations, those users could be attributed in the first version (possibly by attributing them on the talk page and putting a permalink to here in the edit summary). --LPfi (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The salt flats as a whole are just a natural area, of which parts are protected, parts are not but still nice to visit and parts are used for the production of salt. From a traveller's point of view, covering the entire area seems best. The park template does allow for that, according to the template page. I've made a first start. If we do incorporate parts of the old article, mentioning so in the edit history and/or providing a permanent link works, I guess. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)