Upon joining the staff here, I wanted to pay close attention to junk and get rid of it quickly.

Please use this thread and this one only to report pages that may need deletion; it makes it easier for me and for other staff members, and I will be deleting other such threads.

If a page is empty, report it. If a page is under construction but shows little or no progress after a couple of days, report it. If a page is missing information or has bad (incorrect, totally made up, or plagiarized) information, report it.

A mediocre page that is complete will probably stay; I cannot open up the can of worms dealing with pages not up to a particular person's standards.

I am primarily concerned with mountains, routes, and areas, for they are SP's core content. To a lesser extent, I am concerned with trip reports.

You can report other pages as well, of course. But things like albums and off-topic photos are a hopelessly lost cause, and it may be difficult to stay on top of all the junk in that category.

Thanks!

Thanks for taking this initiative on, Bob. -Sarah

Good to see you in charge Bob.

I'd go further than your criteria for "under construction" pages. There should be no need to give the author a couple of days. Under construction entails the addition and positioning of images only. All other work can and should be done off line. Three hours maximum is all I would allow.

Bob,

The Mountain Page for Mount Daly has at least two errors that I know of.

http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/433979/mount-daly.html

First, the elevation gain from the Capitol Creek Trailhead is more than 3200 feet. The trailhead is at approximately 9500 feet and the summit is at 13,300. Also there is approximately 500 feet of elevation loss (down to 9000 feet) on the Capitol Creek Trail which has to be taken into account. Actual elevation gain would be more like 4300 feet.

Second, on the Capitol Creek Approach it says to hike to Snowmass Lake - this is an obvious typo, as it should be Capitol Lake.

I sent two PMs to the page owner back in 2009 regarding the corrections and they have obviously have been ignored. I suppose I could just add these comments in the Additions and Corrections section, but I haven't.

I realize these are probably small issues in what you are trying to accomplish, I just wish a page owner would at least make the corrections, or at least respond to the PM.

Regards,
Mark

MarkDidier wrote:The Mountain Page for Mount Daly has at least two errors that I know of...

Mark, I went in and made the changes. Thanks for letting me know.

vancouver islander wrote:I'd go further than your criteria for "under construction" pages. There should be no need to give the author a couple of days. Under construction entails the addition and positioning of images only. All other work can and should be done off line. Three hours maximum is all I would allow.

You know how I feel about the time to finish a page; I actually think it should take less time than you suggest. However, I think allowing a full calendar day in between submission and deletion/moving is a fair compromise.

Bob Sihler wrote:

MarkDidier wrote:The Mountain Page for Mount Daly has at least two errors that I know of...

Mark, I went in and made the changes. Thanks for letting me know.

Thanks Bob...and could you attach it to the Elk Mountains page as well.

I added my comments on the "Compromise on incomplete pages?" thread you started. Hopefully everyone will use that page for commenting on "nuking" pages and will leave this thread for its originally intended purpose...improving SP content!

Ok Bob...PC page in my opinion isnt so great (not saying: is soooooooooooo bad) so till the guy will do something at it, (that for sure will never happenend ) should be changed in a custom object. We already had many stupid, childish discussions about it without any result loooooooooooooooool. I just want that page to look great not a long boring copy from a book. Now he place there many pics of mine and other many that are not mine and he wrote under that are submitted by me but are not all . Then he told me that he dont know how to change...etc, etc... Hope he will not hate me too bad .

So look at it and if you have same opinion...

http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock ... iului.html

If you commented about how long people should be given, I moved your comments to this thread: http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=54991.

Please use that thread for that discussion and this one for reporting bad pages.

Piatra Craiului route
Tarnica
Bieszczady
Krzemieniec
Halicz
Zamarla Turnia
Czerwone Wierchy

MarkDidier wrote:Thanks Bob...and could you attach it to the Elk Mountains page as well.

Done

yatsek wrote:Bieszczady

Didnt' our Carpathian Jedi Lukzem join the owner in order to improve it ? or did he already give up ?

yatsek wrote:Tarnica
Bieszczady
Krzemieniec
Halicz

I would be more than happy to adopt those four Bieszczady pages, and either transfer them to my flatmate Ania if she signs up, or work together with her to make them better.

Proterra wrote:

yatsek wrote:Tarnica
Bieszczady
Krzemieniec
Halicz

I would be more than happy to adopt those four Bieszczady pages, and either transfer them to my flatmate Ania if she signs up, or work together with her to make them better.

Thanks for offering. The owner was active as recently as August 30, so I would ask you to contact him first. He may be willing to transfer the pages. If not and he doesn't want to improve them, we can proceed from there.

While those pages aren't good, they don't seem bad enough to outright delete unless the information is wrong or stolen. Is that the case on any of them?

kamil wrote:

yatsek wrote:Zamarla Turnia

I could co-adopt Zamarla with someone who's got good pics. I once climbed a nice route on it but that was some 13 yrs ago

Do you want the page? The author was last active in March 2009, so I have no problem transferring it to you. You could aways use the existing pictures and add your own textual information.