Template:Did you know nominations/Business tourism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Article over two months old - no recent activity

DYK toolbox

Business tourism[edit]

(
)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 07:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC).

  • As I suggested on talk, virtually everything at business travel is unreferenced and unless any refs are found, at this point a merge, per WP:V, would only redirect one to another. In other words, business travel is in such a sad state that I decided that most of the content there is worthless, and I wrote business tourism from scratch. Only one sentence was copied. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I can not decide on the "new"ness and the community should take a decision IMO. So posted Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Template:Did_you_know_nominations.2FBusiness_tourism. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This should be rejected, merged with business travel, and if the newly merged article meets the criteria, it can be resubmitted to DYK. That is the only and only right order to do things. We cannot allow two articles on the same topic; that would not make sense in any encyclopedia. So it wouldn't make sense here either.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 06:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Since nobody is opposing the merge, I merged referenced content (what little there was) and removed the rest (per WP:V). Now as the merge has been completed, please review this nom again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Still no, as per essence of AMBER's comment, which I agree with. The new article should be 2.7x5 KB to be eligible. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Uh, what? This is a new article. The content of the old one is irrelevant, it was not merged, it was deleted (per WP:V). This is a new start article. The fact that there was some unreferenced garbage at another entry is irrelevant. Or are you saying I should've AfD the old entry first, so that you'd have nothing to compare? PS. I am fully supportive of expansion rules, but expansion should be from good content; I don't think it's fair to blame editors for garbage content in an article that is irrelevant/impossible to ref/gibberish/copyvio/etc. Such content is removed, and if the article is expanded, it should not be counted. And in any case, I wrote this article before finding out there's a similar, crappy fork. So it was intended as new, and to repeat this the n-th time, almost nothign was worth of merger from the old one; so this article is new, barring one sentence, which I am pretty sure has been 5x-ed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
An independent opinion from an experienced DYK reviewer would be appreciated, in order to clarify how Wikipedia policy does and/or should treat these matters.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 13:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in the DYK guidelines or supplementary guidelines as currently written which would result in this being shot down. DYKSG A5 states: "If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." (emphasis mine), which implies that verbatim copying is not counted. However, having similar content in other articles is not an issue. Before I expanded 1740 Batavia massacre there was related content in the Adrian Visscher article (which was unreferenced and which I did not consult). This should be worth a review.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't agree. It is a new article name, not a new article. With the performed merger, and looking at the way the article is worded, the two concepts Business travel and Business tourism are about exactly the same topic. That means there already was an article, and that means the tourism article needs to expand the travel article fivefold before coming to DYK. --Pgallert (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • But it does. Only one or two sentences were worth rescuing from the mess that was old article, and they were expanded more than 5-fold. Everything else was removed per WP:V and does not count. If an article is full with unreferenced gibberish, that gibberish should be removed and should not be counted towards anything. If a previous article was AfD, would you demand a word count on the AfD content? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
        • It is not me demanding that but DYKSG A4. The only exception mentioned there are copyvios. AfD is a hypothetical scenario but I doubt that Business travel would have been deleted. Someone would have added one more ref, and notability is obvious. But while we are at hypothetical scenarios, had you seen that a similar article exists you could have moved the article to its new position and then expand it. This would have produced the current result, even with a more consistent page history, and the case would have been clear that you would have needed to expand the existing text, no matter whether you kept any of it (quote A4). That your rewrite is of much higher quality than what was there before, is of course uncontested. --Pgallert (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Hypothetical or not, I believe that expanded content should only be concerned with content that is encyclopedic. Per WP:V, unreferenced content can be deleted. I didn't see the other article before I mostly finished mine, but had I see it, I still would have deleted 90% of it and expanded what remained. DYKs should not be held hostage to the crap that exists in the article before the expansion, if it is going to be removed (and not missed) during the expansion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
            • I agree with your suggestion, but that is not what DYKSG A4 currently says. I'll support a rule change but for this we are at the wrong venue. Any objections to copying over this discussion to WT:DYK to reach a wider audience? --Pgallert (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
              • Please do and ping me so I can chip in. A rule change seems like a good idea. Short version: an editor who is expanding an article and removes some content should not be held accountable for expanding the removed content, only for expanding the kept content. (Yeah, it can be gamed, but let's AGF this). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with User:Piotrus about the calculation of expansion but there's a much bigger problem. The idea that business tourism = business travel seems quite incorrect and it is certainly not the common name for the latter. The OED defines tourism as "travelling for pleasure" and business tourism as "the practice of engaging in recreational tourist activities while on a business trip". I am going revert the merger which has been done, if I can, and will probably knock both articles down to stubs. When we have agreement at the stub level about the basic definitions of these topics then expansion can start again. Warden (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Any progress on this front? -- Caponer (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, nobody is editing the article(s), so nothing has changed since my latest comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The article has not been edited since June 4. It seems like this can be closed as a failed nomination. SL93 (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Why failed? There's nothing to fix. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not too sure of that. I would assume that there is something that needs to be done when the nomination was tagged for re-review on June 18 and the earlier review was on May 25. SL93 (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Because people keep getting off topic; for example Warden wanted to discuss merger / split which in the end did not significantly affect the article, but still caused a month+ delay in the discussion here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Simple question: did the split happen? This is new enough and long enough as of time of nomination, but I want to get this out of the way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • My impression of the two articles is that they have treated "business tourism" and "business travel" as synonymous terms. It appears to me that "business travel" is the prevalent term in North America, while "business tourism" is used more often in some other English-speaking places. Also, when the business sector is referred to as "tourism", it is reasonable to describe this subsector as 'business tourism". I, personally, perceive a distinction between business travel and business tourism (for example, if I fly to Kansas City, spend the night in a hotel, meet with a client, then fly back home, that's business travel; if I have two days of business in San Francisco and take the family with me and stay a full week to visit national parks, that's business tourism), but that distinction is somewhat subtle and it's not made consistently by these articles and their sources.
Accordingly, it seems to me that the two articles need to be merged. I suggest the title "Business travel and tourism" (a term that some sources use) so that there are no questions about scope. Although Business travel pre-existed Business tourism and has an overlapping topic, I think it would be valid for DYK to treat the surviving article as brand-new, not a split. Reason for this that the content is almost entirely new to Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I would totally support the quick merge and promotion. "Business travel and tourism" returns some 5,160,000 results in Google. "Travel" is usually organized by some kind of travel agency; or an office intermediary, be it, a government ministry or whatever. "Tourism" (as in qualified tourism) is more independent I think, and more free-wheeling. That's why we say: "sex tourism industry" not "sex travel industry", same as "space tourism" versus "space travel" and so on. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 05:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Business travel as a phrase scores 35,000,000 on Google when I try it. In my experience, most corporations have policy and procedures for business travel and there is extensive tax law about it, because it is commonly claimed as an expense. There are over a thousand books with business travel in the title and few of them use the word tourism too. I therefore continue to oppose merger and will be active in developing the current stub. Warden (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You said the same over a month ago, and haven't edited the article(s) at all. I don't mind the split, IF sufficient reliable refs can be provided for it. As things stand, the articles could be merged (because the other article has next to no reliably sourced content), or Colonel Warden is welcome to develop it into something that would stand on its own (an d perhaps even could be DYKed separately). But can we please stop using the mess that the old unreferenced article was (still is) as a reason to stop my totally new, referenced article from being DYKed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Business_tourism&oldid=1020226077"