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

December 2015[edit]

Danube[edit]

We don't have articles on rivers. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No, but we do have itineraries like Along the Yangtze River and another half dozen Along... titles. Would this make sense rewritten to one of those? Pashley (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Expand. In its current state it is a debatable article but the Danube is such a tourist attraction I think it should stay as an Extra Region and needs some work put into it. Itinerary is a possibility but the whole length is not often done with the exception of a few cruise ships and the most fit of cyclists. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep (that is, don't delete), as per Traveler100's and Pashley's points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rivers don't make good extra-hierarchical regions because they don't have well defined areas. (Watersheds could be used, but usually they don't make for very good travel groupings.) It could be valid as an itinerary (vis Erie Canal), but Traveler100 points out a significant barrier. Powers (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - an itinerary might make sense, but this as a "region" covers 1/3 of Europe. It doubles a number of smaller Danube-centred regions along its route and does not serve a purpose. Instructions on how one can travel down the entire course of the Danube would make sense as an itinerary, but not as a regular guide. This is not Wikipedia, we should not have an article for EVERY phrase one may look for. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, if not as an extraregion then as an itinerary. It is a major tourist attraction and has some of the most beautiful and historic cities in the world along it. Often the focal point of peoples holidays either with car, hiking, cycling, private boat or cruise ship. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Danube is massive. It is not a "tourist attraction", trying to "see the Danube" is almost impossible unless one has at least a fortnight. Therefore, an itinerary for hardcore Danube enthusiast might be interesting - not only for following entirely, but to be used in parts, an containing mostly information on moving along the Danube that would otherwise be a bit too much to keep in successive destination articles. But it is not a region in any sense and is impossible to describe the way we describe regions, unless we immediately start splitting it into smaller regions, which in turn makes it a superfluous region that would rather better be a disambig page.
In short, if you want to know where Danube flows and what lies along it, visit Wikipedia. If you have advice on travelling along the Danube, create an itinerary. If you want to create yet another alternative layer of regions to cover the same things prompting duplication of content and potential splitting of the thin editorial effort, as well as making maintenance an issue (yet another article to update with every bit of relevant info, decide on splitting info between articles and making sure articles do not contradict, which is often an end result of users deciding to each tend to their own preferred allotments) - please don't. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
A fortnight is not a long time for a trip and not for a holiday. Attraction as in a see listing no, but try not to think WIkivoyage policies and think someone thinking about visiting part of the Danube. It is a real challenge to find your way round the Wikivoage articles without this page. Are you seriously proposing jumping back a forward between WIkipedia and Wikivoage? Also not talking about alternative regions covering the same topics as existing, This is the reason for Extraregions, to collect articles together on a subject a visitor to the site may asked about but then guide them thought the structure of this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. If I'm reading the previous comments correctly, the "keep" votes are being made under the argument that the current article could be reworked into an itinerary. If that's the case, delete the existing article since it isn't an itinerary article now. Nothing is stopping someone from creating an itinerary in the future, but the policy on itineraries is that they need to either be about a recognized route or see a minimum amount of development, and this article currently meets neither of those criteria.. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    Comment Article has been reworked into an extraregion, so I see no harm in keeping it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • To also consider for deletion: Hudson Valley; Amazonia; Delaware Valley; Loire Valley. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    What's wrong with Hudson Valley? It's a disambiguation-style extra-hierarchical region. Valleys are often used as travel regions. Powers (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Nothing, just another example of a river extraregion, which I think is valid but other not. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
But it's not a river-based extra-hierarchical region. The valley is a related but separate geographic feature and a well-known travel region. Powers (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to "Along the Danube" (leaving a redirect) and tag it as an outline itinerary. The existing article is already more like an itinerary than a region, so make it one. Pashley (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Would work fine as an itinerary; travel topic has also been suggested. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] It's very disturbing how many of you want to just throw away something of use to travellers. Are we to inflexibly follow a narrow interpretation of policy just because? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

To be honest the current article seems to be a failed experiment and precisely not of use to anybody. And I doubt many people would be served by articles on rivers just for the sake of it. If there are well established routes like the Elbe Radweg, we are talking about something else, but I fear that we will soon be overwhelmed by hard to maintain stubs whose only reason for existence is the fact that some water flows downhill Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
It also worries me this need to delete articles or text from articles just because it is not perfect. Seem to me to be against the spirit of a Wiki site. There are a lot of articles with room for improvement, the point if wiki is to improve on other peoples work not endless criticism and discussion. We should all be spending more time enhancing articles not removing information. And remember you cannot always predict how someone will come across this site or want to use it. It is important to have landing pages that then guide the travelling into the real useful pages of Wikivoyage. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan here. I see no reason to even consider deletion; the questions are how to make what we have more useful and what needs to be added. Pashley (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to vote on this one. I would comment that we will continue to see friction based on people's own belief about what 'Wiki Spirit' and Ttcf really mean. I would ask the 'keepers' to make some compromise here, for example by agreeing that all the generic 'lists' can be removed and only genuinely useful content should remain. This would allow someone to rebuild this a more helpful way. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're suggesting as a compromise. No-one who opposes deletion is arguing that the article shouldn't be improved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
What here is useful to travelers? The list of countries? The only thing I see, aside from what can be found in any general reference tome, is the link to our The Danube Cycleway article. There's basically nothing else on the page. Powers (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me, this is properly an itinerary or travel topic. The fact that it's not a well-developed article is a reason to develop it, not delete it, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The article certainly could be improved, but as it stands it still provides some useful info to a potential visitor to Europe. Consider somebody at the first step of planning a visit to Europe, who has been told by a friend to "take a cruise on the Danube". From this article they can get to Bratislava#By boat (and other articles). AlasdairW (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this should be kept and improved. I can imagine several ways to improve it, but for a certain (older) demographic, this is a pretty popular "destination". There's quite a lot to say about just the river cruise aspect, such as why fares are cheaper in the Spring (higher risk of flooding = higher risk of cancellation). The question of whether to shoehorn this into Artificial Page Type X or Artificial Page Type Y seems far less important to me than providing relevant, useful, accurate information to the traveler. Keep the page now; classify it some other year, whenever there's nothing important to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I would not call it "shoehorning" into an "artificial page type" as much as the reason why this article has not been updated much prior to this vfd. Besides not being linked to from very many places, anybody stumbling over it will most likely be confused as to what this article is supposed to be and do. Other articles, that are clearly travel topics, destination guides or itineraries are much easier to update than this strange otherworld limbo. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] Please also look at Wikivoyage talk:Bodies of water#Danube. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment This article has been re-worked into an extra-hierarchical region since it was originally nominated for deletion, which I think addresses the concerns that would have made it a valid candidate for deletion. Since votes were approximately split, and since the policy concerns that would have justified a deletion have been addressed by changing the article type, my inclination would be to resolve this VFD as a "keep". Any further feedback before doing so? -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am still not convinced by the keep argument. In its current state the article is ironically less travel relevant than the WP article on the same subject. While there might be a SEO argument (which I doubt, given the duplicate penalty), it is doubtful we would gain more than one hit by a visitor who searches for that as this article is unlikely to create any form of retention. Other articles are much better in that regard. If we want to keep this article and others, we should change our bodies of water policy as we know de facto do have articles that are about bodies of water. Maybe we even have to create a new "River" article template. I don't like that idea, but if it is well executed (and does not saddle us with yet more work on a marginal part of our guides) it might provide some value after all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'll leave it to another admin to decide how to resolve this nomination, but to my reading of the discussion the "delete" votes still aren't citing policy to justify deletion, while the argument for keeping the article is that it's a valid extraregion. Since deletion should only be done in accordance with the existing deletion policy ("Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our current policy") it still seems to me that the correct resolution in this case is to keep the article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep There are many useful information about the river. Not only the cycle path. Danube river cruising is very popular. Usefull hints about this topic could even fill up an own article. Improve it as a travel topic. -- DerFussi 20:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhine[edit]

There seem to have been inconclusive debates about this article a decade ago. I say delete it as a violation of policy Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I we should consider the policy based on the fact we now have ExtraRegions. The Rhine is a major focal point for tourists visiting Europe. Would to me be a big gap in a travel guide. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is an extraregion, and a pretty clearly defined one. It could be expanded into an itinerary or left as an extraregion, with more information added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the violation of policy? It is tagged as an extraregion, so there doesn't seem to be any harm in keeping it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - If we keep this article, we have to seriously ask ourselves the question: Do we want an article about every river in existence? And if not, how and where are we going to draw the line? I see nothing that makes the Rhine "so special" that could not similarly be said about dozens of other rivers, including the Mississippi River, the Huangho or even the Volga Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I would say that any long, important river that is itself an attraction, currently has plenty of river traffic, and is lined with appealing places to visit probably would merit an article, either an itinerary with links or some kind of region or extra-region article. That definitely includes Mississippi River and Yangtze River; I'm not sure about Yellow River (Huang He) or Volga. By the way, do you notice that there are Along the Yangtze River and Along the Yellow River itinerary articles, though the Yangtze one is better developed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Judging by that, we need to have a serious debate on whether to update our current bodies of water policy. While I fully agree that some of those articles can be worthwhile if done right (after all, Ruta del Tránsito is basically "along the Rio San Juan" with a bit of Lake Nicaragua and Pacific Nicaragua thrown in), there does exist the potential for half empty articles on every. river. in. existence. If we say yes to Rhine and Danube, what about the Oder? It runs along a major international border, after all. What about the Neiße? Görlitz lies along it. And what about canals? Rhein and Donau are linked, after all. I mean yes, itineraries could cover the more well known of those, but just having articles on rivers because rivers exist strikes me as... silly, in absence of a better term. It's not like we have (more than) enough outline articles of certain types already. And I think we should have a debate on our bodies of water policy, which has become rather diluted, so to speak. Sorry for the pun. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
China also has Along the Grand Canal, quite undeveloped. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the test for bodies of water, as for any other subject, should be whether there is enough content, or at least potential content, for there to be useful articles about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure Wikivoyage:Bodies of water needs updating. The key point is "We don't write destination guide articles about bodies of water" [emphasis added] with the following caveat: "Some regions or for that matter towns are named after bodies of water. These articles aren't about water, they are about the inhabited area on and around the water, with all the sorts of things that make an destination article-worthy." Itineraries and travel topics about traveling on or near bodies of water are also mentioned. If you'd like to discuss these issues more, though, feel free to start a new discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Bodies of water. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I am certain, that reading Australian media with clusters of travel adverts for river cruising, there are only so many rivers in the world where the conditions are ok for travel (that is length, type of boat, and adequate conditions for travel by tourist craft) with enough material to justify an article (thus perhaps allaying Hobbitschuster's anxiety about do we want an article about every river, the answer is a very definite no) I think that criterion should be where adequate information is available (same as Ikan's comment about adequate or poential content), and where genuine tourist travel occurs. There are not that many.JarrahTree (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This article has been re-worked into an extra-hierarchical region since it was originally nominated for deletion, which I think addresses the concerns that would have made it a valid candidate for deletion. Since votes are approximately split, and since the policy concerns that would have justified a deletion have been addressed by changing the article type, my inclination would be to resolve this VFD as a "keep". Any further feedback before doing so? -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am still in favor of deletion as there is no good target for redirection and the article in its current form does not provide much value for anybody. Furthermore it creates a slippery slop towards similar "extraregions" for each and every river which would violate if not the words than the spirit of our bodies of water policy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    No-one is going to argue for the creation or retention of articles about every river and creek. JarrahTree and I gave you a standard above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'll leave it to another admin to resolve this nomination since I am biased towards resolving as "keep" per my earlier comments. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    User:Ikan Kekek, how do you know? What does the Rhine have that other rivers don't have? If we keep this and articles like Lake Constance we can just as well change our bodies of water policy to "We have articles on bodies of water whenever it tickles our fancy". Most people would probably have never heard of the Rio Coco or the Rio San Juan, but to the Miskito people the former is next to sacred and at least as important as the Rhine was to many Germans in the past and the Rio San Juan plays a similar role in disputes between Nicaragua and Costa Rica as did the Rhine in thankfully long gone days. We have a region named after an official term based on the river (Rio San Juan region) but unlike the Bodensee disaster we don't have another article on the body of water itself. If we keep this river and Danube as well, how can we convincingly argue for the deletion of any other river article? If someone creates an article on the Nile, surely we can't delete an article on the longest (or second longest) river in the world that gave rise to one of the most important civilizations in world history, if we have an article on the Rhine. And once that article exists, how do we argue against one on the river Congo? We could of course do that and expand the scope of WV in that way. But quite frankly, there should be a consensus to change policy. I cannot see anything at Wikivoyage:Bodies of water that would allow the retention of this article and neither can I find anything in favor of keeping Danube. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how you're reading Wikivoyage:Bodies of water, but please read Wikivoyage:Bodies of water#Transportation, Wikivoyage:Bodies of water#Itineraries, Wikivoyage:Bodies of water#Travel topics and the third sentence of Wikivoyage:Bodies of water#Redirects and disambiguation. I'm sorry, but I don't see your slippery slope argument as having any real substance or relevance. If there's ever an article about the Kill Van Kull or Newtown Creek that people want to keep, maybe you'll have a point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Lake Constance[edit]

This article may or may not be in violation of our "bodies of water" policy, given that we have a region article named after the lake already, Bodensee region. Quite frankly I see no path forward that would make this article of any actual use to anybody and there is no real place to redirect it other than Central Europe which just strikes me as nonsensical Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep It's currently set up as an extraregion, and there are 53 links to it. I'm not sure I understand why we wouldn't just leave it as-is? -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Bodensee_Region only covers the German parts of the lake. I think an extraregion is appropriate to cover the Austrian and Swiss parts as well. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Pashley (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Policy is to use the commonest English name; arguably Bodensee Region should be redirected to this. Pashley (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
But the Bodensee Region is an actual Region article, so it shouldn't be redirected to an extraregion article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
No, but it might be handled like Ferghana Valley, as an extra-hierarchical region with three real regions in three countries under it.
I do not know the area and am not at all sure it is a good idea, but moving Bodensee Region to the English name "Lake Constance (Germany)" looks to at least be worth discussing. Pashley (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Bodensee region
I guess 'Lake Constance' would be known by English speakers better than Bodensee, although the 'extra region' only describes the towns around the lake whereas the 'Bodensee region' reaches far into the land of Baden-Wuerttemberg state up until the city of Ulm. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment : stop feeding trolls. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Wait, what? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Restating my case: If I don't misunderstand our bodies of water policy (such as it is) it says something along the lines of "We don't have destination style articles on bodies of water" and then there are a couple of "however"s, one of them allowing "regions named after bodies of water" (which would mean the Bodensee Region article). However, I don't see anything allowing an article such as this one when there already is another one that covers a region named after the body of water. If we want to change our bodies of water policy to a simpler: We allow articles on bodies of water if they are large enough and/or of sufficient touristic interest, I am fine with that, but unless I am misunderstanding the current policy, this is at least an article that stretches some interpretations of it. And I was told in earlier vfds, that I should cite a policy an article violates as grounds for deletion (as opposed to its size, its bare outline state or other things) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to give my own take on 'bodies of water' policy since I don't have one. :) I admire that you are tackling it, I just don't have the bandwidth to analyse and engage at this point.
I have sympathy with the view that Lake Constance is not a destination in itself (unless you want to zip around all the countries in a motor boat) and the article is possibly a candidate for a disambiguation page to the respective regions bordering it. Practically I would suggest just cleaning it up and making it shorter. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Vélez-Málaga[edit]

This article seems to be a duplication of Malaga and or other articles. It does not seem to serve any purpose in its current (stub) form. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Spanish geography, but the Axarquía article claims that Velez-Malaga is its capital, while Málaga is the capital of the larger Málaga province, of which Axarquia is part. Wikipedia has separate articles on the two cities: w:Vélez-Málaga, w:Málaga. Powers (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I did not know that and the article does not make that clear at all. It does not make anything clear, to be honest. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree it's confusing, but it's not surprising that a stub article isn't entirely clear. I was helped out by the Wikipedia links in the sidebar, which seem to be correct. I suggest adding the small-city template and promoting to Outline. Powers (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Kyaukpadaung[edit]

Kyauk Padaung is no real sight to visit in Myanmar. It does not have any tourist accommodation. The articel has not grown or been modified for 2.5 years. The only reason to come here is to visit Mt. Popa, which however has a comprehensive article including transport via Kyauk Padaung.

Ceever (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge the information into Mount Popa (which by the way should probably be a park article) and redirect. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Is Mt. Popa in or outside of Kyauk Padaung? If it's in Kyauk Padaung, another solution (and probably a more mainstream one on this site, I think) would be to merge Mount Popa with Kyaukpadaung. Ceever, I'm sure you'll say that's a terrible idea. But why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not part of the city but about 5-10 km outside and it is kind of national park. However, it is not really the park that is the interesting thing but the shrine on top of a cliff which stands in this park. I already moved all relevant information to Mt. Popa. Hence, let's redirect. Ceever (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hotel price aggregators[edit]

  • Delete (arguably speedy delete): Violates wiaa and external links#what not to link to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing salvageable here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - yes it is against current policy but is worth discussion if a review of such site is not useful to travellers. Some of these sites are well know but I, at least, was not aware of some of them. Article would however need some general advice on advantages and disadvantages of these sites. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
You'd like to police the fairness of a review of aggregators from touters? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild keep - Wikipedia links have been removed in favor of Wikivoyage red links. Only mild because the traveling public is already aware of the existence of these services that are a melter of
  1. w:Metasearch engines - answers question "What hotels there are?"
  2. w:Review aggregators - "What kind of hotels they are?" "What did the other guests like and dislike?" "Which are the best booking sites for software and service quality?"
  3. w:Comparison shopping website "Where do I get a price on par with the best price out there?" Consumer knows the invisible green hand fathomed by Adam Smith is working in his/her favor in this case. Needing to match price leader is a requirement for many operators, some because they have a "lowest price" guarantee and some just because otherwise they'd lose the business of the customers if one didn't match it.
  4. Booking webshop "(Where can I purchase?")
Instead of fighting the future and fighting the different actors in the field of travel related information we should embrace what the traveling consumer is going to use anyways we should focus our strength into getting a w:semantic Wikivoayge going with Wikidata.org where all sorts of information can be stored in a w:triplestore and consumer preferences and selections determine which objects are displayed to whom and to whom not. Jukeboksi (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Moved vfd'd page to User:Jukeboksi/lists/Travel price aggregators to improve the info there. Forgot to suppress the creation of the redirect. My bad. Jukeboksi (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The "suppress creation of redirect" on move is only available to administrators. K7L (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Votes for deletion is not normally a place where a change in policy is debated. In general, articles are saved on Vfd only on the basis of current policy. So as I see it, your line of argumentation should have substantially weakened the case for keeping this article - at least in anything vaguely resembling its current form. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ridesharing and carsharing services[edit]

  • Keep. The intro and the first three sections start out promising, and only thereafter does it turn into a monstrous link farm. We should definitely get rid of the long lists of external links, but as for the article itself I'm not convinced of the value of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - this may be first time ever I would agree for keeping, because the subject matter should be covered by WV obviously. One needs to delete the list of links though, if relevant they should go to destination articles. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
You know, you are probably right. If approached in an entirely different way, this topic could be fine to cover. So I'm going to change my initial comment, but I still think this discussion may be good to have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - agree with comments already made, this is a good subject for Wikivoyage but the links should be dispersed to the relevant destination pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is definitely a travel topic worth exploring further, though obviously the article as it stands requires a lot of work. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep is ecological, economical and convenient.
A central list is useful for keeping the article entries in good validity and does not hurt anyone as far as I can see but I can also host it on my consumer empowerment wiki if the people totally hate this list article.
Language question: Car-sharing or carsharing?
There is much work to be done for the carsharing since we need to research which services allow travelers to acquire access to fleet and which require national drivers licence or nationality or some such limitations.
Ridesharing services shoulnd't have limitations and are well applicable for affordable and convenient alternative travel from city to city.
I truly belive if someone purchases a car into a dedicated carsharing fleet somewhere, or a peer-to-peer carsharing scheme updates its service area to include new areas, it is worth mentioning.
If there is one traveler finding a ridesharing ride an excellent decision for their transportation needs with lots of local color included the service is worth mentioning. Jukeboksi (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Traveler routers[edit]

  • Delete. I suppose this topic could conceivably be within our scope, but certainly not in anything like its present format. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. More a WIkipedia article. But maybe worth first going through the list of links and see if any would be useful on specific destination pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure. The reality is that organising travel these days a good airline router/comparison site is the first place you go to. Especially for independent travellers, that are the kind we are catering too. But obviously this listy article would isn't right in its present form. --Inas (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Can you think of a way to deal with this topic without making a link farm or opening the article up to touters? It seems to me, the place to discuss airline comparison sites would be in the relevant article in the Flying series, as part of the preparation for air travel. I'm having trouble imagining a good Wikivoyage article about airline comparison sites themselves, but I'd love your thoughts on how we could make one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no Wikipedia article on "traveler routers", because the term doesn't exist. Paraphrasing what I wrote on the talk page, the Wikivoyage article doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to shunt readers straight off WV as quickly as possible to another website. External links to journey / trip planners (including those which may be listed on the traveler router article but are not known about on the relevant destination pages - definitely worth checking) should be put into existing destination articles. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep No more WV:Links to Wikipedia. WV:Avoid long lists not relevant since this is a list for keeping track of coverage with the main yield to consumer when each service is written as a {{listing}} in the article on entity the service covers. Cursor is currently in France and following countries and their municipalities have not yet been added an item: France, Israel, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland.
To the terminology question: looking at Wikipedia one can derive that journey planner is originally a travel agentures tool and they are often geared at making money for the agenture and the service providers they have contracts with. In the early 2000s few successful implementations for local traffic, London and Helsinki chose to use term journey planner even though it was a loaded word. Some fanboys then proceeded to write a bunch of statements of no particular informational value in w:Journey Planner and w:Intermodal Journey Planner (yes, with the caps). In new areas of service the language is new, and evolving. Doesn't w:public transport route planner sound a tad bit clunky and is not expecting the eventual concert of traveler routers, navigation apps and even car navigators (IoT) negotiating with the traveler routers to achieve traveler goals.
Only negative I see coming for this is the manual work of keeping the list and the list items in sync manually. Compared to the amount of trouble I went to compile and sort this list in its entirety is not much trouble and I can do it if deletionists just stop trying to stop me.
To be asking the right questions we should have a semantic database instead of lists of arbitrary length. In this kind of arrangement the database could contain for example information and URL for all the available language versions. Traveler routers are really useful to the traveler and if you delete this you are doing the traveling consumer a big disservice and not really solving or improving anything in Wikivoayge. Except maybe blind adherence to rules and regulations. Jukeboksi (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
My friend, Votes for deletion is about enforcing rules, not changing them. If you want to change the rules, you should discuss that in policy pages - notably including Wikivoyage talk:External links - but Vfd is not a policy page. I'm totally fine with any of this content being in your userspace, but your line of argumentation about "deletionists" and trying to radically change rules after creating several articles that, at least in their current forms, are radically in violation of the current consensus of what a Wikivoyage article should look like - and continuing to create more such articles and add more links to the ones you were working on when you were warned about this - is not a good way to try to persuade anyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone in the discussion page for this article made the good point that it could be useful if it explained how to make the best use of travel planners, but to create that and bring this article in line with existing policy would require gutting the existing article of all content and essentially building a new article from scratch (and since "traveler router" appears to be a term the author has created, judging from the explanation above, there isn't even really a strong argument to be made for redirecting the existing article to something else). PerryPlanet (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have strong opinions about keeping or deleting these three articles, but if there is a consensus to delete them I'd instead suggest a move to userspace (example: User:Jukeboksi/Traveler routers). That would allow further development without the external link concerns raised for a mainspace article. User:Jukeboksi is obviously enthusiastic about these subjects, so it would be a shame to delete something that might otherwise be developed into something useful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This seemed a reasonable meet-you-half-way solution so I moved the list parts to User:Jukeboksi/lists/Traveler routers and will go through it and add each service to the article on the area served if not already there. Jukeboksi (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for working to find a compromise. However, I'm not enthusiastic about the proposal to "go through it and add each service to the article on the area served if not already there" since it isn't clear that these travel router links should be included in Wikivoyage at all per WV:XL#What not to link to. There are likely to be dozens or even hundreds of these services available in a country like the USA, so including such links in that article would not be appropriate for the reasons outlined in the external links policy (basically: primary links only, since collaboratively determining whether a link merits inclusion isn't something Wikivoyage wants to spend time debating). -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Ryan: There aren't many in USA since Googel Transit has taken nearly all the turf. Jukeboksi (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per arguments raised above. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)