Talk:Put-in-Bay, Ohio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I am wondering wether the detailed census data makes sense for a population of 128 (!) people. For example, the 0.78% of the population that are not white, but of two or more races, are made up of one person. Let's hope he has not died yet (or worse, accidentaly made his cross in the wrong place of the census form).

As another example, there are of course not 116 adult males for every 100 adult females, as (tada!) there are no 116 males (adult or not) in the population (and neither are there 100 females).

I strongly suggest to rewrite this in more qualitative terms - any volunteers or anybody strongly opposed? --Stephan Schulz 20:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Population[edit]

As a resident of the island perhaps I may comment on these statistics. On the Island there are 2 separate and distinct areas where the census is taken. We have the village where there are about 128 residents and the township where there are approximately 400.

Each of these areas have their own form of government and tax base. Further adding to the questionable statistics, many residents here are only "part time" residents with summer homes here on the island. The island also has many part time workers who are here only during season and may or may not have been included.

Therefore, it will always be difficult to get an exact count.

Revert Wars[edit]

What is going on with reverting back and forth on this page? I don't see a problem with the external links that he put at the bottom. And guys, be careful or you might get blocked from Wikipedia for violating the Three-revert rule. Cheesycow5 00:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on for awhile. The external links that keep getting added and deleted are kind of commercial, but then Put-In-Bay is a touristy place. I could argue for either side, but the strict rules guidelines probably favor the deletionists. I guess it all comes down to a judgement call, and we know how harmonious those can be. Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the oft-deleted-and-replaced links has always appeared to be dead to me. After looking at it, it's just broken. I'm fixing it and the misspelled one, too. I'm not joining the inclusionist side, but the links at the center of the issue should be technically correct. Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the links that keep spamming are thrown out in several other articles too. See the history and my cleanups of Port Clinton, Ohio, Ottawa County, Ohio, Sandusky, Ohio, Ferry. User masked as several anon ips as well. Edits just to insert/promote links seems the sole motive of the author. These websites (including the pibinfo.com) are not encyclopedic collection nor necessary to provide any info that the article mentions. Further, WP is not a directory of links. And WikiTravel is for folks getting travel information. But, I am new here and respect the judgement of the more senior contributors.RC 23:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hee, hee, don't be too respectful of the seniors around here. Too many bullets - I'm going back to the left margin. Seriously, here's my current thinking.

The three external links:

  1. "Offical (sic) Site" - I don't know what makes it official or offical, but it's very close to completely commercial. It isn't the official Chamber of Commerce site, which is at www.put-in-bay.com, and it isn't a .gov site either. It does have a nice picture of PIB and the Perry monument, though. Still, to me, it's a definite "delete".
  2. "Island History" - a (broken) link from the page above. It's actually a pretty fair history. If it's not a copyvio, I'd say keep it. As a bonus, it links to the page above, so our commercial buddies might be willing to accept keeping only it as a compromise. Or maybe not.
  3. "Tourist travel information" - pretty much what the title says, mostly but not exclusively commercial. It's not as commercial as the first page, but not as non-commercial as the second. It would be helpful to a potential tourist, but as you pointed out that's what WikiTravel is for. I'd say it should go, too.

It really is hard to separate Put-in-Bay from the commerce, since it is a tourist-driven place. It's much the same for Port Clinton, Sandusky and Ottawa County. However, I wasn't aware of the "Ferry" article being subjected to the same treatment. That one's over the line - the world doesn't revolve around South Bass Island, after all.

My straw man for Put-in-Bay would be to leave a fixed "Island History" link, and scratch the other two. I'm interested in your thoughts about such a compromise. If you are favorable, then we can try to sell it to the commercial interests. If you won't buy it, or if they won't, we'll have to pursue something else. Perhaps develop a solid policy about commercial links, rather than a "guideline". Do avoid violating the three-revert rule, though. That one is a solid policy and violations attracts negative attention.

I appreciate your stand here. If we can compromise our way out of this, fine. If not, something will have to be done. I just don't know what and I don't think any of the other "seniors" do either. Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 02:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and I am going to change it now as per your above comments. Note that the article edits are now repeatedly abused by anonymous ips. Maybe the best bet is to block out the annoying websites from being the ability to be added or linked. RC 17:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we can block links to specific websites with our current software. I think, however, that if the revert war keeps up, we should probably pursue blocking the article or articles. I think by Wikipedia definitions, I'm an involved party, since awhile back I edited the article, and I tried to edit it a few days ago and got reverted. So I can't do it. If we need to, we'll make our case and see if we can lock up the articles for a time. Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just block the specific users that are doing the editing? And make sure they know that what they are doing isn't being liked very much by the Wikipedian population. Cheesycow5 02:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be where this is going, but we've got to sell a non-involved admin or a group of admins on what we think needs to be done. That's why I plan to document the whole situation. It's possible that we might not have one person and sockpuppets on the commercial side, but multiple people (including some using anon IP) who are associated with the commercial entity "Putinbay.com LLC". It is also possible that they think they are in the right on this issue, so we shouldn't just label them as vandals and ban them without some justification. There are some "irregularities" in the way they've done things that can be used to make a case against their restoration of the commercial links, I think. But if we can't make a good case, we're stuck with the current situation. Not a pleasant idea.
  • Documenting this will take a little work. I've already got the edit histories from Put-in-Bay and Put-in-Bay, Ohio into Excel worksheets and I'm looking at how the edits have progressed. This is a holiday weekend, and I'm getting over a bad cold, so it might be a few days in coming.
  • This will all become moot if a non-involved admin drops in having done his or her own research on the situation, but that hasn't happened yet and I don't think it's too likely, so I think we'll need to make a case. I'm getting tired watching the reverts, so I know that those making them are getting tired of doing them. I'm hoping we'll get some sort of resolution, soon. Sorry for no easy answers. Catbar (Brian Rock) 02:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting the Edit War[edit]

Ok, this isn't going to end. I'm going to document the 'war' and we'll see how it looks once it's all written down. Catbar (Brian Rock) 00:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my take.

The major issue throughout all of this edit war has been commercial link supporters versus those who oppose commercial links in the article.

Major controversial links

www.put-in-bay.com - the official site of the Put-in-Bay Chamber of Commerce, often replaced by other sites. Basically a commercial site, but it's an official commercial site.

www.putinbay.com - a site apparently controlled by an entity called "Putinbay.com LLC". Often substituted for the Chamber of Commerce official site. Little other than commercial information. This is the site that much of the fighting is all about.

www.putinbay.com/history.htm - a sub page of the page above, and part of the commercial "suite" that keeps getting added and deleted, it actually features a pretty good history of Put-in-Bay. Personally, I think it might deserve a link. This link has been broken for much of the edit war and even when fixed, gets reverted to the broken version.

www.pibinfo.com - substituted for some of the www.putinbay.com links in late April, 2005, which were soon reverted. Later part of the commercial "suite" that keeps getting added and deleted. Apparently represents different commercial interests. A commercial booster website.

In a nutshell

The commercial folks want their links displayed. Here's what I think: there are multiple commercial boosters involved, rather than one person with sock puppets. Early on, they appeared to struggle with each other, but now cooperate. They don't always watch carefully what editing has been done, sometimes reverting away fixes to the broken history link they are promoting.

The other side of this issue opposes what they call "link spam". The encyclopedic information to advertising content ratio of the two commercial links is about zero, so this side is motivated to oppose these links.

The positioning within Wikipedia would really help the commercial interests, so they are very motivated. Most Wikipedians would oppose them, so they are rather heavily outnumbered, although Put-in-Bay, Ohio is not a heavily accessed page. This leads to the rather active edit war we've seen in the last few weeks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected[edit]

As there doesn't seem to be any ongoing dialog here I've unprotected the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Restored to writers orginal content"[edit]

To paraphrase Decumanus from a recent revert, "Restored to writers original content" as a justification for a reversion is very unWikilike. He intends to revert these on sight, and I think I'm going to lean in that direction too. Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was bold, and added our problem user to Vandalism in Progress, FYI Silas Snider (talk) 00:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
At the very least, it's a 3rr violation. I'm curious if his "auto bot" edit summaries are suggesting that we are bots, or that he is using a bot. (As his summaries aren't exactly consistent, I doubt he is, but if it was, wouldn't that be a violation of WP:BOTS?) -- Norvy (talk) 00:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added him to WP:AN/3RR for the 3RR violation. Hopefully that will help. Silas Snider (talk) 02:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Alas, that editor is coming in as an anon from an AOL dialup, so blocking is not much help - they will be using a different address the next time they come in. I have protected the page again instead - since it has had no content changes since the last round of edit wars, I don't see any reason to unprotect it any time soon. If there are any content changes needed, note them here and call for an admin to insert them. Noel (talk) 16:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but that's not the way it should work. If you cannot block someone who should rightfully be blocked, then revert them till doomsday instead. Protecting a page affects all users by raising the bar for edits to a very high standard (compared to regular wiki editing) and should be used as a very last resort. That few changes are expected mitigates it, but is not justification. Administrators can be required to waste a lot more time on Wikipedia than editors. JRM · Talk 09:58, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Islander Point of View[edit]

Hi Guys/Gals, Id like to chime in on this discussion. I am the owner/creator of the Put-in-Bay Visitors Guide (www.pibinfo.com) a fairly new website. I understand some of the issues at hand, and that there is a "Wikedia community" that has some standards and guidelines that are pretty much followed to keep Wikedia from being a directory of Links, and I understand why. The situation at hand however may be a little different than some others in that Put-in-Bay is a small community/Island with only a handful of competing websites that provide valuable information for visitors to the island. Speaking from the perspective of an islander, there are several websites that (in my opinion) provide very valuable iformation about Put-in-Bay. The first is the Chamber website, this site was the first website created for Put-in-Bay back in 1996. I actually created it as a class project while finishing my degree at BG, and subsiquentlly passed it onto the Chamber in 1997. Since then it has been one of the top sources of information for visitors to the Island, and I feel should be the Official website. Putinbay.com since its restructuring several years ago, has now become probably the best Put-in-Bay website out there though, and although it is a commercial site and competes with the Chamber site, I feel it should definitely be on your External links list as it provides invaluable information for islanders and visitors alike.(and this is coming from a competitor) The third site, which you already have listed is the Putinbayphotos.com website which really speaks for itself. No where will you find a compilation of photos of the island that is more comprehensive than the one John Rees provides in his Put-in-Bay Photo magazine. The fourth and fifth is the LEIHS site, and Perry Monument site, and the last one I would like to mention is the site I created this past winter - The Put-in-Bay Visitors Guide (www.pibinfo.com) I created the site myself, with the help of an islander friend of mine whos family history goes back to the 1800s. Our main goal with the website is provide another source of information to visitors, with a slant toward family attractions, art and island history - we are not there yet but that is our intention and we will be continually updating the site with that goal in mind. All the sites I've just mentioned, have been created by islanders for visitors, other islanders and the public in general and truley provide valuable information to anyone interested or visting the island. Ive seen the development history of all the sites I've mentioned, and in my opinion these are the sites that best represent Put-in-Bay and if there are any sites that should be listed in the External Links section, these would be the ones I would list. DK

Blacklist?[edit]

Reproduced from above for reference:

Maybe the best bet is to block out the annoying websites from being the ability to be added or linked. RC 17:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can block links to specific websites with our current software.Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is indeed the capability to blacklist spam sites. I'm wondering if this is a big enough problem to request blacklisting the offending urls. I would argue that it is, as the page has been protected twice over the matter. Would there be any downsides to this request? -- Norvy (talk) 18:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External Link for Put-in-Bay Photos[edit]

A good source for Put-in-Bay features and activities are the 1500+ photos on the web page, <spam link removed>

I removed the spam link from the above comment. The spammers can't even keep from adding their links to each other's comments. Rhobite 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Due to the sterile edit war between competing linkspammers, I have protected this article from editing by new and anonymous users. I have also removed all commercial links from the article. We're not a travel guide. Removing a couple marginally-useful links is a small price to pay to rid the site of this edit war, which has been going on for about a year. Rhobite 05:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it full protect just now. Semi protection is not for edit wars nor is it intended to silence anons. It is just to protect vandalism. Besides, their isn't enough for SP anyway. Honestly, it's barely enough for full but I'll leave it be for now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're spammers. They're not trying to improve the article, they're trying to make money. I am not "silencing" legitimate contributors. Spam is vandalism. If you'll bother to look through the history you'll see that people have been spamming this article for a year now. Rhobite 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Edits[edit]

The person(s) editing/changing discussion comments and doing the real spamming are not the same as ones posting websites in external links section. Changes,spamming and other comments are obviously being made by others just trying to stir things up and create some kind of percieved edit war between the previously mentioned PIB websites and/or Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.159.83.142 (talk • contribs) .

Do you think we're really stupid here? You posted that comment from 4.159.83.142, which is in the same IP block as the address which altered URLs on this talk page, and spammed the article. You are one of the people modifying comments and spamming links to pibinfo. Rhobite 21:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as for altering any URLs, I think Putinbayphotos.com is one of the best/most informative PIB websites out there, why would I change it to "www.putinbay.com ? Ive never altered anyones URL in the discussion page or external links section. I have added links to the External links section because I do not see them as spam. - as for altering the discussion comments: below is what I took off the discussion page because it was spam/trash talking: (whatever my IP was) (im the one that wrote "to funny ..." at the end because it amazes me how childish the banter was, and not even worth a response.)

discussion text taken off ----

- Could you please define "islander"? You seem to be trying to send a message that since you are an "islander" you are more qualified to place your sites in this area of wikipedia. Sounds more like a desperate plea to promote your site(s) of preference. Do you live on the island year round, or do you flee after your money has been made like 99.9% of all the other "islanders"? - - Mainlander - - I'm a part time islander. THE MAN SPEAKING ABOVE IS NOT. Islanders have the rights and not you little tourists. You have no word in our island. -

Spam blacklist[edit]

The Wikimedia spam blacklist has been updated to block putinbay, pibinfo, putinbayphotos, and put-in-bayonline. I am very disappointed that this was necessary. The spam blacklist is an absolute last resort. Rhobite 01:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who keeps removing an informational link to the island but please stop. The island is tourist driven and information pertaining to tourism is NOT SPAM. In fact SPAM is Clearly defined here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&defl=en&q=define:Spam&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

in addition, it would appear Norman is in violation of the three revert rule. Any suggestions on how this might be adressed?

In addition I would point to this as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Island

As you can see a NEWSPAPER which clearly generates its revenue from advertising has for quite sometime been an external link. What is the difference between a website that provides tourist information and a newspaper that does the same both which help offset expenses by accepting advertising?

Both of these communities are islands and very similar in the tourism industry. Can Norman please explain the difference? If not please stop advancing your own personal agenda when it is clear that this is no more of a spam link that the example cited.

Thank you for posting a note here. Your link does violate Wikipedia's external links policy so I have removed it. To respond briefly to your arguments: Regardless of how you define "spam", Wikipedia's external link policy does prohibit users from exploiting Wikipedia to promote websites. And the presence of a questionable link on another article does not excuse you from following this policy.
For probably two years, anonymous users have tried to use this article to promote commercial tourism-related sites. Due to their persistence, many sites have been added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. Wikipedia's primary goal is to write a free encyclopedia, and promotional external links do not contribute to this goal. I have replaced the link with a link to the Open Directory Project. I hope this is a good compromise. If you have any questions about this decision, please ask. However, please do not replace this link any more. It does not add anything to the article. Rhobite 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 years of Edgewater Investment Group (Ohio) spam on Wikipedia[edit]

A history of this problem:

See also:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name?[edit]

Um, getting back to actually discussing the topic itself... does anyone have information (anecdotal or otherwise) as to how Put-In-Bay got its name? I mean, OK, it's a small bay, but anything more than that? Dave (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to some sources, the original name on early maps was "Pudding Bay" because it looked like a pudding sack. I'll add something. —MJCdetroit (yak) 16:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously think the early settlers looked at a lake inlet and thought it looked like a "pudding sack", whatever that is? Good grief.70.233.158.10 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the "Pudding sack" claim before, but find little proof on the matter. What is told to visitors by the park service (and from what I've seen from the Chamber and others) is that the name originated from Perry telling his men to "Put the ships in the bay" prior to the battle of Lake Erie. I feel the pudding claim holds little clout, and should be removed. Tylerelliott (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly named after President Putin. Please update the article accordingly. --ENight (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion of links[edit]

I do not want to get involved in whatever petty dispute was going on here in 2005/2006. The Chamber of Commerce website is outdated, has broken links, HAS ADVERTISING, and does not help people who want certain information. Thus, the attempt to add an external link to the downloadable PDF Island Guide which is NOT advertising, and is merely a printable map of the island with businesses, attractions, places of interest noted upon it to give visitors the ability to plan their trips beforehand. I strongly feel that this is not spam or advertising at all, and instead is a valuable resource for people who want to find out where certain locations are on the island (South Bass Island) and in the village/township of Put-in-Bay. I am open to discussion of why you think people should not be able to view or access this informative PDF Island Guide. Regards. DrChasBoomer (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from anything else, what Chamber of Commerce link are you talking about? I can't find any link to anything about a Chamber of Commerce. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the righthand side of the page, in the middle area, there is a box/table with a map of counties, coordinates, population, etc. and also what appears to be an "official" website link. That is a link to the Chamber of Commerce site, which is outdated, has broken links, etc. I can provide specific examples, if needed. This is a poor representation of an "official" website for the community and my link to the "Island Guide and Map" is meant to provide up-to-date, easy-to-use content. Just the PDF fiel link, not the link to the main site for putinbayonline, which I feel is also useful but does contain limited advertising (as almost every website does in one way or another). Regards. DrChasBoomer (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had checked every external links that I could find on the page, but I had forgotten to look at the infobox. Thanks for the explanation on that point.
Simply having advertising isn't the real point — a chamber of commerce is generally seen as more of a dependable, neutral body than any individual group's website, if nothing else because it's composed by several of those groups. I'm somewhat inclined toward inclusion of the other link, simply because it's useful; the Chamber of Commerce has a similar guide, but it's something like 25MB rather than the 700KB of this one. On the other hand, inclusion might mean that we have too many external links here; could we perhaps cut out one of the currently existing ones? Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to remove any external link(s), my recommendation would be the last one that lists coordinates. It is a redundant link because the coordinates are already listed up in the infobox in the upper right part of the page, and I believe it is also the exact same link as is listed already. The Historical Society is a useful and informative link. The link to the Monument, which is a huge part of what Put-in-Bay is all about to many visitors/historians, is valuable too. The DMOZ link, based on reading the past history of this page and contributors should remain as the "buffer" that it was intended as. Thoughts? DrChasBoomer (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mapit is standard for US communities; it's different from the rest, anyway. Nyttend (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chamber's 2008 PDF is actually 38MB, I think. They don't have a 2009 one up yet. And yes, I saw the MapIt was a slightly different link, although I don't see that listed as an External Link on many other city sites I looked at, and other cities did have longer lists of External Links (specifically, Troy, MI, my hometown as an example). No one else seems to have an issue, one way or the other, with this informative PDF Island Guide link, not even the original person who took down the first link I put up. DrChasBoomer (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing new to discuss here. Wikipedia's external link policy does prohibit users from exploiting Wikipedia to promote websites, and that's why we've removed this link-spam when it appears. Further, Wikipedia is not a travel guide and not intended to be used to promote tourism. Every few months the same people try to add the same links to this article and similar articles such as Lake Erie Islands and Port Clinton, Ohio. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile... or in this case, any article remotely connected to this topic. --NormanEinstein (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting everyone who posts or joins Wikipedia who offends you in to one big categorical "the same people" statement is pretty naive and high and mighty of you Norman. I have never posted on Wikipedia in my life until this past week, so take offense to your accusation. Whether this is a travel guide or not is irrelevant. The Island Guide PDF is a resource that users do find important and a link to it is by no means solely tourism related. It is an informative listing of island attractions and locations. Period. Further, would this PDF Island Guide (or link) be any different in your or anyone else's mind if it came or was found from a different Website URL than the putinbayonline one? You seem pretty adamantly opposed to anyone doing anything to this topic but yourself. That is pretty aloof. DrChasBoomer (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked out the [WikiTravel article about Put-in-Bay? That website is expressly for the purpose of travel, tourism, and attractions and might be more helpful to you. --NormanEinstein (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Luck Dr Chas, Norman seems to have his own personal agenda here and wants to advance only his points as he clearly has blinders on. Despite the valid points you have brought up, the "Gestapo" mentality of Norman appears to be more important. Looks like this website has gotten wayyyy of track letting the trolls like him bully others, lump them into a group, and censor others contributions.

You think there's censorship? Both your words and ChasBoomer's constitute personal attacks, but they remain here. The more that this discussion continues in this direction, the more opposed I become to the inclusion of this link: if it's important enough to you to have it and to address other users in this way, it seems to me that you're trying to add this for promotional reasons. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply been reading the discussion, and It appears Dr Chas has some valid points. If the Chamber site which if you look IS outdated and inaccurate, it would appear that this is a disservice to the reader. Why not let an obviously more detailed and ACCURATE resource be displayed perhaps as a compromise until the "official" site becomes accurate? Having a guide over a year old is not providing accurate information. After all is not information what people seek in the resource? In comparing the sites in question, I have found that http://www.ohio-put-in-bay.com seems to offer the most comprehensive and complete overview of the island not just in a commercial way but it's content on fishing, history, and island information in general.

Rather than just delete a resource, has anyone taken the time to COMPARE the sites in question? I also read in a prior post that advertising was an issue. I have compared the sites in question and have found that to be on the chamber site you must pay to be a member. It appears that on the other site there is no charge. Therefore would the Ohio pib site not be a better match based on those standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.17.218 (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Paul Jeris. I am the Vice President of the Put in Bay Chamber of Commerce, a Board member of the Ottawa County Visitors Bureau and a owner of many local businesses. The controversy all started with a local businessman Mark Mathys constantly trying to get backlinks for his sites. My business partner and myself separated from him over 10 years ago. The following sites www.putinbay.com, www.putinbayohio.com, www.putinbayreservatioons.com, www.putinbayonline.com and www.visitputinbay.com all work with the chamber and work with the community in general. Pauljeris (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the two sites in question from an OBJECTIVE point, I would have to agree that the Ohio-put-in-bay version clearly is more current, provides more information / educational content than the others. I therefore reverted it back. Before you folks get into a revert war, why not discuss the merits? It does appear from an outside observer that Norman appears to rather "high-handed" While he reverts, he gives no logical explanation why a site that is more current, provides more information and has LESS advertising than the other site is to be faulted?

Chamber or not, if a web site is outdated, and another resource that has even less advertisements and more content that is relevant to the topic, it should be evaluated, not just stricken at random. Have those of you in this revert war taken the time to LOOK at both sites? I think if you do, common sense will prevail and the fact that the Ohio-put-in-bay site is a better resource will prevail. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.17.218 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The chamber of commerce website is included in the article because it's the closest quasi-official online site for the island, and is not included simply for travel and tourism information; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. Tourists that need accommodation or attraction information can use Google to find that information quite easily. The frequent edit-wars by competing website operators resulted in a compromise where we provided a link to the Open Directory Project which would then contain all the external links. --NormanEinstein (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norman, you are actually incorrect here. The purpose of a "Chamber of Commerce" is exactly that, to PROMOTE development and commerce by Wikipedia's own definition. (Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_commerce) This is not what Wikipedia is about, more specfically on this article. Most specfically, the site provided by the Vistors Bureau provides not only factual historical data, but information more pertinet to this article than does a site promoting commerce. Your position that a site that promotes commerce and REQUIRES a fee to join and advertise is more official than a unbiased site which provide more complete information and that ANYONE is permitted to participate in free of charge is without merit.

In reading the history of this article it would appear you are ignoring the facts and for whatever reason determined to have "your way" despite the facts that are eveident when you compare the two and apply the above mentioned logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.17.218 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point of my comment. Chambers of commerce are quasi-official organizations, and that's why it's the preferred site in the absence of a government site. In no way is there anything factually incorrect in my previous comment. I definitely want to have my way, much the same as you. And since we have opposing views, the best choice is to maintain the compromise of using the link to dmoz.org where you are free to provide a link to your website. --NormanEinstein (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If ability to join/participate is the problem, then we really shouldn't list municipal websites — for example, it's far easier to join the group that controls the link we're discussing than to join the group that controls the website listed at the bottom of the infobox for Cleveland, Ohio — but that article is a featured article, so there must not be something wrong with that. As Norman says, this spot is for the official website, and without a specific official website, we go with the closest that we can get. Nyttend (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear on something. It is not MY site, it is the site of the visitors bureau, and there is nothing quasi-official about it as it is totally official. It is a legitimate organization that represents the whole, at no charge, to benefit the island, Put-in-Bay.

In past discussions, others have cited the fact that many of these sites in the "revert war" were paid advertising sites. The chamber site is an advertising site. You must PAY to be on it. The other site is not a pay site. Therefore by your own words it must be excluded. Most communities have a visitors and convention bureau (VCB) that is as "official" as it gets.

As you state we both feel passionate about our positions and I do not see how keeping the chamber site and listing the visitors site on DMOZ is an acceptable compromise. Why not list them both for what they are? One being Put-in-bay Chamber of Commerce and the other being Put-in-Bay Visitors bureau? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.17.218 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from everything else, we can't have both — the coding will only permit one link in the box. Chambers of commerce are generally seen as the closest to official that we can get. The purpose of the chamber is not primarily to host advertising (wouldn't the purpose of the bureau be to get people to come, while the chamber exists partially for those people that are already there; hence it's less of a promotional site), but because the chamber is more of a set website than the visitors' bureau (if I understand you to say that anybody can do something there, which makes it a weaker source), it's better to have it instead of the visitors' bureau. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I thought that as well until we now see that put-in-bay.com is being redirected to another privately owned web site called visitputinbay.com Who is says it is registered to Island Business Solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.186.62 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been blocked as a reincarnation of the indefinitely blocked spammer, Pibohmark@aol.com. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferry mentions[edit]

This has been disscussed several times already on multiple user pages; but re-starting the discussion here so that there is a centralized point of reference in the future. A user has been edit-warring over the inclusion of the text:

Ferry service provided by the Jet Express and Miller Boat Line connects it with Catawba Island, Kelleys Island, Port Clinton, and Sandusky, Ohio.

Multiple other editors have been restoring the phrasing:

A ferry connects the community with Catawba Island, Kelleys Island, Port Clinton, and Sandusky, Ohio.

The most recent occurance has resulted in the page again being protected due to the tenacious behaviour as well as the claim of off-wiki solicitation to restore mention of the commercial entities.

I and several others have reverted a few times due to there being no benefit for the unsourced commercial advertisement of ferry providers. Howver, the IP continues to restore them with the only argument being the mention has been there in the past, so should remain. I would like to get comments aand opinions on this mention by others. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information. A key piece of information about Put-in-Bay is how to get there. it is not as if there are 20 ferry services, there are simply two. The previous listing had them both listed and neither was "touted" It was simply providing information needed to get to this location. The Miller Ferry has been there for years and has not attempted to remove the competitions link, simply inform people of both options —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.185.18 (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you've done in the past, you continue to confuse Wikipedia with Wikitravel. Unlike Wikitravel, Wikipedia is not meant to be a travel guide: we provide an overview of information about a topic, and getting to a location is not a significant aspect of the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to not have the two ferry companies that service the island listed. If you for example look ar Wikipedia airports you will see many list what airlines service a particular location. For years both ferry services were listed with no qualms and all the sudden a rather high handed position comes along and decides they should not. Based on that I am going to place the two non touted services back as the example I have given would appear to be acceptable on well over 20 locations I have reviewed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.185.18 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 July 2010

A major difference is that airlines are generally notable, but ferry services aren't. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another high handed uninformed comment. Who says what is "notable"? What magic number is "notable" The ferrys transport over 2 million people and cars anually. More than many of the regional small airline carriers in the examples cited above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.185.18 (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinaw_Island same type of island, same ferry service yet it has the ferry named. Is this ferry "notable" and the Miller Ferry and Jet Express not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.185.18 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this page: the presence of content on one page and the absence of the same type on another page may indicate that the first page needs to be trimmed. Anyway, read our notability standards. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation[edit]

Does OH-215 run anywhere near Put-In Bay? I think this is a typo on the main page. OH-357 is the only state highway on the island.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Put-in-Bay, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to external links[edit]

I want to propose that the external link for Put-in-bay's Chamber of Commerce be changed to put-in-bay.org. Full disclosure, I was contacted via someone who was contracted by someone within the city, so my COI is unfounded to say the least. After my initial attempt to edit the site I was hit with a blacklist notice. Upon help from the Wiki admins and through further research, I discovered there has been significant conflict over previous websites linked in Put-in-bay's wiki page regarding un-Wikipedia-approved behavior. The link currently at the bottom of the page is another that has slipped through the cracks.

It was brought to my attention that the website putinbay.org was purchased by the very same owner who has been the topic of much debate here. This may go out of scope for Wikipedia, but I was also made aware of the many unethical behaviors done by this person(s). Domain names were purchased a long time ago to prevent the residents and employees of the city alike from having access to them, many of which have been blacklisted here as a result of unapproved behavior. If one were to navigate through putinbay.org they are only to find the same links that have been blacklisted here by the community. This is further proof of the complex and intricately weaved web spun by this company. Not only is this a loophole in Wikipedia's rules and regulations, but it also prevents other businesses from within the town the chance represent themselves on the web, which I believe to be unethical business practices.

I understand that put-in-bay.org may be directly affiliated with the city's COC (of this I am unsure of), and I know how the community feels about that, but I still feel that it promotes fairly across all aspects of the city's community, more so than the "Chamber of commerce" of one entity. I would your thoughts on this topic.

Gserrano0 (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Reply 08-MAR-2018[edit]

no No actionable request The proposed website is inaccessible, either because the certificate it uses cannot be validated or their encryption is not strong enough. Regards, Spintendo      05:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants, Shops, Bars[edit]

I think it would be good to add a list of the restaurants, bars, and shops present on the island, so people have an idea of what there is to do on the island. Bridge2020 (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a tourist or travel guide. See WP:NOTGUIDE. If there's a business that has received significant coverage on a national level, then we can consider those exceptions, but generally local nightspots are to be avoided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, in the past, this article has been subject to heavy link-spamming. I suggest taking a hard line on commercial links. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name?[edit]

There's quite a lot early history, but no indication of how the unusual name 'Put-in-Bay' came to be adopted. Valetude (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Put-in-Bay,_Ohio&oldid=1212194987"