Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search
Votes for Deletion

This page lists articles, files and templates that are nominated for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can make a nomination or comment on any nomination. Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our current policy.

If our deletion policy leads towards a merge or redirect, then coordinate this on the discussion page of the article.

The purpose of this page is limited to the interpretation and application of our deletion policy. You can discuss what our deletion policies should be on the deletion policy discussion page.

Nominating[edit]

  1. For the article, file or template being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag so that people viewing it will know that it is proposed for deletion. The {{vfd}} tag must be the very first thing, right at the very top, before everything else.
  2. Add a link to the article, file or template at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your recommendation using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article, file or template per entry.
  3. If you're nominating a file for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikivoyage and not on Wikimedia Commons.

The basic format for a deletion nomination is:

===[[Chicken]]===
* Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Commenting[edit]

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

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments you may elect to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If you recommend redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Any attempt to merge content from an article to some other destination must retain the edit history to comply with the attribution (CC BY-SA) requirements of the free license, so it may be possible to merge and redirect but not to merge and delete. Sign your comment using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not[edit]

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

When deleting a template, consider first replacing it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name. Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it.

Archiving[edit]

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root Archives page has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted).

If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the discussion page of the article, file or template being kept or redirected.

See also:

Icon delete talk.svg

July 2015[edit]

File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg and File:Baltimore pennstation banner EDITED.jpg[edit]

The last time we discussed File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg (Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2014#File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg), I opposed deletion as I felt the presence of the statue was an essential part of the picture. I no longer find that to be the case, which means a picture of the station could be taken without the statue, which means we don't need to invoke fair use. Simply moving the camera a few feet left or right should provide a similar view without the statue in it.

The EDITED version is used only in the linked discussion, and while it's a much better edit than Nick wanted to take credit for, we shouldn't keep it around indefinitely. UNLESS, that is, we decided we wanted to use it as the banner on Baltimore/Midtown in place of the unedited version. But I and others have qualms about misrepresenting the view in this way.

This is a complex case, and I am quite open to being persuaded against anything I've said above.

-- Powers (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there an alternative photo you're proposing to use for a banner? The fact that in theory, a different photo could be taken doesn't seem to me to be enough of a reason to delete a banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The edited version could be moved to commons as the edit has removed the non-free element that caused the banner to kept local. The description would need to be changed to clearly describe the edit. AlasdairW (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Lanao del Norte[edit]

An empty outline region with - according to the article - one place worth mentioning in it. What do we keep it for? (btw. if you are wondering how I found it, I just hit "Random Page" enough ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's part of the regional structure for Northern Mindanao. Removing it would leave Iligan orphaned. Powers (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It is a real place (see w:Lanao del Norte) so policy is to avoid deletion — expand it into a real article, merge and redirect, or just leave it and hope someone eventually fixes it.
In this case, I think a redirect one level up the hierarchy to Northern Mindanao is the right solution. The article is pretty much empty and I do not think there is a lot to say about the region anyway. Pashley (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, removing the article (including redirecting) would leave Iligan orphaned and an entire region of Northern Mindanao without a corresponding article. Powers (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Please have a look at talk:Northern Mindanao Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
We do have regions like Northwest Afghanistan where the region covers several provincees, province articles exist only as redirects to the region, and city breadcrumbs point to the region. I think that is the way to handle Northern Mindanao, mainly because we have nothing close to enough info to do decent province articles. Pashley (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to start a related discussion at Talk:Philippines#Province_or_island_articles. Comments there would be welcome. Pashley (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Taipan[edit]

smacks of page creation vandalism Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Let's keep assuming good faith; this IP created only one article. It's not unlikely he/she lives in some (small) town called Taipan - at least by his/her transliteration. I already posted on their talk page with a request for additional info. If that will not come (which is likely), deleting makes sense. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Guizhou (the province where the only place in China called Taipan that Google seems to know about is located). We don't delete real places. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • All I'm finding for the name is a snake in Australia. K7L (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
K7L: [1] -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The two associations I have with this word are an Australian snake and a misspelling of Taiwan... I don't care whether we delete or redirect, but the article in its current form appears to have no snowball's chance in hell Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Considering the link AndreCarrotflower gave, making the real place assumption more certain, redirecting is the way to go. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually the Taipan is probably one of the main snakes to worry about in Australia. Real places should obviously get priority, but I wonder if someone may be searching rather for Dangerous_animals ? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Normally I would say redirect a location that has no points of interest to the closest place we have an article on. But as we are only guessing here where or what the contributor is referring to I propose deletion, unless more information is forthcoming. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
How do you figure we're "guessing"? There is only one Taipan in China. No guesswork necessary. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's arguing to keep the article as-is. It's between "redirect" and "delete outright". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
But as far as I can tell, the town of 'Taipan' doesn't exist. I'm suggesting rename to Taipanxiang and the redirect to Guizhou --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Smiley[edit]

Wikivoyage is a Wikimedia site, not a Wikipedia project. Smileys can be effectively produced in three keystrokes: :-) or two if you like: :). Whether Wikipedians think such a template is useful or not is irrelevant. Why do we need it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I (as billions another humans) smile when see this picture — of cource, in reasonable proportions. Any sign ;) or :-) or so on have another and weak influence. Surely (smile), offenders have very severe life, so, they have very stern character :-|. But, I am sure, every human soul need some cordiality. Undoubtedly, I respect deep religious feelings of Muslims and Hebrews. Nevertheless, deletion a smile from talks is destructive, IMHO, it consequences are the ISIL destructions. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (tc) 10:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
OK, I'm a Muslim or "Hebrew" and deleting this template will bring terrorists into the living room. Thanks for explaining that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, how wonderful! this joke is so witty! — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (tc) 11:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
Indeed, I need only [[file:face-smile.svg|18 px]] (Face-smile.svg) instead of {{Smiley}}. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (tc) 11:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep. It has no travel purpose, but it has a community purpose. This is not something we'll every see in mainspace, and I'll always vote for all freedom we can reasonably give to users, when it comes to talk- and user pages. If no-one used it, that was a reasonable deletion rationale. But if there's an interest, it does no harm. If people prefer Face-smile.svg over :-), that should be fine, just like it's fine if they prefer their username to be written in colour. It's a matter of taste, and no-on is forced to use these options. No reason to be the old-fashioned wiki in the family when it comes to smileys. It's only a small gesture in a world full of emoticons. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete template cruft. Just transclude the image you want if it's that important to you. Powers (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: it was an opinion of the administrator and bureaucrat here. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (tc) 20:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
    Why would that make a difference to anything? K7L (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, there's more than one admin on this site, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I need only [[file:face-smile.svg|18 px]] (Face-smile.svg) instead of {{Smiley}}. Now, at the rest, what for template cruft? I can agree with this opinion, but can anybody frankly defend it in Wikipedia? — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (tc) 11:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC).
Each Wiki has its own policies on stuff like this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, and this user would do well to familiarize himself with the nature of our relationship with other WMF sites as well as our policy on civility. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete It would only be a matter of time before it started appearing in listings. We also have a significant number of editors and readers for whom English is not their first language. I think that things said with smileys (in any format) are more likely to be misinterpreted by readers with different backgrounds. AlasdairW (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - If used frequently enough to merit having a template for it, I think it would be mere visual clutter. Plus, any argument for keeping this would apply equally to a whole range of cutesy emoticons, and we have certainly never had any need for that. Texugo (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    To be fair, this one template covers scores of different smileys, depending on the parameters used. Powers (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)