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 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]

  • 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.

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

August 2018[edit]

Argentina to London overland[edit]

Recently, Libertarianmoderate created an itinerary with the name "Argentina to London overland". He moved to the new title "Argentina to London" but when he moved the page the original title became a redirect. I'm proposing to delete the redirect, not the itinerary. The reason we should delete the redirect title is simple: it's impossible to go from Argentina to London overland, so why would anyone type it in as a redirect? Selfie City (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment, there is an argument for keeping the redirect: the article says it's based on a video with the name "Could You Drive From Argentina to London". But it doesn't seem like much of an argument for keeping, since there's the channel tunnel, which isn't on land, of course. Selfie City (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Eh? Please check where Argentina is relative to London. The Channel Tunnel is irrelevant! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Pashley (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Ikan Kekek: if you went overland as much as possible from Argentina, going overall in a northwesterly direction. Selfie City (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You're aware that there's an ocean to traverse? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I think LibMod is going to write the article going northwest around the globe — he's written it to Central America so far, not across the ocean. Selfie City (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd like you to explain how the Chunnel is relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
This ought to be simple: the traveler goes from South America to North America, crosses over to Asia, goes across Asia and Europe to northern France, and then must cross over to England to reach London. Selfie City (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Strange. I don't understand the reason for that route, nor why this should be an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Bering Land Bridge between Alaska and Russia is currently out of service, and there is no indication of when the link will be restored. The bridge was submerged 11,000 years ago, and there does not appear to be any regular ferry service. This is not a practical itinerary. Ground Zero (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but there are other possibilities, Ground Zero. For example, you could go a little farther south and get across the northern part of the Pacific by boat. Or by sled in wintertime. But at the same time, traveling from Argentina to London does seem like getting from one random destination to another, which isn't the purpose of itineraries. I'm not sure a video about it justifies an itinerary. But that would, of course, be a separate nomination for deletion, deleting the itinerary, which I clearly stated was not the purpose of this one. Selfie City (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Since it's impossible to get from Argentina to London overland (unless we're talking London, Ontario, but even then, there's the Darien Gap in the way), this is a no-good title, at the very least. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there are different opinions whether "overland" includes boats. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Ikan Kekek: exactly, reason to delete it. Selfie City (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, Hobbitschuster? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The Sava river[edit]

This was created by a user who doesn't yet understand what defines a Wikivoyage article. I tried to turn this into an itinerary but that is just not possible. Since we don't delete real places normally, we could of course make this a redirect, but where would the redirect lead? Selfie City (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but do those options really make sense for a Sava River redirect? What they really be useful to the traveler? Selfie City (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
No, but yet redirects like that exist. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure those were redirected because our old policy is to not delete real places — that's a good policy most of the time, but with a river like the Sava River, if it was a redirect, would not serve any purpose to the traveler, so I vote delete. However, I'm not strongly opposed to a redirect. Selfie City (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
It could be an itinerary or travel topic. But it would have to be rewritten. Are there cruises along the Sava River? Gizza (roam) 23:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there are cruises along the Sava River, but as I said in the first place, I tried to turn it into an itinerary but that just didn't seem to make sense. Why write an itinerary for this river when the Nile doesn't have one? We should either expand our coverage of river itineraries or not do this one, in my opinion. Since this isn't an extremely significant river, my opinion is that deletion makes the most sense. Selfie City (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Unless someone wants to turn it into an itinerary, it should probably be deleted, but I disagree that it's not a significant river. See w:Sava. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, I didn't realize the importance of this river. I agree with Ikan Kekek: it should probably be deleted. Selfie City (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Redirected[edit]

User:Libertarianmoderate irregularly plunged forward while discussion was ongoing and redirected the article to Western Balkans (while leaving an "outlineitinerary" tag that would have to be cleaned up). Is this a useful redirect, or should the article be deleted, as a small though emerging consensus seemed to be heading? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I just now saw @SelfieCity:'s notice not to edit it. My mistake. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

To me, the best option seems to be to restore the article to its original state and wait out the usual fourteen days in case anyone else comes along. I'll undo Libertarianmoderate's edit, then. Selfie City (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, Libertarianmoderate beat me to it. Thanks. Selfie City (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Argentina to London[edit]

I decided that I don't want to do this itinerary article after all. Would someone mind deleting it? Libertarianmoderate (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've redirected it to Around the World in Eighty Days for now, and an admin can delete if you want. Selfie City (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
It's been deleted now. Selfie City (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Atlanta/Aerotropolis[edit]

I'm not actually going to say what I think should be done with this because I'm not quite sure what is the best option. But what I'd say is that this title appears to be that of an Atlanta district, but it actually redirects to a nearby city, Hapeville. It doesn't direct to the airport either, which I considered doing and tried but decided not to publish in the end. Then, of course, there's the question of whether or not "Aerotropolis" would be considered a real place or not, which is another story. By the way, Atlanta is also the COTM at the moment, so this preferably should be resolved by the end of the month, if possible. Selfie City (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Citizendium[edit]

Continued from Wikivoyage talk:Cooperating with Citizendium

I agree with marking this page as historical or deleting it outright. Citizendium doesn't have any special relationship with Wikivoyage. It is neither a travel guide nor part of the same foundation. Just one of thousands of wikis. Gizza (roam) 22:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree and would vote delete. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Never even heard of it before. Delete, since there's nothing about Citizendium that's unique. If we ever need to copy and paste from another Wiki we use Wikipedia anyway. Selfie City (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
What is our policy regarding historic stuff? I'd imagine the page could be useful for understanding some actions taken when the policy was new and well-known. --LPfi (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't look to me like that website, which I've never heard of, had any relationship with pre-fork Wikitravel, either. I would support deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think more-or-less the only WV-CZ link is that several years back I was an active editor on both, so I added this page. At the time I was in China & WP was generally blocked, so I contributed on CZ instead.
w:Citizendium was an attempt to build a "better" WP with tighter controls on edits, in particular no anonymous edits allowed. Arguably a good idea in some ways, but it seems to have failed. The site is pretty much moribund with only a few editors still active. Most of the good stuff there has long since been copied to WP. See for example w:Cypherpunk#References. I copied the WP article to CZ & extensively rewrote, then WP copied my version back. Since then it has been improved & today's WP version is far better than CZ's.
I'd say CZ is effectively dead, so this should be either archived or deleted. Pashley (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Pashley. I wouldn't say CZ is dead but at the same time it is not even comparable to WP as it currently stands. Having recently read some of CZ's policies, I like them but I think we may as well delete the article about them. Selfie City (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Archive No need to delete--just mark it as historical. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree, archive. It is not quite dead, but Recent Changes shows only about 20 edits by five people in the last week & that certainly looks moribund to me. Pashley (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, I see no reason for archiving; we may as well delete. If anyone wants to know our policy about copying from other articles, you can read Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Wikipedia. Selfie City (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Even if it was active, we've never had a relationship with them. There are so many popular free online encyclopedias other than WP which are more popular than Citizendium (and many free online travel guides) for which we don't have a "cooperating" page. This page just states the obvious (don't copy large amounts of content, follow our usual external links policy) and it isn't really tailored to Citizendium. I now say delete. To be brutally honest, I don't think this page was ever useful. Gizza (roam) 01:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Selfie City (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
So currently, 4 say to delete and 2 say to archive, with no keep votes. But that is not a consensus yet. Selfie City (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
When there's no consensus to keep an article, unless someone wants to have it moved to their userspace, it is deleted per policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump, George Washington, and other redirects using names[edit]

There's nothing wrong with creating redirects that are fairly obscure, and I've done it myself. But on Wikivoyage, names are different altogether. I really don't see a traveler typing into WV search a term like "Donald Trump" or, even more obscure, a historical US President like "Martin Van Buren" or "Millard Fillmore", which is where this could lead. I think we ought to delete redirects like the ones listed above. Selfie City (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Agree, we should delete the mentioned redirects. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, do think this needs to wait the process? Practically right now Libertarianmoderate is adding more Presidential redirects... Selfie City (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes Done. Not to put too fine a point on it, but between Londonistan, presidents' names, and probably others, Libertarianmoderate really needs to stop creating garbage redirects. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. I just thought that the resident's names would be useful redirects. And I apologize for Londonistan. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Redirects for the names of every resident of London would get unwieldy very quickly. K7L (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably speedy. Someone searching for, say "Thomas Jefferson" does not need a redirect to find articles that mention him.
Should Presidents of the United States go as well? It seems to me to be mostly out-of-scope for a travel guide. I'd keep it anyway, but what do others think? Pashley (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Pashley, no worries, all the name redirects were already deleted by AndreCarrotflower. I'm not so sure about what to do with the travel topic. Selfie City (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm beginning to have my doubts about the article. Look at the talk page; the bickering about non-travel-related political issues has begun already. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure if it's really very related to a traveler. Why would a traveler go to Trump Hotels, the University of Washington, etc., just because they have the same names as Presidents? The sights like statues of Andrew Jackson can go in American history-related articles. Selfie City (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Trump Hotels are actually owned by Trump, are they not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Technically, the individual hotels are mostly not directly owned by Herr Drumpf. They're owned by real estate developers who pay the Trump Organisation for the name, or pay to have them run the hotel. The same could likely be said for any of a number of franchised operations. The corporation might own some directly, but on others a franchisee is just paying to use the name, the system of operation and the suppliers. K7L (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sunnistan and Shiastan are also IMO ridiculous redirects, as those obscure names could refer to any part of the world largely inhabited by Sunni or Shi'a Muslims, respectively. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Responding to Ikan Kekek, sorry, that's not quite what I mean. What I mean in the case of Trump Hotels is this: would someone actually go to a town, see the name "Trump Hotels", take out their printed travel guide article, see the name Trump on the list and think, "I'll go here because it's got the same name as one of the people on the list." Selfie City (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That'd be like sending them to a random Ford dealership because the Lincoln motorcar was named for the president. If "named for" someone is the criterion, Lincoln (Nebraska) and Washington (state) in their entirety would be listed just for their presidential names, along with Monrovia (Liberia) for James Monroe. There's also the question of whether to list what is basically a chain as WV:BORING. K7L (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Presidents of the United States[edit]

It's unfortunate for Libertarianmoderate, who wanted to see this become a travel topic, but this article is clearly not going to work well. I wasn't quite right with my original viewpoint that political bias would make it problematic, but close — it became a history debate instead, of issues extremely trivial like "what caused Harrison to die" and "Eisenhower's stance on civil rights". As the situation with ArticCynda has shown, it's best when Wikivoyage stays away from political issues, especially those that are sensitive with the current political climate. Despite saying that, I'm not strongly in support of deleting this article, but I want to propose deleting this article to the community to see what others think. Selfie City (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose deletion for now. I was a staunch supporter of this article when it first came out, and I still support it now but not quite so staunchly. The issue is that for all the bickering, there's also quite a lot of high-quality and travel-relevant information in the article. I'd prefer to hold off and see if people cool their jets a little bit with the historical and political debates before doing anything rash. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether this is the room where it happens, but I would say wait for it and don't delete it yet. I think there is a place for retracing important spots in the life of a nation or its important leaders. Certainly a similar thing could be said about the life and times of Willy Brandt (who got around quite a bit for the out-of-wedlock-born working class kid he was). I'd say the wiki is wide enough for this article and others. We can still decide to have it taken to Weehawken at dawn in a month or so. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is certainly a worthy travel topic, or at least I think so. On the article's talk page one user was worried about the large scope of the article. We have other articles with huge scopes too, and I can't remember that alone igniting discussions to delete them. Actually, other than articles about very small places, our articles will probably never be so complete that it's impossible to find something to add. So we shouldn't worry too much about getting them complete.
When it comes to "it's hard or impossible to write travel topics related to politics", well, Wikipedia is also a collaborative project that can be edited by anybody, and most certainly their article are edited by contributors holding each and every political opinion there is (they probably have a hundred times more contributors than we do) and they have managed to create extensive articles about each American president and thousands of even more "controversial" topics. I mean, how hard could it be for us to write a couple of sentences about each president? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems ok but not sure that it needs the long list of the presidents at the beginning of the article. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - viable travel topic; the bickering is not a reason for deletion, people just need to act like adults and work out problems respectfully. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with User:WOSlinker that the list of presidents should go - this is not Wikipedia. Otherwise, it is a useful list of president-elect travel destinations. Ground Zero (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid travel topic with plenty of sights that are on topic for it. For those who aren't patient with the debate that inevitably occurs on how best to summarize all the presidents' terms in office, there are plenty of other things you can do on or off the site while that discussion takes place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree with WOSlinker about the deletion of the list of presidents at the beginning. It's important that we don't tip over into overwhelming the reader with too much information, but in the end, why should the reader care about visiting Grant's Tomb, for example, or the McKinley Monument, if s/he doesn't know who Grant or McKinley are? The list of presidents is essential background information for the topic, and the fact that it's not immediately traveller-relevant is of no more import than the fact that any destination article's "History" section is not immediately traveller-relevant. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion so far[edit]

What's clear is that people want to keep the article, which is fine with me. But what has become clearer is the real deletion subject is whether to keep the list or not, which we can vote on below so we can keep these two different discussions separate.

Essentially, there are four options:

  1. Keep the list and description as they are now.
  2. Limit the descriptions to one line.
  3. Delete/remove the descriptions but otherwise keep the list.
  4. Delete/remove the list altogether.

For now, I'm not going to vote, but everyone else feel free to do so. It seems at the moment that AndreCarrotflower supports #1, WOSlinker and Ground Zero support #4. Others haven't directly voiced an opinion here, but of course can still voice their opinions below or elsewhere. Selfie City (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to do anything other than keep the list and descriptions as they are now, then we may as well just delete the entire article. Wikivoyage articles are supposed to be more than just groups of listings. There has to be some sort of informational framework tying them together. That's especially true in the case of articles that aren't bottom-level destinations, where the common thread uniting the POIs may not be as obvious as a shared geographical location. Eliminate the background information, or reduce it down to just a dry, boring list of names and dates, and the uninformed reader will be left wondering where each individual POI fits into the context of the topic. And if that's the case, then we haven't covered the topic well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Your comment brought to my mind another possibility: the list could be turned into paragraph form, with a sentence or so about each President. Selfie City (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Plus, not to get personal with it, but I wrote or substantially rewrote about 20-25 of those blurbs myself, and I put a lot of time and thought into them, and I'll be damned if it turns out to be all for naught. I understand this is a wiki and things get changed, tinkered with, added to and subtracted from, and that's fine, but don't just straight-up delete it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
No, definitely I wouldn't just delete; a lot of work has been put into the list. For example, notice how a list of songs was moved from the article because it was not considered relevant. Despite the work done on that list (including by me), still it was put in the article's talk page. I didn't write too much of that, and didn't bother me too much, but definitely the amount of work put into U.S. Presidents list is a consideration. Selfie City (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There is also another option which is to remove the list from the top of the article and add those short descriptions of each president into the see section for each president before the list of places to see. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I still prefer Option #1 but could live with Option #5. #s 2, 3 and 4 are all unacceptable. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Guide for extraterrestrial visitors[edit]

K7L created and redirected this page, but it's redirecting to a joke article, so I think it's quite obvious that we should delete it. Selfie City (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Most of our 1 April pieces have the name (in mainspace) redirect to the archived joke (in project space). The restriction is that individual destination articles for real places normally don't link to jokes, ie: Go next: Hell (Hades) as the next stop after Hell (Michigan). The "earth" article is an exception as Earth redirects to destinations - a main index which is not a joke. This was mostly done by design when the April jokes were moved out of mainspace (where they existed pre-WT split) into project space. I'd only created this one upon seeing that a user on Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles had proposed creating the article... and we already have it. K7L (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep - I see no harm in directing readers to one of our better joke articles. Anything that gets people interested in contributing to the next one (and therefore to Wikivoyage) is a good thing. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sunnistan and Shiastan[edit]

  • Delete - could refer to anyplace inhabited by Sunni or Shi'a Muslims, respectively, and the references are obscure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Ikakn Kekek, and not a likely search term. Ground Zero (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - no, they refer only to a proposed and hypothetical breaking up of Iraq and Syria into three countries along ethno-religious lines - the third is Kurdistan - as an attempt to put an end to wars in the region. However, since the places do not yet exist, their relevance to travel is tenuous at best. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons described by Ikan Kekek. Selfie City (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, perhaps speedy, You could make a case for having Sunni & Shi'a as redirects to Islam#The_Sunni-Shi'a_split, but I do not think that is needed since anyone who searches for either term will find the Islam article anyway. Pashley (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I see we already have Kurdistan as an extra-hierarchical region, & that seem fine to me. Pashley (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Reinhardswald[edit]

What is that even? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

w:Reinhardswald has quite a bit of material. I suppose it might make an article here if someone wanted to do the work, but does anyone? I've no idea if it might be a regular region, extra region, travel topic or itinerary.Pashley (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
It's a "de-wv doesn't care about subdividing stuff into exhaustive non-overlapping geographical units" kind of thing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
If no-one's interested in expanding this, or it's an overlap with any other bottom-level destination article's coverage, I'd suggest a redirect because I'm sure there are places nearby. It shouldn't stay in its current state. Selfie City (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Redirect where and why? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
At the same time we don't normally delete real places. Selfie City (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
We have previously deleted pointless redirects even if they in theory describe what could be construed as a real place... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Then let's wait a while and see what others think. Selfie City (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge content into Hann. Münden. --Traveler100 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
How far from Reinhardswald is Hann.Munden, Traveler100? Selfie City (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The region goes right up to the town boundary but the castle and other listings in the article are about 24 km (15 mi) away. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with this article? Other than its length I mean, which is a reason for expanding, not merging or deleting. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Expand - Keep name or could be moved to the title Sababurg and most definitely expanded to other attractions, hotels and restaurants in the area. An incomplete article is not an argument for delete. Also this is not the only rural location article on this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The page as it is, is clear as mud about the borders of the area, which makes it nigh impossible to expand unless somebody already knows more about this region than this article tells anybody... It's a bit like having an article about "the South" (unspecific country) without saying where the boundary to any given area is... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hobbitschuster, agreed. If by 26 August (fourteen days) this article has been improved significantly, I would support expansion, but in its current state this article needs to be redirected/merged in my opinion. Selfie City (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Apt[edit]

A redirect to Wikivoyage:Listings#Rental_listings. There is also a town in France called Apt, which may well need an article in the future, and is already mentioned in several articles of the region. My thinking is it is better to redlink (and possibly be created) than to bump a traveller from planning a trip in France to reading about Wikivoyage policy! Furthermore, the redirect is unnecessary, as we already have the WV:Apt shortcut, and redirects at Apartment listings and Apartment rentals. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Apt is linked from over 100 pages, mainly user talk pages. Maybe it would be easier to made it a disambiguation page linking to Apt (France). AlasdairW (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

2018 taichung world florida expedition[edit]

Delete. Would someone like to try their hand at turning the kernel of basic info into a "Do" listing in the Taichung article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

At Xiamen#Trade_fairs we mention the China International Garden Expo which is in a different city each year. Is this an instance of that? Or some separate thing? In either case, would some more general article on major Chinese flower shows be more appropriate than this one-off article?
Or even something on the flower industry in China? Almost every city has a bird & flower market, usually with some interesting tourist trade items as well. Kunming is at an almost tropical latitude but 2000m altitude so it is the "city of eternal spring" & has a huge flower industry with frequent auctions; they export as far as Japan & the Netherlands. Pashley (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, but Taichung is in Taiwan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)