Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Vfd)
Jump to: navigation, search
Votes for Deletion

This page lists articles, files and templates that are nominated for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can make a nomination or comment on any nomination. Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our current policy.

If our deletion policy leads towards a merge or redirect, then coordinate this on the discussion page of the article.

The purpose of this page is limited to the interpretation and application of our deletion policy. You can discuss what our deletion policies should be on the deletion policy discussion page.

Nominating[edit]

  1. For the article, file or template being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag so that people viewing it will know that it is proposed for deletion. The {{vfd}} tag must be the very first thing, right at the very top, before everything else.
  2. Add a link to the article, file or template at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your recommendation using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article, file or template per entry.
  3. If you're nominating a file for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikivoyage and not on Wikimedia Commons.

The basic format for a deletion nomination is:

===[[Chicken]]===
* Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Commenting[edit]

All Wikivoyagers are invited to comment on articles, files or templates listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments you may elect to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If you recommend redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Any attempt to merge content from an article to some other destination must retain the edit history to comply with the attribution (CC BY-SA) requirements of the free license, so it may be possible to merge and redirect but not to merge and delete. Sign your comment using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not[edit]

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

When deleting a template, consider first replacing it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name. Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it.

Archiving[edit]

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root Archives page has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted).

If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the discussion page of the article, file or template being kept or redirected.

See also:

Icon delete talk.svg

April 2015[edit]

Template:Airport codes[edit]

No consensus has developed to use this template. It seems unnecessary as the use of multiple airport codes has been deprecated. Powers (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

comment isn't the issue of IATA codes also on the requested articles page? Imho we should have an article explaining IATA codes (as they are the ones most travelers will get to see the most) and maybe even a list of common ones that link to airport (or rail station, or...) and/or city articles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Note that Template:IATA exists separately and is wide use, while this one, which attempted to give all sorts of additional codes we decided not to care about, was never adopted. Texugo (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The item on WV:RA is primarily a request for an article to serve as target for the link in {{IATA}}, which currently points to a Wikipedia article. K7L (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - As mentioned above, Template:IATA is the one in use, and this one is extraneous clutter. Texugo (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ah OK. It appears I was under a misapprehension. Than I would favor deletion and creating of a page on IATA codes Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regarding an article on IATA codes, in practice the traveller usually doesn't need to know anything more than which IATA codes belong to which airport. That alone is not enough to carry an article, and any further information would be better suited for Wikipedia than our site. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
delete, but a related issue is that somewhere (Flying or one of its children) we need to talk about IATA codes like LON which includes all of London's airports. I do not find that with a quick look. Pashley (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Viazul[edit]

It has a vfd tag right on top of the page but isn't mentioned here Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Create a Bus travel in Cuba article, merge and redirect Also have a look at Talk:Viazul --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Cuba#Get around. I'm unconvinced of the need for a Bus travel in Cuba article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Re-merge and redirect to Cuba#Get around, which can be done simply be redirecting this page and then reverting this change. I'm also unconvinced of the need to have a Bus travel in Cuba article, as the current information fit just fine in the Cuba article before it was stripped out, and the rest that was added was just timetables which we explicitly try to avoid in the first place. Texugo (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with a new bus travel in Cuba article I think if a bus travel in the United States or intercity buses in Germany article can exist so can one on buses in Cuba. Even sans timetable that we shouldn't include for obvious reasons. In my humble opinion the whole subject of bus travel is dealt with too little for no apparent reason. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
What we had before obviously fits in the Cuba article and wouldn't be enough to stand on its own, so unless you are personally volunteering to start adding lots more info for such an article right now, I'm not really sure that "merge to something we don't have yet" is really a valid outcome to vote for. The normal procedure would be to let the info grow organically within the Cuba article and then split it out only when it starts to overwhelm. Texugo (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Bus travel is reasonably complicated in Cuba. Taking the Viazul (the tourist bus) is easy and straightforward and doesn’t justify having an own article (at least if not including the timetable). Taking local non-labeled buses that sometimes aren’t more than trucks sometimes even without seats is a whole different story that no guidebook so far covers and only few travelers experience. I can’t really contribute a lot to that topic though, but there should be a place where it’s easy for people to do that though. Rumpeltux (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Schedule information is very valuable due to lack of internet in Cuba. Linking to the website, and asking the traveller to navigate and download that instead is not a better alternative. Any offline travel guide would have this info, we should not be more stringent. If the schedule information is kept, a separate article is justifiable due to its size. Note that Viazul isn't one of many bus companies being given extra attention on WV, but the only reliable state run bus company for those spending CUCs. Magedq (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Same arguments as Magedq gave, which are the reasons I created the article in the first place and defended on Talk:Viazul. Rumpeltux (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure these Keep votes are even valid, because this VfD page is where we judge pages against existing policies, not where we change or make new policies. A valid vote to Keep would be one that represents an opinion that the article in question is in keeping with current policy, but the above is clearly something else. Current policy pretty clearly disallows articles about individual travel companies, and making an exception would clearly open the door for many articles for other similar situations around the world, so a policy proposal/discussion/consensus would need to be had before this could be kept. Therefore prose from this article has to be restored back into the body of the Cuba article, where nobody can really claim it doesn't fit anyway, and the rest of the scheduley stuff needs to go. Please note that including such detailed line/schedule information is also contrary to current practice and would similarly need a discussion/consensus before we change our approach to one where we assume responsibility for making sure we update our info in a timely manner every time the official source does. If an exception were made here, there would be identical reasons for making exceptions elsewhere, and we would very soon be in a position where doing weekly or even monthly checks and updates of such articles would require a great deal of dedication, at the risk of giving travellers incorrect information. We must judge this article against current existing policy, not against what we wish policy were. Later, if we do somehow we get a consensus to change our approach and policy in the future, this article can always be recreated. Texugo (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I don’t mind the naming or organization format of the schedule information, so probably the VfD is a bad place to discuss this, because there are really two issues here (bus company specific article & availability of schedule information). If including schedules is against WV policy, then WV should not have any schedules at all, but that’s just not the case (and that’s good!). It’s just not kept in a central place before, which imo is superior though, because it's easier to bulk update once an error is noticed instead of checking dozens of individual articles. For the Cuba case e.g. these articles already include schedule information for Viazul anyways: Trinidad (Cuba), Cienfuegos, Viñales Rumpeltux (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Bremen (state)[edit]

Consists of only Bremen and Bremerhaven and I could not think of any thing of relevance to a traveler to say about the state as a whole. To my knowledge we don't have articles about Hamburg (state) or Berlin (state) either. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Policy has always been to redirect real places. If there is actually a state, redirect it, either to Bremen or to the region above. See Fuzhou (prefecture)#Cities or Cebu Island for examples of how such things are handled elsewhere. Pashley (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Removing Bremen from the hierarchy would leave Bremen and Bremerhaven orphaned. Powers (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Well Neuwerk is a real inhabited place that belongs to the state of Hamburg, but we don't have a Hamburg (state) article, where we would put that if we had such an article. Maybe we can treat Bremerhaven as if it were part of Lower Saxony? After all, we don't have articles for all the departamentos of Nicaragua or all the counties of all states of the USA. So there is no definitive need for keeping a perpetual outline for a state that is identical to two cities. I'm fine with redirecting though, as most people assume the city and the state of Bremen to be the same thing anyway. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with deleting Bremen (state), which nowadays is just an administrative thing, putting Bremerhaven under Lower Saxony and having the city of Bremen linked from the Regions section of Germany as Hobbitschuster suggested. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
We had a long discussion which resulted in hierarchy for Germany to start with states (which I did not totally support but in the end agreed with). We could go back to a more geographical organisation but that will start lots of debate that just wastes effort. Not sure about putting Bremerhaven under Lower Saxony but I guess with some explanation on the pages it would work. I had been thinking of an article on Bremen-Vegesack which is distinct from Bremen and has some POI and good restaurants. Where would this be put? One method I suppose is to create districts under Bremen similar to the way Hamburg and Berlin are handled. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I think at some point in time Bremen might well deserve districtification. We might also handle Bremerhaven as a "district" of Bremen, but I don't think, that's workable. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
For the love of Wurst and Pretzel, let's not go back. I would treat Bremerhaven as a part of Bremen, much like we do with Travemuende, which is a part of Luebeck (even though the latter is no longer a Freie Stadt). PrinceGloria (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
But we have separate articles for Lübeck and Travemünde, don't we? I am sorry, but I don't quite get your point....Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That's the point - that's option one you outlined @ Talk:Bremen. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

result: merged with Bremen city article and made Bremerhaven a district of Bremen (as of now) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hold on, that's jumping the gun, don't you think? First and foremost, we can't have Bremerhaven be a district of a large city (which Bremen is). Powers (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The district thing has been changed. Bremerhaven is now a city within the city of Bremen. I was not proposing anything just stating the status quo as of than. Best wishesHobbitschuster (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Well that doesn't fit our Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy either; cities can't contain other cities. Powers (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't take any position in this discussion except that the distance and travel time between Bremen and Bremerhaven should be clearly indicated. However, there is at least one precedent for containing cities within another city: The boroughs of New York City all have City or Huge City templates. That could be the exception that proves the rule, but it is a precedent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There are exactly three like that, Ikan Kekek, and all three of those exceptions were made exclusively because the number of district articles was too overwhelming to organize on the main city page, and it was felt that there was so much material that an intermediate hierarchy level was needed between, for example, New York City and the 30 small neighborhoods that make up Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens. What you're seeing there is a case of a three-tiered super-Huge city, a Huge city with Districts under it (boroughs) with Subdistricts under those (Soho/Central Park/Times Square/etc.). We simply haven't felt the need to create a new article type for this intermediate level because there are only three such cities on the whole site. So it really isn't at all analogous to the case at hand here. Texugo (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it certainly isn't analogous, as you explain, but it is at least somewhat of a precedent. What are the other two examples? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hong Kong and Los Angeles. And no, I wouldn't call it a precedent. The fact that the intermediate levels like Brooklyn show as cities is actually just a fudge so we don't have to create a new little used "zone/borough" article type. Texugo (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
See the example I cited very early in the discussion, Fuzhou (prefecture)#Cities, for a better way to do it. The prefecture article redirects to the next level up and places like Mawei (which is a district of Fuzhou in the Chinese admin system, but 20-odd km away) get their own articles with breadcrumbs pointing neither to the city or prefecture but to Northern_Coast_(Fujian), the next level up. Pashley (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The two cases are pretty much analogous; Bremerhaven is the port for Bremen & Mawei the port for Fuzhou. Pashley (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)