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]

  1. 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.
  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

October 2018[edit]

Ferries in the Mediterranean[edit]

An article that is so out of date and going nowhere that we might as well delete it. If you want to keep it, please say how you'll improve it. Or you can always have it moved to your userspace. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure. It is a valid topic, but an unmaintained article may be worse than none. Pashley (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, this is a tough one. There are a lot of dead links that give the impression that the article is going out of date. Yet, as Pashley said, this is a valid travel topic. There is hope in this article, but it might need to be largely written to be once again up to date. This seems like more work than is worth it, considering that it's not a really important travel topic. Also, it's quite a long article, so it was to be improved, a lot of work would be necessary. Therefore, I leaning toward delete for this article, and that's the stance I'm taking. It doesn't seem to be our usual policy to go this way, but in this case I think it's the best option — but not by a lot. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know how useful an article like this is to travellers, but it just got a whole bunch of updates before the nomination here. I did some updates in 2017. A ferry was added in 2016. Before that, there wasn't much activity other than the import from the predecessor site. I am not inclined to delete. Ground Zero (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this research, which moves me to neutral, seeing both sides of this situation. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 04:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. In the Mediterranean, like in the Baltic Sea and seas around Britain ferries are a common way for getting across. I think it's useful to have an overview of ferry lines, though the article (as the other ones?) could probably use an update. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem with any article that lists a bunch of services and not many alternatives is keeping it up to date. I think our travel topics should generally not include a bunch of links to other company websites since a travel topic should focus on useful information, that is, paragraphs, rather than long lists. This article is designed to be a list, which means it would need quite a lot more real content. Is anyone ready to add some and improve this article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should have more prose content, but I think a list is also good to include. But now we're talking about how to improve the article, which is best discussed on the article's talk page. Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Joining the consensus: keep. Pashley (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - viable topic. Gizza (roam) 00:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

RAP[edit]

Currently a redirect to Rapid City#By plane. However, I think the musical genre of rap is definitely a viable travel topic (we already have Jazz, and Wikivoyage:Requested articles includes an idea for an East Coast hip hop tour). If we already had a travel topic article about rap, the best solution would be to turn RAP into a disambiguation page; since we don't yet, and since Rapid City Regional Airport is not nearly major enough to absolutely need its IATA code to redirect, I think it would be prudent to delete the redirect and not needlessly hinder the creation of such a travel topic article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, Support Support. I created the page. It could just as easily be one of the hardcoded IATA redirects, like USA IATA. I don't predict the Rapid City IATA code changing often. ARR8 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, the support means support deletion. ARR8 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Honestly, I think that turning IATA codes into redirects is a waste of time. The exception is huge airports like Atlanta Airport. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I think there was never any actual consensus on creating all those IATA code redirects, but in this example there clearly is something people think of before they think of a minor joke airport in the middle of nowhere... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll go along with consensus & say delete.
As for the more general question of IATA redirects, that was discussed somewhere & the conclusion was they were a good idea. I spent a few hours creating several dozen, all the ones with five or more links on "pages wanted". I think the fact that many had 7 or 8 red links is fairly good evidence they are worthwhile. Pashley (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Updated: Create a disambig page instead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: MediaWiki, by default, is case-sensitive on all but the first character of titles. RAP is not the same article as rap or rap music (with or without the silent leading 'c'). K7L (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    True. This does not show in the search field with the Vector (current default) interface until Rap is created, but when it is, the two coexist as separate pages. So no need to remove the airport redirect, if the other page is created – as article, redirect or disambiguation page. --LPfi (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Those were my two concerns - that the capitalization might prevent the creation of a new page, and that it might interfere with autocomplete for people trying to search for rap. If neither is true, then I suppose it would be better to have as few hardcoded redirects as possible - so I now lean keep on this. If there's any reason why the presence of this redirect would actually hinder the creation of a new page, I'll vote to delete again. Otherwise, I don't think it does any harm. ARR8 (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Other than leaving w:Rapid City Regional Airport with KRAP as its ICAO code? I suppose it's harmless. :) K7L (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    Ha, sounds like the eventual switch to ICAO will be a memorable event for Rapid City. ARR8 (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    ...as in "this is your captain speaking, we're descending from 25,000 feet and are about to land in, well this could get messy..."? K7L (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I have not changed any search settings, and when I type "rap" into the search, it takes me to the airport. Same with "Rap", so it does not seem to be case-sensitive. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    As I said above: until Rap is created. RAP is just considered the closest match until then. --LPfi (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Redirects like this are very high-value, especially for mobile search. It's much easier to type "LAX" in your phone than to migrate by breadcrumbs or standard links. As always, redirects are cheap, so there's not much incentive to delete them. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I was actually just coming over here to say that I’m still for deleting when, as I typed in “vfd” to get to this page, my search term came out as “bff” and I was redirected to the Scottsbluff Airport information. To make it clear, I do not support airport IATA redirects. In most cases I think it’s a waste of time reverting them, but per User:ChubbyWimbus and this other redirect incident I support delete for this redirect. Some earlier comments pulled me a little from the delete zone but I’m now a solid delete supporter again. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 04:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    Comment: Well, keep in mind removing the redirect wouldn't help you in this case. If you delete bff, entering bff into the search wouldn't take you to VFD, it'll just take you to a search for the term "bff." ARR8 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Adding IATA redirects has identified a good number of errors on airport descriptions and use of incorrect codes on Wikipedia. Helps readers not make any incorrect bookings, or at least save some time and confusion. Adding Rap solves the search issue. Currently redirect to Music, but if people think this could be a travel topic then should be changed to an article. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a rule, I find the IATA redirects useful—it's easier to search "ORD" or "SFO" than to type the whole name of the airport. And in some cases it's hard to remember the exact name of the airport (is it Guangzhou Baiyun? Or just Baiyun? For me it's easier to search for "CAN"). And sometimes it's not obvious which article an airport will be covered in—easier to type "RDU" than to remember if its main listing is in the Raleigh, Durham, or Research Triangle article. Now that Rap has been created, this redirect seems to do no harm, so there's no need to delete it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - If we keep "RAP" as an airport redirect, we need to create a disambiguation, because of the common and possibly travel-related meaning of "rap". There have been some other disambiguation pages that have included airport redirects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Why is a disambiguation page necessary? Would a reader ever type the word in all caps when looking for the type of music? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you type in all caps or not. It's not case-sensitive. Whoever said that was mistaken. Rap, rap, RAP, rAp, RaP, rAP, RAp: All take you to the same place. You can do the same with any location (ex: pittsBUrgh takes you to Pittsburgh). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@ChubbyWimbus: That's not correct, and I encourage you to test it for yourself by typing "RAP" and "Rap" into the search box. Once two pages are created that differ in capitalization, the search function respects that difference (with the caveat that, as K7L said, the first character of a page title is not case-sensitive). —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
If you think people usually distinguish by case when typing in search boxes, I would beg to differ. I hardly ever use capital letters to search in Wikipedia, and many of our users are familiar with Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree, that is why the IATA code redirect will not affect most searches people enter. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
But if we want to help people looking for the IATA code, we need for them to be able to access it using lowercase letters, too, which is why a disambig would be helpful in this case. I think it's very problematic that people have to use ALL-CAPS to access any of the other IATA code redirects. I didn't know that until now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The main reason for the IATA template was to provide an easy and clear link from multiple pages to a single page detailing a non huge airport. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, duly noted. But don't you think it's a problem if someone searches for an airport using lower-case letters and doesn't find it that way? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
That's a fair point. It could be solved by a Template:hatnote in the Music article, or by a disambiguation page as you suggest. It feels slightly silly to me to create a disambiguation page for an IATA code and a genre of music that we don't actually have an article for, but I don't strongly object.
By the way, to clarify, you don't usually need to use all-caps to access IATA code redirects. Searching for "ord", "sfo", or "can" works just fine. The software only takes capitalization into account in searches when there are two pages that differ only in capitalization (like RAP and Rap). —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have a related question: are there any times railroads or other modes of transport share the names of airport codes? I'm thinking if there was, for example, a train station's name that was abbreviated to "ATL" in Atlanta, or "SJC" in San Jose. This could really pose a problem for IATA redirects. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed there is. BUF is the IATA code for Buffalo Niagara International Airport and also the Amtrak identifier for Buffalo-Depew train station. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
That seems like a problem to me. Someone could type in a redirect for the train station but suddenly find themselves at the airport article. And if we're talking about an Amtrak idenification, it seems very possible that IATA/Amtrak codes could be identical in multiple cases. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Please study the functionality. If the three letter code has more than one meaning for a travel related topic then there is a dis-ambiguous page which covers all possibilities, for example MGM. The letters used in the IATA template will however always take you to the airport listing or page. This activity has corrected a lot of errors on the site, improved information on airports and provided additional functionality yo readers. You really think it is worth removing all this over a topic that is only indirectly travel related that does not exist! Also should assume reader has some intelligence, why would you type in bff in a travel site if you want to know what other meaning it has, that is what Wikipedia is for. Traveler100 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I recall the {{IATA}} template contained a few hard-coded checks for silliness like ROC IATA and PRC IATA (the names of countries Taiwan and mainland China) along with a few others, like GTA IATA (which could be either Grand Theft Auto or Greater Toronto Area). It's nothing that hasn't come up before; I think we can handle the difference between RAP and rap music, as it's less messy than the ICAO code. K7L (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suppose few people use all caps to search for the music genre, and those who do will not be surprised when ending up in the wrong place. It seems this is the only real concern. The rest of the discussion is useful, but does not directly affect the value of the IATA redirect. --LPfi (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Texhoma[edit]

A page with no content that has never been edited by a human. Also, isn't an actual place - the Wikidata item it's connected to is for a disambiguation between two places. ARR8 (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - Valid search term. But it should probably be reduced to a disambig unless someone wants to work on it. The Oklahoma side shows 3 places of interest. If someone knows something about them, there could be listings for them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect. Ground Zero (talk)
  • Keep, since it seems to pass the sleep test. However, I think the article's wording "pair of towns" should be changed to "a town" because it is de facto one town in two states. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, because we don't delete real places. I don't know whether it should be its own article or a redirect to somewhere nearby. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It could be converted into a disambig page. The two communities have a total population of 1300, and the main attraction appears to be the border sign. Stratford (Texas) and Guymon are the nearest places that we do have articles for, and they are about the same distance away. AlasdairW (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's not a disambig page unless it links to individual articles for at least two different non-contiguous places with the same name (such as Portland (Oregon) as a colony of Portland (Maine). If there are a pair of articles linked for adjacent, contiguous places (like Nogales or Niagara Falls, split by the Mexico and Canada borders respectively) the general description page is an {{extraregion}}, not a {{disambig}}. If this is a Glenrio-sized speck on a map, there aren't and won't be two separate articles (or enough content to justify same) so nothing to disambiguate. K7L (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that both sides of the city should be treated as one destination. The only reason that the city is officially two separate cities is because the state line cuts through the middle of it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - would support a redirect, but what would you redirect it to? The only article above it in the hierarchy that isn't on either side of the county/state/region border is USA.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the answer to that is, on which of the state line do most of the people live. Then you can redirect accordingly. But I think the best thing for now is to treat the Texhoma article as an ordinary city article, rather than as some unusual occurrence. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that's essential. But if the part in one state is way more important than the part in the other state, we could redirect and cover the parts in both states in a single article that's breadcrumbed to that state. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

9/11 remembrance[edit]

In light of the concerns expressed in the pub and bearing in mind this article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, I think this should be deleted. Please vote, and please - to limit the impact vandals can have on our community - let's keep it brief, whatever the outcome.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, good point. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I said in the pub, I don't really think there's enough traveler-oriented material about this topic for a dedicated article. Better to rewrite it and make it a subsection of Postwar United States if anything. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - maybe even quick, as this is a short list of sites I cannot see being expanded. Poorly scoped and in bad taste. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe a policy needs to be changed to say that historical travel topics about events less than 50 (or 100?) years ago should be discussed in the pub before creation. It is a pity that some useful additions by regular contributors will be lost and I would encourage them to put these in the relevant city articles. AlasdairW (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - a valid travel topic, and much of the sock's content has been replaced by me and by other editors. Ground Zero (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm coming around to the idea of rewriting useful content in Postwar United States after deletion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

History of the US Flag[edit]

As above, this was created by the sockpuppet. However, unlike the above, this article is not inflammatory in content and could potentially be interesting. This is more of a weighing up of priorities: do we care more about discouraging vandals by removing their contributions, or more about saving a possibly worthwhile article from the chop? I have not decided yet and am interested in your thoughts.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything wrong in keeping the article, and it is travel-related, so I'd vote to keep. But I don't feel really strongly about it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Glossing over the history page, I see that most of the content was added by other users and it is an interesting travel topic. I see no reason to delete the article any more than deleting Presidents of the United States, which was another article started by LibMod but worked on by many others. I say keep it. Gizza (roam) 23:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Don't we delete every article started by the Telstra pcv vandal? Why are we adopting a different policy with this? How about deleting it, removing the vandal's edits and recreating it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I guess we could. If we're going to do that, though, we might as well just delete the article and be done with it. Wouldn't be my first choice considering the amount of content in the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, other individuals have added to the article significantly in the meantime. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
That's why their contributions could be preserved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only reason why I didn't vfd this article already is because I didn't want to discourage what I thought was a good-faith new contributor. I'm sorry, but I think this article falls on the wrong side of the scope threshold. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just registered DaGizza's post about Presidents of the United States also having been started by this vandal. But do we have a guideline about what to do with articles started by vandals? If so, what is the guideline? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not fussed if this gets deleted because as others have said, it is niche and at the very edge of what a travel guide would contain but FYI, as per xtools LibMod has created 168 pages here which still aren't deleted, of which 99 are redirects and 69 are not. Many of these articles were created before he became a full-fledged vandal when he was a somewhat good-faith editor, albeit one that didn't want to follow the procedures in place. I don't mind enforcing a rule from now on but it would be pointless deleting all of these articles that are many months old and recreating them. Gizza (roam) 02:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that, if anyone creates a decent article, we should not delete it unless it goes against policy in some other way. Telstra creates outlines, we must remember, not worthwhile articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If we do that, we effectively have no punishment for block evasion. ARR8 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with ARR8. The last thing we need to be doing at this juncture of Wikivoyage history is eliminating deterrents to vandalism. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we ought to just delete the article. I mean, it's not that great a travel topic idea anyway. If you think that's the best way to deal with the vandalism problem, let's delete then. If the article was something really good, it would be a little different. But it's not like that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's kind of an edge topic. I don't really care if it's flat-out deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I never knew the U.S. was ever part of the Egyptian, Chinese or Islamic empires... :-P. But I do agree on the Revolutionary War as a good topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
K7L is obviously talking about the Seleucid Empire. They're OP bosses in the Rome: Total War series. I actually agree that the useful content from the flag article could be moved to a new American Revolution article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
All the ammunition for a debate over this can be found at w:List of largest empires... ;) --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)