Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2008

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in April 2008. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/March 2008 or Project:Votes for deletion/May 2008 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

"Copyright © 2005 Patrick. Picture taken by Wikipedia User Patrick-br, April 2005. Self-made. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License"." ~ 203.144.143.4 05:42, 27 January 2008 (EST)

delete It is from Wikimedia commons, not uploaded by the photographer, so there's a license conflict. (WT-en) Pashley 19:40, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 07:54, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. There is already a page for Guadalajara. Not much point having a redirect from Guadalajara (city).--(WT-en) Wandering 13:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Not sure - there is another city and a province in Spain called Guadalajara, we should deal with the disambiguation first. --(WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 14:13, 30 January 2008 (EST)
That makes sense. How about a Guadalajara (Mexico), Guadalajara (province), and Guadalajara (Spain) with a disamb page? I think it's a tossup whether Guadalajara (city) should go to the Spanish or Mexican one and we can just redirect it to the disamb page (along with Guadalajara instead. ??--(WT-en) Wandering 14:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)
  • Delete. Nobody is going to search for that. Regarding the naming issue, the Mexican city is faaaar more famous than the Spanish one, I didn't even know there was a spanish one... and there's not a province, as far as I know... so Mexican one should stay where it is, and the Spanish one should be at Guadalajara (Spain) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 21:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
So there is a province, but we don't necessarily need it to be created, as of now I've put the city in Castilla La Mancha... so we're all good to delete this – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:53, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. What Cacahuate said. (WT-en) Texugo 23:00, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 07:55, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Image being moved to shared and no license. (WT-en) 2old 09:33, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 07:57, 2 April 2008 (EDT)


Copyvio from --(WT-en) Nick 03:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 08:04, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Copyvio from ] --(WT-en) Nick 16:18, 3 March 2008 (EST)

delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 08:04, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I have reworked the subdivision of the Texas Panhandle so that we have no need for individual county articles. (There would be about 100 of them if we went with counties). These two were the only ones which were created so far, and basically contain no information anyway.

I would recommend that we redirect these to the appropriate subregion (High Plains?), since they are real places and people might search for them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:26, 7 March 2008 (EST)
I don't suppose I have a huge objection to that, but don't expect me to be the one who goes creating redirects for the other 252 counties of Texas! (WT-en) Texugo 00:37, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Redirect these, ignore the other 252. (WT-en) Pashley 01:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected --(WT-en) Nick 08:04, 2 April 2008 (EDT)


Not an article, copyvio --(WT-en) Nick 16:06, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Redirect to Jaipur, it's a major tourist attraction. (WT-en) Jpatokal 16:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected --(WT-en) Nick 08:08, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Not an article, copyvio --(WT-en) Nick 16:06, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 08:08, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Copyvio from --(WT-en) Nick 03:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 08:08, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Unused, not travel related, looks like a copyvio --(WT-en) Nick 03:37, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 08:08, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

A forest doesn't qualify for its own article.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 08:08, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

A must visit if you are in Namibia, but does not qualify as an article. Info merged with Lüderitz where it belongs --(WT-en) Nick 13:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Lüderitz --(WT-en) Nick 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

A mountain, not an article. I'll be doing a bit of a rewrite, cleanup and hierarchy change on Namibia and this will be included within another region. No need for it to be an article on it's own.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 08:13, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Definitely not an article. Would have speedy deleted, but want contributor to see why. --(WT-en) Nick 05:54, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 08:13, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

This is not a standard abbreviation like NY.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 08:13, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Someone uploaded this to help advertise a hotel listing.

Outcome: Already deleted --(WT-en) Nick 08:17, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. What sense does it make to keep an empty outline for an iterinary? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:39, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete (WT-en) Texugo 02:21, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:57, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Software developer advertising himself.

Outcome: Speedy deleted, obvious non-article --(WT-en) Nick 04:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Copyvio travel(dot)987654(dot)com

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:17, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Copyvio www.db668.com

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:17, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:17, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:17, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Copyvio www.maoming.gov.cn

Outcome: Already deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:08, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. We have enough licenses to choose from, only 1 image uses this, it's not in our pulldown menu selection, and I don't foresee it making it's way there anytime soon – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 21:48, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Delete, also delete Image:Joburg-clockwise.jpg, the only photo that uses this template. Seems that original contributor already deleted the actual photo --(WT-en) Nick 16:18, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Both deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:08, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:08, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Never implemented, we use the tags instead now – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 21:59, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:08, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:08, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Not in use, created by anonymous contributor with no explanation – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:06, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:08, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:08, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Not in use, and consensus in the past has leant towards not using templates like this and cluttering up pages – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:06, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Delete --(WT-en) Nick 16:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:08, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:08, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Sapphire created it while jacked up on Red Bull at 3am a while back, nothing links to it :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:06, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:08, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Consensus in past has swayed against these types of templates, and they should be discussed before creation too – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:14, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:08, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Population 305 (), suspiciously created by a new user who showed up and created three empty articles for tiny towns - one in Wyoming, one in Ohio, and two in England. If it's wasn't 2:30 in Portland (Maine) then all three might have been speedy deletion candidates as page creation trolling. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:08, 14 April 2008 (EDT)


Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:28, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:28, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:28, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

People in photos. All four were uploaded to advertise a company called "Mozambique Horse Safari" listed in the Vilanculos article.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:28, 18 April 2008 (EDT)


Re-nominating this. Originally nominated as a copyvio prior to "permission" being posted on the Talk:Laurentides page. Appears to have been kept on a "See discussion above" basis, however outcome of that discussion was deletion.

Re-nominating it because:

  1. The permission is for text only.
  2. The statement applied to the image "This picture is not protected by copyright. The uploader owns the image and has released all rights. This applies worldwide." is obviously false.
~ 203.144.143.4 13:03, 25 January 2008 (EST)


Outcome: Deleted - Unused. vfd Avalanche cleanuop --(WT-en) Nick 04:35, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

No licence ~ 203.144.143.4 14:58, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted - Unused. vfd Avalanche cleanuop --(WT-en) Nick 04:35, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

No licence. ~ 58.8.10.215 06:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted - Unused. vfd Avalanche cleanuop --(WT-en) Nick 04:35, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

No licence. ~ 58.8.10.215 06:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted - Unused. vfd Avalanche cleanuop --(WT-en) Nick 04:35, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

No licence. ~ 58.8.10.215 06:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted - Unused. vfd Avalanche cleanuop --(WT-en) Nick 04:35, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

No licence. ~ 58.8.10.215 06:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted - Unused. vfd Avalanche cleanuop --(WT-en) Nick 04:35, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

No licence. ~ 58.8.10.215 06:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted - Unused. vfd Avalanche cleanuop --(WT-en) Nick 04:35, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 09:58, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted - Unused. vfd Avalanche cleanuop --(WT-en) Nick 04:35, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 09:58, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted - Unused. vfd Avalanche cleanuop --(WT-en) Nick 04:35, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted - Unused. vfd Avalanche cleanuop --(WT-en) Nick 04:35, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted - Unused. vfd Avalanche cleanuop --(WT-en) Nick 04:35, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Not really even an itinerary.

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:15, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep. It's a destination, and you can sleep there. But I think Qeshm is the most common name, we should move there – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 14:52, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Qeshm --(WT-en) Nick 05:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

First of all, in Brazil it is Carnaval, not Carnival. Second, even as a travel topic, there is no way to make an article to cover the myriad ways the event is marked in the thousands of Latin American destinations that celebrate it.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 05:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 05:41, 28 April 2008 (EDT)


Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 05:43, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Recognizable people in photo.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 05:45, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

A single mountain is a non-article.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 05:47, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Images of Seth Green and Pauly Shore

[edit]

These were placed in the Essequibo Islands-West Demerara article to accompany a hoax.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 05:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Does not seem to be a valid article --(WT-en) Nick 04:39, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 05:51, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 05:53, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 05:53, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 05:53, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

January 2008

[edit]
  • Delete. I think it's much more favorable to personal with questions, etc... I don't think we should get into creating a ton of communication templates for talk pages. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:38, 18 January 2008 (EST)
  • Keep Some people may find it useful, so why not. It's standard and simple and anyone could easily type the same text. I assume one doesn't have to use it. --(WT-en) Wandering 15:20, 19 January 2008 (EST)
  • Delete. I suppose its nice to have a standard way of questioning an edit but it is hard enough keeping track of the templates and special pages anyway and this doesn't add a whole lot. --(WT-en) Wandering 12:46, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Wandering, if you believe it's nice to have a standard way of questioning an edit--why can't we work further on the template to make it easier to use (and choose a better name for it)? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:57, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Let's think about it. The plus side of having a template is that the question is then framed neutrally, which, I think, is important. The minus is that most people will not know about it and the odds are that most people will not use it. Do you have an example of how it will work in practice and what does wikipedia do?--(WT-en) Wandering 14:02, 19 January 2008 (EST)
I only used the template once: SUBSTed it in which invited Texugo to comment on . --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:33, 19 January 2008 (EST)
As for Wikipedia, I would rather refer to Wiktionary templates (which is still bit too formal): wiktionary:Category:User_warning_templates. Wikipedia practice is really formal and templates-intensive; I don't think we want to go that far: wikipedia:Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:33, 19 January 2008 (EST)
  • Keep. It is useful; it saves time for a non-native speaker contributor; it helps to keep all article-related discussions on article talk page instead of scattering them across user talk pages. See also discussion that preceded the creation of the template. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:57, 19 January 2008 (EST)
  • Just to clarify, my issue is with using templates in this manner at all, not whether the discussion takes place on the article talk page or a user talk page. I think it's impersonal (and on top of that lazy) to use templates for things like this rather than just typing a sentence. Denis, your English is fine, you don't need templates to get your point across ;) Wandering, I'm not vfd'ing this template just because I don't find it useful, but more because I don't think it sets a good precedent, and will almost certainly lead to more... My overall question is whether we want to start introducing a ton of generic communication templates, and I'm clearly voting no  :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 15:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
  • Well, for myself the choice (depending on whether the template exists) will be whether to address user on his talk page in addition to leaving a msg on article's talk page, or to not bother with talk:user and only use talk:article. I'd rather use my limited time on contributing more content to more articles than spending it on composing personal messages every time I have a comment on someone's edit. In reality, it is more likely that I will still use the same impersonal and neutral message, but instead of invoking a template I'll copy-paste the text from my user's page--and it will still take more of my time. And I would like that other contributors rather spend more time on articles rather on composing personal messages (or not address other users personally at all). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:20, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Anyone else have an opinion on this? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:47, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. We don't need templates to say hi. Just type a sentence pointing the user to the place where the question is. -- (WT-en) Colin 01:44, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
You mean it's OK to not worry how good or bad that sentence sound? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. I was on the fence, but I'm inclined to call this a slippery slope—I really like that we avoid templated interaction with each other (unlike some other wikis). Denis, I'd recommend that you keep a personal list of pre-written messages that you use often in your userspace. I started doing that for (WT-es) edit summaries on :es, and have found it a useful time-saver. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:44, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
It takes more time to insert 3 links (of which, 2 are different) into a pre-written text. Instead, I will not address original contributor at all--see below. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. As I and others have stated before, personal interaction is better. -- 62.121.119.141 15:01, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

For myself, removal of this template will mean that the community prefers me to comment only on article talk page (and hope the original author will visit it some day), and never comment on original contributor's talk page (as I only have energy for a quick template invokation, but not for composing a personal message every time). If that's what community wants, I can live with it--but I don't believe it will help in improving articles faster. That's really pity. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

DELETED – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 06:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

  1. A logo
  2. No licence
~ 203.144.143.6 04:49, 26 January 2008 (EST)
delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

No licence. ~ 58.8.10.215 06:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 58.8.10.215 06:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)


No licence. ~ 58.8.10.215 06:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)


No licence. ~ 58.8.10.215 06:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 58.8.10.215 06:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)


No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. To access the file, use this link: ~ 203.144.143.4 06:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. To access the file, use this link: ~ 203.144.143.4 06:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)


A dog; no licence (the image, that is - don't know about the dog). ~ 203.144.143.4 07:13, 28 January 2008 (EST)


No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 07:36, 28 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 07:36, 28 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 07:36, 28 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 07:36, 28 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 07:36, 28 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 07:36, 28 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 07:36, 28 January 2008 (EST)


archived Jan.29 but then brought back to deal with the "other images"

  • Delete. Copyvio -- the second image comes up twice in the first page of GIS. Contributor marked images as his own. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:47, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Same contributor has uploaded several other images and was asked to clarify their status on 2 January 2008 (see User talk:(WT-en) Wikid#Copyvio) but has not responded. Should all images uploaded by this contributor be deleted? ~ 58.8.4.9 13:59, 25 January 2008 (EST)


no licence

no licence

no licence

no licence

No licence; probably a copyvio too. ~ 203.144.143.4 02:47, 29 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:01, 29 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:01, 29 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:01, 29 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:01, 29 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:01, 29 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:01, 29 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:01, 29 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:01, 29 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:01, 29 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)


No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)



No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 21:19, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 21:19, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 21:19, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 21:19, 30 January 2008 (EST)

So what's the deal with these 'no license' pages? Does one delete them or are they stuck in the same limbo as the 'not licensed under cc-by-sa-1.0' pages?--(WT-en) Wandering 13:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Another question - When images appear that are not licensed, should they be tagged Dont know AND VFD at the same time or just Dont know. for a period of time to allow contributor to fix problem. I read the guidelines and was not sure of the interpretation. 65.24.110.210 15:35, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Why should "no license" pages/VFDs be stuck in limbo? Do you have any particular reason(s) in mind?

To improve readability and maintenance on this page, the rest of this discussion has been moved to the talk page at CC-by-SA discussion (B). Please continue reading there.

KEPT ALL - images uploaded without a license are ccyba 1.0 by default per special:upload – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 06:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Redundant region, not part of the Geographical hierarchy - only linked to once, from Georgia (state), and no articles have an {{isIn|Lake_Chatuge}} tag. ~ 203.144.143.4 17:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)


No licence. ~ 58.8.3.194 19:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 58.8.3.194 19:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 58.8.3.194 19:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)


No licence. ~ 58.8.3.194 19:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 58.8.3.194 19:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 58.8.3.194 19:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 58.8.3.194 19:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 58.8.3.194 19:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

KEPT ALL - images uploaded without a license are ccyba 1.0 by default per special:upload – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 06:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

CC-by-SA-2.0

[edit]

These images are tagged {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} and conflict with the following policies:

  1. Wikivoyage:Copyleft (up until 23 January 2008, when images were effectively excluded from the policy without prior notice or discussion )
  2. Project:Image policy
  3. Project:How to re-use Wikivoyage guides

The first 3 are not linked to from anywhere; the last 2 are only linked to from Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Hell (Hades). ~ 203.144.143.4 04:37, 1 February 2008 (EST)


see also: #Image:Viking ship in Stockholms strom.jpg - VFD'd 26 January 2008

KEPT ALL - current consensus is that all ccbysa versions are compatible – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 06:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

CC-by-SA-2.5

[edit]

These images are tagged {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} and conflict with the following policies:

  1. Wikivoyage:Copyleft (up until 23 January 2008, when images were effectively excluded from the policy without prior notice or discussion )
  2. Project:Image policy
  3. Project:How to re-use Wikivoyage guides
~ 203.144.143.4 05:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

KEPT ALL - current consensus is that all ccbysa versions are compatible – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 06:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

user page images

[edit]

Presumably it's not unreasonable to expect that these images be re-licensed:

  • Keep, not used in main WT namespace articles. Can be any license it wants to be --(WT-en) Nick 08:03, 3 March 2008 (EST)
  • Keep, not used in main WT namespace articles. Can be any license it wants to be --(WT-en) Nick 08:03, 3 March 2008 (EST)

KEPT ALL - meant for userpages – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 06:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

not linked to from anywhere

[edit]


--- remaining images (~52) to follow shortly ---

see also:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/April_2008&oldid=4921260"