Fred's Fresh Fish

[+Max and 99]

Fred has a successful fish restaurant. Everyone likes Fred's Fish. What a surprise to find out that Fred's closed down because Fred wasn't paying his taxes. No more Fred's  Fish!

 

Sue notices that the independent fish place that was here (this has nothing to do with that category, it's just for an example here) is now out of business. Sue has always wanted to run her own seafood restaurant, so she contacts the real estate agent and finds out that indeed, Fred's has closed and the building is for sale. Fantastic for Sue, since the infrastructure for her fish restaurant is already in place! Sue files all the necessary paperwork and opens up her new fish place: Sue's Salmon. It's a success! Everyone loves it!

 

Well almost everyone. Fred's Fresh Fish was a waymark. When Fred's closed down for business, the waymark title was changed to (gone) Fred's Fresh Fish.

Now that Sue has an independent fish restaurant, that same waymarker submits a waymark. Denied, because "it's a duplicate".

But Fred's is gone. This is a brand new, completely different restaurant.

Yes, but the building is the same, so denied. Instead, the waymarker is told to edit Fred's Fresh Fish waymark to now show the new information for Sue's Salmon instead.

 

I feel that eliminates the history of the building, and a new waymark should be accepted.

 

My opinion won't change the officer's decision. But I do disagree with this logic. Please refrain from calling out a real category or group.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Max and 99

[+ScroogieII]

Your concern seems to be, at least in part, with the "elimination of the history of the building", as it were.

This is something to be avoided at all costs, given the the purview of Waymarking, in general.

 

After consideration and given the known facts, your most suitable option seems to be:

"edit Fred's Fresh Fish waymark to now show the new information for Sue's Salmon instead"

Here, history need not be eliminated, cut CAN be addended.

 

If, for whatever reason, you want to attach another Waymark to the building, that's fine. However, that's far from necessary in order to convey the history or the proprietorship of the site.

 

Just checked, to be sure (my memory is pretty spotty), but it appears that WM names can be changed while editing.

 

BTW - Forgot to ask - Was Fred's Fish any good? Love seafood joints.

Keith

Edited February 24, 2020 by ScroogieII

[vulture1957]

WalMart Stores category will NOT accept re-purposed WalMarts as waymarks.  They don't want history, they want what is there now.

Edited May 1, 2020 by vulture1957

[+ScroogieII]

4 minutes ago, vulture1957 said:

WalMart Stores category will NOT accept re-purposed WMs as waymarks.  They don't want history, they want what is there now.

 

Oh, is that what we're talking about?  Can't tell from the OP.

Keith

Edited February 24, 2020 by ScroogieII

[vulture1957]

1 hour ago, ScroogieII said:

 

Oh, is that what we're talking about?  Can't tell from the OP.

Keith

nope, just my complaint about a category that isn't about history.

[+ScroogieII]

19 minutes ago, vulture1957 said:

nope, just my complaint about a category that isn't about history.

 

Yeah... ...the "History of Wally World" doesn't sound like something that would bring me back from History 101 to History 102 ( or History 201,  however that works [dunno, spent too much time cutting classes driftin' on icy streets])

Keith

Edited February 24, 2020 by ScroogieII

[+Alfouine]

I am an officer ot that category, and i can not find Sue's independant fish house submission....

[+ScroogieII]

9 hours ago, Alfouine said:

I am an officer of that category, and i can not find Sue's independent fish house submission....

 

Try harder - surely you've just missed it.