No boring/heated debate this time - just one click.

Consensus is building!

Option 4 : Not interested in (and tired of) childlish battles about ownership degree.
Hope others will vote so as well.

@ Yatsek: polls only make sense if they include all possibilities (which have to be objective). Moreover I think this one is pointless as we already have the rule to only post if climbed or attempted. Like it or not: to every rule there are exceptions as we learned on the other thread. SP without Everest would be incomplete. But does being a competent climber mean you can write competently about it?

@Eric: I hope you realize that you have been the first one on this thread to start the childish battle all over again?


IMHO you all should rather start thinking about sharing pages with others.

Gangolf Haub wrote: …I think this one is pointless as we already have the rule to only post if climbed or attempted.(…) on the other thread.

We don't.

Bob Sihler wrote:

yatsek wrote:

gabriele wrote:...threads like this look aimed to get the ownership of existing (maybe not fine) pages, avoiding the direct connection with the owner/maintainer

Could you please clarify what you mean?

I think he means that he sees this thread as a way to pressure page owners or the elves into transferring some pages to new owners without confronting the owners directly.

I see it differently. I think this thread is trying to seek a formal policy or at least create a culture of "climb before you post" going forward.

So to clarify: we are not deleting or forcibly transferring mountain pages created by people who haven't climbed the peak. That was never a formal rule, and there are too many such pages, and it would create a huge mess on this site.

Gangolf Haub wrote: SP without Everest would be incomplete. But does being a competent climber mean you can write competently about it?

No, option 2 does not mean the new owner has to write anything. And there's option 3 as well.

Gangolf Haub wrote: IMHO you all should rather start thinking about sharing pages with others.

http://www.summitpost.org/carpathians/363308
http://www.summitpost.org/sudetes/456104
http://www.summitpost.org/f-259-g-259-r ... ins/154116
http://www.summitpost.org/piatra-craiului/665436
http://www.summitpost.org/chornohora/637017
http://www.summitpost.org/par-226-ng-mountains/652688
http://www.summitpost.org/bucegi-mountains/501176
http://www.summitpost.org/svydovets/641708
http://www.summitpost.org/national-park ... ope/343176
http://www.summitpost.org/ban-kov/424310

sjarelkwint wrote:But option 2 also says you cannot vote for it if you don't own a page like that! That's racism

Are you serious?

Too black and white... - so I have voted option 2.

In essence, option 1 is the way to go when writing new pages oneself. In the past, however, I have adopted pages on occasion that were at risk of deletion and gave them a temporary home until a new owner would show. So, it has occurred that I was the owner of a hill, that I had even never seen... I did this with some of the Scot'teryx pages, for example, Tolmie Peak, as well as with some other members leaving. In these cases, I think, it's preferable that someone who never set foot on the mountain, or in the area, takes care of this, over having the stuff deleted.

Proterra wrote:Too black and white... - so I have voted option 2.

In essence, option 1 is the way to go when writing new pages oneself. In the past, however, I have adopted pages on occasion that were at risk of deletion and gave them a temporary home until a new owner would show. So, it has occurred that I was the owner of a hill, that I had even never seen... I did this with some of the Scot'teryx pages, for example, Tolmie Peak, as well as with some other members leaving. In these cases, I think, it's preferable that someone who never set foot on the mountain, or in the area, takes care of this, over having the stuff deleted.

That is what this guy is for. He's been everywhere...

http://www.summitpost.org/users/orphanage/66446

boredom is fatal even for hikers and climbers ...
some people will go on submitting things they don't know and ignoring advices, invitations and so on ...
the solution can be easy : you think that the page has been posted by someone that shouldn't ... vote it low and put a comment telling why !

mrchad9 wrote:

Proterra wrote:Too black and white... - so I have voted option 2.

In essence, option 1 is the way to go when writing new pages oneself. In the past, however, I have adopted pages on occasion that were at risk of deletion and gave them a temporary home until a new owner would show. So, it has occurred that I was the owner of a hill, that I had even never seen... I did this with some of the Scot'teryx pages, for example, Tolmie Peak, as well as with some other members leaving. In these cases, I think, it's preferable that someone who never set foot on the mountain, or in the area, takes care of this, over having the stuff deleted.

That is what this guy is for. He's been everywhere...

http://www.summitpost.org/users/orphanage/66446

Thanks. I didn't know about that, and it surely hasn't been around for long...

Proterra wrote:Thanks. I didn't know about that, and it surely hasn't been around for long...

You're right. Bob added it just recently, and if I'd been away when he did I still wouldn't have known about it either. I actually had to look around a bit to find it.