(WT-en) It's So Easy Travel Insurance
Welcome
editHello It's So Easy Travel Insurance! Welcome to Wikivoyage.
To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Project:Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub.
Project:Welcome, business owners contains additional information that may be helpful to you. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 09:11, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
VfD discussion
editCopied from Project:Votes_for_deletion.
- Delete. userpage advertising (WT-en) 2old 09:35, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- See Wikivoyage Shared, Advertising policy. (WT-en) 2old 11:10, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- My understanding is that the advertising policy exists for sitewide advertising by Internet Brands. In the case of an individual user I think Project:Don't tout and Project:User page help would probably be the most relevant guidelines. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:03, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- See Wikivoyage Shared, Advertising policy. (WT-en) 2old 11:10, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- Keep. We're generally pretty liberal with user pages, and Project:Welcome, business owners contains the guidance "...it's quite alright to put information about yourself and your business on your User page (if you don't turn it into a marketing brochure)". I don't think this page does more than describe the business, and while it would have been nice if this user made a contribution other than just advertising his business I don't think we want to set a precedent of preventing user pages from containing business info for travel-related commercial contributors. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:21, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- Keep. Agree with Ryan – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 19:40, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- Keep (WT-en) Pashley 01:31, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- Delete If we allow unfettered advertising on users homepages, then its a can of worms. Every business can place a full ad page on wikivoyage. Waut for the first trademark dispute on usernames. Its far away from the goal of creating a travel guide --(WT-en) Inas 04:40, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
- Just a note, this is also up for VFD on shared, please voice your opinions there too, since this is a precedent-setting issue – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:19, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
- Keep. We already established a policy consensus on this issue, and consensus cannot be overturned by vfds, as they require a rationale per policy, provided one exists. In other words, vfds cannot serve as a workaround the consensus process. If we want to readdress the issue, that should be done there, not here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:18, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
- If there is a consensus there, I think it is that user pages should be within reasonable limits, and what is reasonable can be handled through the VFD process (since there is no other!) If this page remains unchanged, essentially it sets a precedent that any company can set up a home page with their ads on wikivoyage, no requirement to make a conttribution to the guide, just log on, create an ad, and move on. If we decide that lies within our reasonable limits, then so be it.. --(WT-en) Inas 07:17, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
- My understanding of the outcome of that discussion was that we'll respect userspace up to the point at which it becomes linkspam, or is inappropriate because it either: violates our sex tourism policy, or is fraudulent. I'd also delete pages that are being used for cyber-bullying. You'll note that in that discussion I came down on the side of deleting ads in userspace, but my main point is that this page, which is the only page where we use the guilty until proven innocent rule, cannot be used as a workaround discussions or existing consensus. That would violate the basic principle of how our site works, and can really poison debate (this has happened before). Preserving our consensus-based mode of working together is way more important than the outcome of this issue, IMO. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:34, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
- Somewhat ironically, it appears we disagree over the consensus. --(WT-en) Inas 22:00, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
- My understanding of the outcome of that discussion was that we'll respect userspace up to the point at which it becomes linkspam, or is inappropriate because it either: violates our sex tourism policy, or is fraudulent. I'd also delete pages that are being used for cyber-bullying. You'll note that in that discussion I came down on the side of deleting ads in userspace, but my main point is that this page, which is the only page where we use the guilty until proven innocent rule, cannot be used as a workaround discussions or existing consensus. That would violate the basic principle of how our site works, and can really poison debate (this has happened before). Preserving our consensus-based mode of working together is way more important than the outcome of this issue, IMO. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:34, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Apologies to those who consider that what I have written is not appropriate here. As someone who works in a specialist area of insurance, I was hoping to warn and inform people by writing something. It was my first time visiting the site and I don't wish to contravene its intentions. Somehow, what I wrote was originally in the 'shared' part of the site - I was learning about the site and didn't even realise I was in that section - it was all a bit confusing! I thought I was remaining within the guidelines laid out for businesses. Apologies if I have failed. I would rather amend my article and, hopefully, write others that might be useful to people than just be deleted altogether. I'd be happy to receive guidance. --(WT-en) It's So Easy Travel Insurance 17:49, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
- We have an article on Travel insurance. Contributions there would be welcome provided you don't tout. (WT-en) Pashley 06:03, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Sooo, can the consensus on this one be interpreted as keep? --(WT-en) Stefan Talk 06:47, 13 November 2008 (EST)
- I'd go with that. There is policy allowing userpage advertising, within limits. It's also nice to see that the user concerned has at least had the courtesy to apologise/acknowledge the vfd and seems willing to be educated by the community. (WT-en) Nrms 06:52, 13 November 2008 (EST)