Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Votes for deletion)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 deletion 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.


Add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article, file or template being proposed for deletion, so that people viewing it will be aware. Place the tag at the very top, before everything else.

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.

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:

Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~


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

* '''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]

  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to delete, an administrator may delete it.
  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to redirect or merge, any Wikivoyager may do it. If you make a redirect, please check for any resulting broken redirects or double redirects.
  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
  • If there is no consensus after 14 days, allow a further 7 days for discussion.
    • If, after the additional 7 days, there is no consensus, the page should be kept – any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
    • If, after the additional 7 days, there is a consensus, implement it in line with the first three points above.
  • 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.
  • When deleting an article, check "What links here". Either remove the newly-broken links from the articles or point them somewhere else. Inbound redirects to a deleted page should either be deleted or redirected elsewhere.


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).

When archiving, always make it clear to other editors what the outcome of the discussion was. This can be done by adding the result to the discussion in a separate edit from the one in which you remove the discussion from this page; or you can describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion.

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

August 2020[edit]

Redirects created by Hobbitschuster[edit]

While I know we agreed not to nominate redirects for deletion because it is a waste of time, this is an exception, since at least 30 or so redirects of typos, odd phrases, etc. were created redirecting to various articles. While I think redirects are a good thing, creating this many seems like overdoing it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

They might be unnecessary, and some certainly are, but they mostly do little harm. I'd recommending thinking twice before creating a redirect, but when created they can stay, unless there is some actual reason to delete them, such as editors making the same typos when linking the page and seeing the blue link never note the mistake, or making it hard to distinguish a real destination from a typo of another in the auto-completing search box (sometimes there are so many alternatives that it is hard to see the relevant one, I don't know whether some of these redirects contribute). –LPfi (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I think we should keep Thuringen, Saarbruecken, Las Penitas as variant spellings. Straubing is a legit article. L'Île de Ré is a valid redirect to an article that has a section about the place. I agree that misspellings and odd phrases are something we don't need to keep. Ground Zero (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Those redirects are found on This list. I think if we delete them, they should be removed from the list because otherwise they'll be created again eventually. We can also discuss which benefit - if any - this list serves. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Can't see the problem with these redirects. They've been created now, they don't cause any harm and they probably will help people (some more than others, admittedly). I vote keep until one is demonstrated as harmful, which can then be considered for deletion on its own merits. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
What exactly is this list at User:Acer/WT that is leading to odd redirects being created? Nurg (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
IIRC the list is a list of links that bluelink at that other site but redlink here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for clarifying, Hobbitschuster. I think we should discuss editing this list (or whether we should use it at all) so that we have a clearer consensus whether or not redirects on the list should be created in future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As there is a discussion underway, I think there should be a moratorium on creating more redirects. I don't think it is a good idea for Hobbitschuster to be creating more and more questionable redirects until a consensus is reached. Ground Zero (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
[I deleted my remark because the one it was commenting on was deleted]. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Even though I'm fine with these redirects, I do think it's best to hold fire until this discussion concludes.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I would say that we definitely don't need to make redirects of everything on that list, so at least stop making more. I personally prefer redirects to be made organically (when they are found to actually be useful or necessary) rather than just creating redirects of every possible thing we can think of that relates to a city/topic regardless of what's in the article. Some of them I can agree are useful, while others don't really meet our criteria. Fukuoka Japan, for example isn't the kind of redirect we encourage, because we don't want someone to create "(City name) Japan" redirects for everyplace in the country. It can stay, since it's not hurting anything, but we don't need it. I also don't like redirects like Cults in which the topic is not given any mention in the article it redirects to. Just because a topic relates does not mean a redirect is appropriate. If the information isn't there, the redirect does NOT serve the traveler. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I think we should delete the Cults redirect. Something like this could potentially be offensive to someone with religious beliefs. The dog2 (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
All religions are cults. The negative connotation is a lot younger than the neutral use. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
All religions aren't cults in current-day English. I agree with Chubby and Dog on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if someone could help move the discussion along by determining what the consensus is, or by proposing a compromise based on the views expressed. (I wouldn't be the right person to do this.) Ground Zero (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say there's consensus that Hobbitschuster should hold off on creating more of these redirects while this discussion is underway. It's only been a day since the discussion was started, so I suggest we allow more time to discuss (a) whether to delete some of the redirects and (b) to what extent it's okay to create more redirects like this in the future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we could agree to delete those redirects that are capitalization or spelling mistakes (so Puerto rico, Ukranie), while keeping the ones that aren't. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Why? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Now, when I type "puerto rico" into the search engine, I have to go to Puerto Rico via a redirect. Why? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that we should create loads of redirects. Capitalisation is generally taken care of automatically by the software, so these should be deleted, unless any are special cases that aren't handled correctly by the software. I would generally keep the spelling mistake redirects - there are places where the spelling isn't what a listener might expect.
I am tempted to change Cults to redirect to Aberdeen - the village of w:Cults, Aberdeen is mentioned twice in the article. AlasdairW (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a well-developed policy on redirects that may help inform our thinking on this. Ground Zero (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy was the basis for the development of Wikivoyage's policy on deleting redirects that was created years ago: Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting. It looks like Wikipedia's policy has been updated since then, so some of those changes may be worth incorporating into Wikivoyage's guidance, but I think Wikivoyage's existing policy should already cover most of the points that have been raised in this deletion discussion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Wrh2: thanks, Ryan, that's very helpful. Ground Zero (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Current policy[edit]

Here are some key points from the current policy that are relevant for this discussion:

"A redirect is appropriate when:
1. The redirect is an alternate name or spelling for a place, including common misspellings.
2. The redirect is for a real place and there is an appropriate redirect target. This guidance applies to neighborhoods, tiny towns, or places that may not meet the WV:WIAA criteria. Example: a redirect has been created for Hell's Kitchen, which is a neighborhood within Manhattan.
3. The redirect is a term for which links are commonly created, or is a subject that might otherwise be likely to result in creation of an article that does not meet WV:WIAA.
5. Deletion would risk breaking external links to Wikivoyage. This guidance is most relevant for redirects/articles that have existed for a significant length of time."

The policy does not address capitalization. The Wikipedia policy does specifically permit variant capitalizations:

"Likely alternative capitalizations (for example, Natural Selection redirects to Natural selection). This is not necessary for user searches made via Wikipedia's search engine, but may aid linking from other articles and external sites, as well as direct URL entry."

It also address punctuation:

"Alternative spellings or punctuation. For example, Colour redirects to Color, and Al-Jazeera redirects to Al Jazeera."

I think these are reasonable reasons for redirects, and should be added to our policy.

So from the recent batch of new redirects created, I think these should be kept (where it's kind of borderline, I'd err on the side of "keep"):

  1. People in photos -> Travel photography#Respect: possibly a frequent search term
  2. Other places -> Other destinations: possibly a frequent search term
  3. In-flight tips -> On the plane:
  4. ‎Historical center -> Old towns: common alternative name
  5. Foreign language dictionary -> Phrasebooks: possibly a frequent search term
  6. ‎Eire -> Ireland: alternative name
  7. Edinburg -> Edinburgh: a possibly common misspelling
  8. Port au Prince -> Port-au-Prince: alternative punctuation
  9. ‎Herzberg -> Herzberg am Harz: common shortened version
  10. Seine Maritime -> Upper Normandy: department name
  11. Thuringen -> Thuringia: likely alternative spelling
  12. Saarbruecken -> Saarbrücken: likely alternative spelling
  13. Puerto rico -> Puerto Rico: likely alternative capitalization
  14. ‎Machu piccu -> Machu Picchu: likely alternative capitalization/common misspelling
  15. L'Île-de-Ré -> La Rochelle#Île de Ré: a subject that might otherwise be likely to result in creation of an article that does not meet WV:WIAA
  16. L'Île de Ré -> La Rochelle#Île de Ré: alternative punctuation
  17. Las Penitas -> Las Peñitas: alternative spelling
  18. Interstate highways -> Driving in the United States: a subject that might otherwise be likely to result in creation of an article that does not meet WV:WIAA
  19. ‎Buenos aires -> Buenos Aires
  20. Budget airlines in europe -> Flying on a budget: a subject that might otherwise be likely to result in creation of an article that does not meet WV:WIAA
  21. ‎Acomodation -> Sleep
  22. ‎Addis Abbeba -> Addis Ababa: likely alternative spelling#Radiator springs -> Radiator Springs: likely alternative capitalization
  23. Principality of monaco -> Monaco: likely alternative capitalization
  24. Getting sick in a foreign country -> Stay healthy: a subject that might otherwise be likely to result in creation of an article that does not meet WV:WIAA
  25. Cultural tolerance -> Respect: a subject that might otherwise be likely to result in creation of an article that does not meet WV:WIAA
  26. ‎Cheap flights -> Flying on a budget: a subject that might otherwise be likely to result in creation of an article that does not meet WV:WIAA
  27. Cheap airlines -> Flying on a budget: a subject that might otherwise be likely to result in creation of an article that does not meet WV:WIAA
  28. ‎Ice Hockey in Europe -> Ice hockey in Europe: likely alternative capitalization
  29. Oslo Airport,Gardermoen -> Oslo Airport, Gardermoen: likely alternative spacing
  30. Helsinki Vantaa -> Helsinki Airport: alternative name
  31. Tennesee -> Tennessee: a common misspelling

And these should be deleted under the existing policy:

  1. Stay online -> Internet access: not a likely search term
  2. Marrakesch -> Marrakech: a typo, not a common misspelling
  3. Night clubs in stockholm -> Stockholm#Bars and nightclubs: not a likely search term
  4. HOLLYWOOD sign -> Hollywood#See: not a likely search term
  5. Guatemalla City -> Guatemala City: a typo, not a common misspelling
  6. Fukouka japan -> Fukouka: we're not going to do this for every place in the world
  7. Cults-> Religion and spirituality: not a likely search term in a travel guide, and redirect does not address cults in the modern English usage
  8. CALIFORNIA -> California: turn your darn caps lock off
  9. ‎Britishcolumbia -> British Columbia: a typo, not a common misspelling
  10. Benglai phrasebook -> Bengali phrasebook: a typo, not a common misspelling
  11. Ukranie -> Ukraine: a typo, not a common misspelling
  12. Telecommunication -> Communication: not a likely search term in a travel guide
  13. Security in vatican city -> Vatican#Stay safe: not a likely search term
  14. Medical Travel -> Medical tourism: not a likely search term
  15. Jim thorpe pa -> Jim Thorpe
  16. International dialling prefix -> List of country calling codes: not a likely search term
  17. Inch -> Metric and Imperial equivalents: not a likely search term
  18. ‎Man, Isle of -> Isle of Man
  19. Criminal activities -> Crime: not a likely search term

Ground Zero (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with the above, with the exception of Tennesee, which is a common misspelling: CBS, USA Today, Dolly Parton.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I've moved Tennesee to "keep". Ground Zero (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with some of these, but I would disagree that we need "Puerto rico" (alternative capitalization). Try typing "New england" into search and it will automatically redirect without a redirect page. So Puerto rico is unnecessary and might as well be deleted as well. Otherwise I would agree with the list of redirects to delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia argument for alternative capitalization is that if someone creates a link with incorrect capitalization, we end up with New england instead of New england. Ground Zero (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense, although when someone makes a link to New England (within an article), correct capitalization rules should be followed. In this case of talk pages, I wasn't aware that New england created a redlink, but now that's been clarified I wouldn't oppose keeping those redirect pages. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that proper capitalization is important, but choosing between incorrect capitalization and a red link, i think that an incorrectly capitalized blue link is more useful to the reader. Ground Zero (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
A benefit of deleting miscapitalizations and misspellings is that if an editor tries to link a misspelled word, the redlink may alert them to the mistake, so they can correct it. On balance, I'm not sure whether it's best to keep or delete them. I recall that the redirect Outer space was deleted two years ago (which is odd, because it uses standard capitalization). —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Acer's list[edit]

Virtually all of the created redirects were on a list in the userspace of User:Acer. Should we do anything with this list as a result of this deletion discussion? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The plan back in Sept 2016 was to remove all the redirects from the list. Koavf was working on it then, but presumably never finished. Nurg (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we need to worry about things that blue link at a moribund website. Ground Zero (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


Per Wikivoyage talk:WikiGnome. This information might as well be included at Wikipedia, as we already have the page Wikivoyage:Welcome, copyeditors that serves the same purpose. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - I wasn't aware of the existence of the Wikivoyage:Welcome, copyeditors page when I imported this page, but since it already exists, this page serves no purpose. The dog2 (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - I feel like ideas like this are a quirky holdover from the early days of wikis, but they're not terribly user-friendly. A simple page like Wikivoyage:Welcome, copyeditors is much clearer. --Bigpeteb (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)