Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
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.

Nominating[edit]

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 ("~~~~").

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 (UTC)
* '''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.

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).

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

April 2021[edit]

Visa summary for EU citizens and Visa summary for U.S. citizens[edit]

We don't do lists on Wikivoyage. And in any case, if you want to go somewhere, you should be checking with that country's diplomatic mission, or the destination page on Wikivoyage to see if you need a visa. In particular, there's no way we can have a proper list for visa requirements for EU citizens, because there is no unified EU passport, and each EU country issues its own passports, so visa requirements will defer depending on which specific EU country you are from. The dog2 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As a side note: citizens of EU member countries do have the citizenship of EU (and it says so on the passport) as well but this is really just relevant if you travel, work and live in other EU countries. But countries outside the EU sometimes have different visa requirements for, say, Germans and Bulgarians. Ypsilon (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete or turn these into a short articles referring to some external site that has a well maintained list - maybe a EU / US based airline or travel agent. This kind of list need to be fairly complete, and updated every few weeks when something changes. The US list is far too short to be of use, and I can see some out of date info in the EU list (in addition to the complete lack of Covid updates). AlasdairW (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we should make these a soft redirect to w:Visa requirements for European Union citizens or w:Visa requirements for United States citizens. These WP articles are much more detailed and look to be regularly updated. AlasdairW (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Do we redirect any Wikivoyage search terms to Wikipedia articles? If not, should we? I don't think we do, but I don't know. I think it would be OK to do so in very limited cases that are exceptional and decided by consensus on a search term's talk page, but perhaps we should discuss that at Wikivoyage talk:Links to Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I am thinking of links to WP, not a direct redirect. I have put this on Visa summary for EU citizens, but this can be reverted if this is a bad move. This links to WP articles and an IATA database. I think that these kind of lists are more useful for those with less "popular" passports than US or EU - such citizens may want to avoid getting visas for airport transfers. AlasdairW (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with what you did, but it's probably worth having a discussion about it, maybe at that article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I now would rather keep the articles as is with the Wikipedia links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete these. Add links to the WP "visa requirements ..." articles in our Visa article. If that violates policy, add them anyway & consider fixing the policy. Pashley (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with adding to the Visa article, as it takes out a couple of steps that the user has to take in order to reach the information they need (far more likely that they'll find the Visa article before they find the two pages under discussion here).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Any takers for this idea? Ikan Kekek?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete SHB2000 (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect. As it now stands, with links to (hopefully) updated sources it does no harm and could be useful. When the equivalent info is included on the Visa page, a redirect should suffice, to avoid updating in two places. A redirect is useful for those who have bookmarked the article or find a link to it somewhere. No need for outright deletion. –LPfi (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Intermediate outcome - no consensus after 14 days, take an extra seven.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep until it can be redirected to Visa, per LPfi.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • How likely are Visa summary for EU citizens and Visa summary for U.S. citizens to be used as search terms instead of, say, "visa"? These would be good examples of completely pointless redirects. Ground Zero (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I feel like links to the counterpart Wikipedia articles are useful, but I won't make a federal case out of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I would put those in the Visa article, where readers are more likely to find them. Ground Zero (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Let's do that, but although the article name is unlikely as search term, there may be links to it, and it may turn up in search results. Let's not break those links, but keep the page as redirect – and let's wait with redirecting until those links in fact have been added to the Visa article. –LPfi (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
          I now added the summary and links from the EU visa article to a new section Visa#Visa summaries. The US visa article seems to just have an incomplete table. I suppose we now can redirect the pages. –LPfi (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Dale (Indiana) and Future City[edit]

Block evasion by User:Libertarianmoderate through User:Midwestern Social Democrat (block evasion account) and has remained as a useless article and the user who created Roberto. SHB2000 (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: The Wikipedia article here mentions hotels and restaurants, there's a nice photo on Commons, and a regionally sizable theme park is nearby. I can see potential for expansion here, though I'm abstaining pending further discussion because I tend to be more liberal about blocked/banned edits than most of the community. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel like if we leave it, then MSD will create another sock and recreate it, but this is block evasion. SHB2000 (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Plus, it's also the user who created "Roberto", a fake town. SHB2000 (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a crappy article. We lose little by deleting it, and we send a signal to an LTA. Ground Zero (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both - nothing worth saving and there'll be no barrier to future re-creation by a good-faith user.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC) (amended 16:48, 19 April 2021)

British Isles redirects[edit]

British and Irish Isles and Great Britain and Ireland are useless redirects which will only confuse searches.

We have redirects for plausible search terms at Britain, Great Britain and British Isles; those should be kept. Pashley (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep – It's confusing me but that's just me. SHB2000 (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see any point deleting them and some pages may link to these redirects. 82.3.185.12 14:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
No main space pages link to them. Pashley (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Singlish[edit]

Is this redirect needed? And if so, does it point to the right target? Also: Should there be a phrasebook instead? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

In answer to your questions in order, I would say (1) it does no harm, (2) if it still redirects to Singapore#Talk, then yes, (3) maybe.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Since that talk section gives a few examples of Singlish, the redirect is OK. If anyone wants to create an article, I think it should embrace Manglish (Malaysian English) as well, because they're very similar. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it's fine to have this redirect. It's not going to be an easy article to create because there is no standard form of Singlish, and usage patterns are constantly changing. And what we get taught in school is standard British English, so most younger people should be able to speak standard English to you if required. The dog2 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Right, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. There have been books about Singlish, Manglish, Indian English, etc., and we have a Jamaican Patois phrasebook. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
If Singlish is not needed in order to communicate, then whether to create a phrasebook probably depends on whether travellers are expected to learn Singlish, and whether an outsider attempting to speak Singlish would be viewed positively or not. Speakers of dialects are often more sensitive about outsiders using them, partly because dialects are usually more "exclusive" than a standard language, and partly because a dialect doesn't have the same prestige as a language, so it is often assumed the outsider is making fun.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
If someone created it, it wouldn't be for foreigners to speak it but to understand it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I can try to contribute, but it's hard for me to think off hand what the corresponding phrase it in Singlish. For me, I just instinctively switch to standard English when talking to foreigners, and I don't think too much about it. Some Americans even get caught by surprise when they hear me talking to Singaporean friends, because they suddenly find me difficult to understand. The dog2 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I had a Glaswegian friend who was the same. So how likely is it to meet someone who can speak Singlish / Manglish, but not English? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Very unlikely I would say. But it's not unheard of to meet someone in Singapore who doesn't speak much English, which may happen if you approach the elderly (my grandmother being an example), so in such cases, you will likely hear them speaking some broken English, perhaps supplemented by some gestures while saying the term in Hokkien/Teochew/whatever language they speak. The dog2 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thought as much. In that case, I can't see the point of making a phrasebook. If you're not supposed to use it to speak Singlish, and are not likely to ever be spoken to in Singlish, the only use for it would be eavesdropping on the conversations of people around you. The traveller would be better spending their time reading the Chinese, Malay or Tamil phrasebook if they anticipate meeting non-English-speaking Singaporeans.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete Keep - per Ikan Kekek SHB2000 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

ThunderingTyphoons!, I haven't visited Malaysia since 2003 and Singapore since 1976, so I don't know the current situation. Furthermore, I speak fluent Malay when in practice, so I didn't have much reason to speak English to people who weren't excellent English-speakers the last time I was in Malaysia. I do know that it used to be quite common to encounter Manglish in Malaysia, but I don't know how common it is now. Chongkian, do you have any feeling about how common it is to encounter Malaysians using Manglish expressions, pronunciations and suffixes when speaking English? The most common one I always used to hear was adding "-lah" at the end of an English sentence ("Very cheap-lah!"), but "oredi" ("already") is used in a similar manner to Malay "sudah" and Chinese equivalents ("I eat oredi" = "I've eaten"), etc. There's also the use of "isn't it" or "is it" at the end of sentences to indicate a question: ("You come from America, isn't it?"). I don't know if I still have it, but my mother bought a pretty good book on Malaysia/Singapore English in Malaysia c. 1976 that was a serious linguistics study of the grammar, inflection and particular vocabulary of this dialect. If you want to encounter it in a humorous context, check out the classic comics of Lat, which are really funny and endearing if you understand the context and had a long run on the New Straits Times. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think those are the only criteria, ThunderingTyphoons!. We have a Teochew phrasebook for instance, even though the only monolingual Teochew speakers you are likely to encounter are the elderly. If you go to Bangkok Chinatown for instance, everyone you meet there is able to speak Thai, and you won't be expected to speak Teochew as a foreigner. And even in the Teochew-speaking areas of China, everyone who isn't elderly will also be able to speak Mandarin, and nobody will expect you to speak Teochew as a foreigner; the only instance where you will need to know how to speak Teochew is if you want to talk to the elderly. And perhaps another scenario would be if you're dining with locals, they will of course speak to you in Mandarin as a foreigner, but their conversations with each other will all be in Teochew, and you might feel a little left out. Despite all that, we still maintain a Teochew phrasebook, and I wouldn't advocate deleting it even though it's unlikely a foreigner will need to learn it. The dog2 (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The main question here is whether locals who speak Singlish/Teochew among themselves will appreciate your using some phrases in that language. The phrasebooks are not enough for understanding a conversation (and key phrases and idiosyncrasies can be delt with in the #Talk) – learning the language is something we discuss shortly in Talk, Studying abroad, Working abroad etc. but mostly leave for the traveller to decide.
Although the above discussion is interesting, here on VFD it should be about the redirect, which I think nobody suggests deleting any more, and whether a new phrasebook should be deleted if created. My feeling is that we don't think a Singlish phrasebook should be created (so let's not create redlinks to it, or redirects from the phrasebook name), but that nobody is creating it just now. Let's return to the issue if somebody actually considers creating it.
LPfi (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree with LPfi here. SHB2000 (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
A phrasebook is probably not needed but the redirect to the Singapore article's Singlish section is good to have. Or if someone would like to write more about Singlish vocabulary that a visitor may come across, a travel topic article along the lines of Australian slang would be a better alternative. --Ypsilon (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with LPfi as well. Keep the redirect & don't worry about a phrasebook unless/until someone creates one.
You do encounter some odd combinations travelling. Working in China, I knew a married couple from Penang where his first language was Hokkien & hers Teochew, and neither spoke the other's language. Both were also fluent in English & Malay & both spoke Mandarin, though I don't know how well. Pashley (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Pashley:In the case of Hokkien and Teochew, they are very similar. In fact, when I went to Bangkok Chinatown, the local shopkeepers there would speak to me slowly in Teochew, and since I can speak some Hokkien, I could usually figure out the gist of what they were saying. And when I sent my Taiwanese friend a Teochew song once, he told me he could understand about half of it. I guess for Westerners, a comparable analogy would be a Spanish speaker and an Italian speaker trying to talk to each other; you won't understand everything, but if they speak slowly, you can get the gist of what the other person is saying. Of course, it also helps that I had exposure to Teochew growing up since the Teochews are the second largest demographic in Singapore after the Hokkiens, and my home in Singapore is very close to a predominantly-Teochew area (It is well-known that the PAP lost that seat in 1991 because the opposition candidate conducted his election rallies in Teochew, while the PAP candidate did not speak Teochew). The dog2 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Anyway, my verdict here is to keep the redirect. The dog2 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect. Based on 10 years in Singapore and counting, Singlish is absolutely a thing, but it's sufficiently covered in Singapore#Talk. More generally, we don't have phrasebooks for other dialects of English (British, Australian, etc), so we don't need one for Singaporean English either. Jpatokal (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
There is an Australian slang article, and there's a Jamaican Patois phrasebook. I swear there used to be a Scottish phrasebook (not Scots Gaelic); am I wrong? What happened to it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
What about the Aussie slang one SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: There's never been a Scots phrasebook, unless it was already deleted before the fork and thus before I arrived. There's a Scottish Gaelic phrasebook, but that's a Celtic language.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)