Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2014

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← March 2014 Votes for deletion archives for April 2014 (current) May 2014 →

I removed this from the Skovorodino article just now for violation of our people in photos policy (avoid photos of people posing in front of an attraction). Also: Permission unclear, FoP unclear (reasons stated on file page for why it is not allowed on Commons).

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article doesn't contain that much of interest. While there is w:Cromford Mill which could be added to this article, I'm thinking that it might be better to delete it and add Cromford Mill into Matlock, which is only 3 miles away.

Feel free to merge and redirect as appropriate, but do not delete the content or eliminate the search term. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Feel free to merge and redirect as appropriate" AFTER the two-week discussion period has elapsed. As yet, there's no consensus whether even a merge/redirect is appropriate. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is there "too much information to delete and recreate"? There's nothing here, other than a "get in" section... and that info could be reconstructed from other sources. K7L (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Re: deleting and recreating... -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE I'm thinking it may be best to cancel this current nomination as I'm planning on coming back with a list of about 40-50 villiages in England as a group nomination that I think could do with either deleting or redirecting. The nomination should be ready later on this week. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we redirect real places rather than deleting them, and lack of content is not a valid reason for doing so. The only provision under which we've ever done anything akin to what you're suggesting is the recent mass deletion and recreation of "skeleton" articles for SEO purposes, and given the recent changes to the Wikitravel attribution footer there is no longer any SEO advantage inherent in doing that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there's nothing there, redirecting the page name is entirely justified. Deletion of empty WT-import skeletons is still worthwhile as failure to do so, if an article ends up at that title in future, means that we are crediting WT for an article to with WT (or its users) contributed nothing. K7L (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the list and it's currently at User:WOSlinker/list. Most of these villages don't have anything useful and for the ones that do have the odd bit of useful info, there's not going to be that much opportunity to expand them into a decent article. So, I'd rather move any useful content over to a nearby town, which can then be used to consolodate the information for a larger area. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that you start discussions in the talk pages of every article you propose to merge and redirect, explaining why. None of the search terms should be deleted, and we don't need to discuss any of them at VfD. If you'd like to encourage more participation in discussions, you can link them from requests for comment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept - Texugo (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as experimental, but with no clear purpose. It's not used anywhere, and its only apparent function is to include the text "SUBST".

That functionality is already covered elsewhere, and this literally does nothing that wouldn't be faster done by literally typing the five characters SUBST instead of the 12 characters it takes to call the template. Texugo (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has long been tagged with a {{merge}} tag, but actually I don't think there is much of anything left to merge. This can be considered a "personal itinerary" of the type which we are to avoid, and is not a likely search term so redirection is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but as far as I can tell, there is not really anything to merge — after cross-checking with potential merge targets, the only unique info I see is the mention of two cafés, but no details beyond the names are given. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge — there are no details for any point of interest mentioned and in many cases not enough info to know where to merge to if there were anything substantial to merge. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

This might be rebuilt as a valid travel topic, but one way or the other, it was very prematurely marked as "usable". As it is really only at outline status, it has long ago passed its one-year period for bringing it up to something truly worthwhile, and it certainly isn't doing much good sitting around for years with a merge tag on it. Unless you are personally vouching to rewrite this article in short order, I really think deletion is implied by policy. Texugo (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Usable" is not "guide"; an article which could be followed to travel to a place but still has room for improvement would qualify. K7L (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, what I'm saying is that
a) it's not a valid itinerary in the first place because it's a personal route
b) even if it were, it should have been marked as an outline, because as a guide to "Shanghai for a first timer", it's pretty pathetic.
c) itineraries that sit at outline for as long as this one has are deleted, per policy
d) it's not written in such a way that it can serve as a travel topic either
e) it's long been tagged for merging, yet there is nothing that make sense to merge. It shouldn't sit around in this state forever
f) redirection would be unnecessary because it's not a likely search term
I don't see any legitimate basis for keeping it at this point. If we did, it would just continue to languish about in the clutter closet as it has done for 7 years already. Texugo (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that unless someone wants to take on a major rewrite, this should go. And no, I am not volunteering. Pashley (talk)
  • Delete. I think it would be fine to include a very brief recommendation of things to see and do on one's first visit to Shanghai in the Shanghai article, if we could agree on how to structure it, but I don't see this article as necessary. I'd be willing to listen to arguments to the contrary, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everyone is a 'first-timer' to every location at some point. Our city guides (in this case Shanghai) should be enough for a traveler whether it is their first time or 50th time. If it's not, it just means we have more work to do, not that we need a separate article for first-timers. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has a really striking title, so I was looking for really useful information that we'd want to keep, but I didn't see it. There's no explanation of how to go to the Prado without spending money, for example, though it's implied that the Prado and several other attractions are free on Saturday morning. If that's true, we should make sure this is clearly stated in the "See" section of the Madrid article. Otherwise, I agree that there's not much to merge, though the photograph of the statue is nice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Prado has changed its free entry, and it is now free in evenings, which we already have in Madrid. As a one day walk around Madrid it does have some potential, and apart from the Prado, does time things to get in free. AlasdairW (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge — there are no details for the points of interest mentioned. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a Usable itinerary with a clear route. If the objection is that it is overly structured with timing for visiting specific sights, it could be restructured, but I don't see the lack of restructuring as a reason to delete the article. Instead, it could be a reason for a "style" tag with specific recommendations for whomever wants to edit the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the "Southern Loop" in itself just a made-up personal route? I nominated as because it looks like a personal route, and because it's become a permanent feature on our list of articles to be merged. If it does exist as an established route, and if someone vouches to move this to a duration-neutral title and rewrite it appropriately, I'll gladly retract this nomination. Texugo (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether it's a made-up name or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Not seeing any legitimate cases where this would be used. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, some sort of attempt at a magic word that didn't go too well. --Rschen7754 06:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per an anon's concern at Template talk:Unsigned IP that the functionality of this template is completely redundant to Template:Unsigned, and I've had a look at Special:ComparePages to verify his claims. It turns out that the only difference in code is the removal of the [[User:{{{1|}}}|{{{1|}}}]] link to the anon's userpage, switched with the Special:Contributions link instead, but otherwise it is the same. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better to redirect than to delete, I would think. Powers (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Template:Unsigned - Texugo (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

How would you propose to merge two different sequences of cities? After all, a basic sequence is all that either article really has, despite one of them having almost 6 years to develop into something more. Texugo (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to change to keep, as having looked a bit more I think that the "in" article should be used as the basis for future work. Both go along the west coast, and maybe are on the same road for about half the journey. It could be developed as a 7-10 day basic route with a number of alternative extensions. It can be helpful to have an article sketch a rough outline of what would fit into a typical (for somebody that has to get back to work) stay on South Island. Personally I have covered about half of the combined routes when I was there for about 3 weeks. The statistics show that this article is viewed reasonably often. AlasdairW (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" article name, rather than "on", is NZ-speak, like Nine days in New Zealand's North Island. Nurg (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User:Alice (who has been relatively inactive in recent times) has a draft South Island Circuit in their user space. I haven't looked closely at it, but if there is a "keep" or merge of either this article or Two weeks on New Zealand's South Island, perhaps Alice's draft could be mined for more content or ideas. Nurg (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A merge is no longer possible, since Two weeks on New Zealand's South Island was deleted, but if it's true that (a) 2 weeks is the most common amount of time for an itinerary to the South Island, as AlasdairW explains, and (b) there's clear agreement among New Zealanders and other Wikivoyagers who've traveled to New Zealand on roughly how long to spend visiting what, such that collaborative editing is very workable and this is more than a merely personal itinerary, I'm fine on keeping this article, with the caveat that it needs a route map. Some more opinions and remarks would be welcome; I think that it's probably necessary for more than one person to commit to working on this article, and as I have yet to have the pleasure of visiting New Zealand, I'd be able to help only with copy editing. AlasdairW, are you willing to do more work on the article? And Nurg, do you think it should be kept, merged with something (Alice's draft?), or deleted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a dynamic map with a few of the route points marked, but I am reluctant to add any more whilst it is still listed here. If we don't want to keep it an alternative might be to condense it into a para and merge that into South Island. AlasdairW (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alasdair, I'd strongly recommend your copying the article to your namespace (e.g., User:AlasdairW/Sandbox), if you don't want your work to disappear, as it certainly seems very likely that this article will be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Copied to User:AlasdairW's user space and deleted- Texugo (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It started out as a some text that would fit better into Wikipedia. Now it's a redirect to France. I don't think anyone would come here to search for French culture instead of France. Also, I can't find any other instance of "X culture" redirecting to a country/region article and I don't think such are necessary or useful.

Result: Kept - Texugo (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Isn't the "Extended Borneo Overland Trail" just something we made up? It gets exactly 2 hits in Google: this page, and its counterpart on WT. If it is a valid established route, I'll retract this nomination. Texugo (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether that's a route we made up. But we're reading the policy differently. The way I read the policy, if an article defines a specific route that can be worked on collaboratively, it can be OK. ("Is the itinerary article about a specific route?" "'Personal' itineraries encourage creation of arbitrary articles that aren't collaborative.") I think what's happening is that I'm reading our current policy more expansively, so as not to do what I consider unnecessary deletions, whereas you are reading our current policy more narrowly, because you'd like to get rid of articles you consider clutter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to make sure the start and endpoints themselves aren't a random thing someone did once and decided to write about it, because even if the route is specified and it can be said that we can work on it collaboratively, we don't want itineraries with random terminii like Lubbock to Colorado Springs, Sendai to Matsumoto, Nice to Bern, or Monterrey to Durango, because that's just another realm with infinite personal variations. Texugo (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pontianak and Kuching are two of only a few major cities on Borneo, so a closer comparison would be a "Dallas to Houston," "Milan to Rome" or "New York to Boston" route, not "Lubbock to Colorado Springs." So I get your point, but I think we should hesitate to be overly eager to delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be overly eager. Just honestly not very familiar with Borneo. If they are relatively major destinations most area travellers would go between, it may make sense. On the other hand, if there are more than a couple of possible directions of travel, it can start to be much of a personal choice. I'm not sure I'd necessarily support the other examples you gave, despite them being major cities, because the possibilities can start to get too numerous, and having "Milan to Rome" invites the question, why not another article for Milan-Florence? and another for Milan-Bologna? and Bologna-Florence? Bologna-Venice? Milan-Venice? Florence-Venice? Florence-Rome? Venice-Rome? and every other possible combination. Texugo (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it would be terrible to have those itineraries if someone wanted to create good articles about them. That said, this route goes straight through the jungle center of the island, and that differentiates it from all the other routes we're talking about. Perhaps you can imagine an analog by thinking about a Brazilian route that goes through the Amazon jungle. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a tremendous duplication of effort and a huge distraction from making destination guides if we started making itineraries between every possible pair of destinations. But at any rate, I think you've convinced me that this particular case is not like that. Texugo (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it's more like, if someone is motivated to make such an itinerary with a defined route that can be subjected to collaborative editing and it's a good one, more power to them. But in any case, I'm happy that this particular route seems special enough to you to pass muster. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would merging to Banana Pancake Trail work? Pashley (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no. If anyone knows me to be wrong, I invite them to correct me, but I would seriously doubt this is a "well-trodden route". Look at the places in Malaysia (only Penang, the Perhentian Islands and Melaka) and Indonesia (Lake Toba, Yogyakarta, Mount Bromo and the islands of Bali, Lombok and Gili Trawangan) that are mentioned in Banana Pancake Trail. Not a single one is on the island of Borneo, and if any were, the two most likely ones would probably be first Sipadan and then Kota Kinabalu/Gunung Kinabalu - both in Sabah, which is not part of this itinerary. This is a route between two major cities in Borneo, yes, but major cities for Borneo are not big compared to places like Jakarta or Kuala Lumpur, and this itinerary goes through virgin jungle in the middle of Borneo. I think it deserves its own page, much as Route 66 shouldn't just be merged to some random collection of US routes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept - Texugo (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

I think it's better in concept than in practice though. It's really just a sightseeing schedule, and there is no specific route with any kind of logic, which means it fails question number 1 at Wikivoyage:Itineraries#Valid itinerary article subjects. It's just another species of "half a day in tokyo", and off the top of my head I could think of multiple other sightseeing schedules which would fit the article's title equally well, and which would include completely different sets of attractions. Texugo (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we need to revisit the itinerary policy because I'd hate to lose creative themed itineraries like this one. Powers (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still suspect it's just the title you like. But to be honest, the content doesn't fit the title any better than content of the One day in Tokyo itinerary nominated just below. I don't know if you've been to Japan or not, but I don't believe the theme is really as creative as you seem to think it is — any well-rounded trip to Tokyo is going to have both classic and modern components, and what's given here is a mere drop in the bucket, a mere random sampling of a few of the more obvious choices, strung together rather haphazardly. If someone were to take this title and develop an actually thoughtful tour that uniquely lived up to the title/theme, with a purposeful and specific route that isn't just a series of random subway rides back and forth across town, I might not have nominated it in the first place. But this is not even close to being that article. Texugo (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So do you recommend deletion of the content and then perhaps re-creation as something more meaningful? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless someone volunteers with a striking new idea for a specific route that would do service to the title in a way that is unique and valuable and goes beyond the fact that any random selection of Tokyo's top sites will undoubtedly contain classic and modern aspects. Otherwise it's just a clever title to disguise another personal take of a "day in Tokyo", of which there could be infinite variations. Texugo (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like the concept and the title however, I completely agree that the current content is a bit of a mess and kind of gets lost in itself. A "Classic Tokyo, Modern Tokyo" article in my mind should have more focus on the actual time periods and significance of each location historically, in modern times, or both whenever classic and modern intersect. It'd even be better if it included historic/classic restaurants (or other not-so-obvious places that are not just "See" sites, pointed to architecture that you'll see along the way that may be of interest to know about, museums with some of the best representatives of old and new, etc. Right now, the article mostly reads like any typical Tokyo itinerary. The article seems to assume that the reader already knows what's modern and what's classic, so it doesn't really give any of the insight that the title suggests. I love the idea, but this article needs a major overhaul by someone with real knowledge of Tokyo's history to truly present the contrasts in a way that a traveler who did this itinerary would be more enriched and walk away feeling like they really know Tokyo in a way that tourists planning their own itinerary or just using our/a typical tourist guide would not. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

We already have Holy Land. If we consider this a likely enough search term, I could accept a redirect there, I suppose. Texugo (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Holy Land. I actually think this and the Jewish Holy Land article are valid travel topics that could easily be made into itineraries by someone with spiritual travel interests however, this article and the Jewish one nominated above really have no greater insight than the Holy Land article at the moment. I'd support these articles if someone actually wanted to develop them because they are real and popular travel themes (I wouldn't call them personal itineraries), but I think for now it's best to let it incubate in its subsection of "Holy Land". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged to Holy Land - Texugo (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, we should not have titles in a non-latin alphabet, even as a redirect. Pashley (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered Chinese? Many people in Asia know Chinese cities by their Hanja representation (even if they do not speak Mandarin) and may not know the Pinyin (Romanized) spelling. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's a bad precedent to allow non-Latin alphabet names be used as redirects in English-language Wikivoyage. I don't think we should do that for Chinese characters, either. But I'm willing to listen to an argument as to why I'm wrong. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that 北京 (Beijing) is currently a redirect. Therefore someone typing those characters will find Beijing very easily.
Please be clear that I am not against this deletion proposal (along with its policy implications), but I wanted to at least air this particular use case of non-latin letters. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy Citation : Redirects may be used when "There are different ways of writing the article title, but only one article,". Sorry to say, but the policy as it stands has nothing to say about non-latin characters. That isn't to say the policy can evolve to say this as a result of this conversation, but let us be clear of what it currently is . Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the redirect policy supports having these redirects. Clearly the same article written in a non-Latin script is simply a "different way" of writing the article title; that is, writing with a non-Latin script. Furthermore, theoretical scenario here: what if you, the traveller, were stranded in a distant country where you know the language but they do not have QWERTY configured keyboards, and all words were written in the script of the national language there? And say you know the language, and want to print out a Wikivoyage article for your convenience, but you'd have to get another online translator to turn it English and then c&p it into the URL bar. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we run into another unwritten policy. We have never permitted foreign-language redirects, and it should be added to the policy if it's not there. All properly written articles will have the native language script of the city name at the top, so in the case of the above scenario, it would simply take them to the search where they could click the city page.
We don't create foreign language redirects for a few reasons. First, if someone is looking up travel information about Norway in Chinese, it's safe to assume they want the information in Chinese in which case, our redirects are not even helpful and they should simply go to the Chinese version of the site. More importantly, there are many many languages out there, and we don't want to encourage the creation of thousands of redirects to every article in every language. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as 'unwritten policy'. Feel free to state why you think these redirects are a bad idea, but please don't claim it is policy. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense would surely say this is english wikivoyage and foreign scripts are not utilised in redirects. sats (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] You can say that there is no such thing as an unwritten policy, but there is such a thing as practice, and I think the difference is kind of splitting hairs. As ChubbyWimbus says, we have never previously allowed non-Latin redirects on this site, which is in English, and it is a bad idea for exactly the reason he states. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By saying that non-latin redirects are against policy, if true, means there is no need to have a discussion. That is why it is significant problem because it shuts down a discussion.
By saying that non-latin redirects are against established practice means that a discussion can be had, and if needed Policy clarified formally. It isn't splitting hairs. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the discussion should be on wether it's ok to have the place name in the local language as a redirect to the English language version. I think that the local names are fine to have as redirects. For example, 冰岛 (Iceland) should be deleted since it's not the local name but Deutschland (Germany) is fine to keep. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point in doing that. A search for "Deutschland" would still take them to the search page where they can "discover" that the word we use in English is "Germany". That's good enough to me. If their English is not good enough to do a search in English, then it's probably not good enough to read and understand the guide anyway.
Also, I really don't want to be bothered checking to make sure all the Thai, Amharic, Mongolian, etc. redirects are legit. If a person doesn't know English, then they don't know English. It's simply not our problem. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there seems to be an aspect of this that we haven't covered yet. Isn't it possible someone will input an abusive redirect title into the search bar, create the foreign equivalent of say "shit" in another language, and then redirect it to so-and-so article, with no one being able to check the vandalism since they don't speak the language? Presumably though, the RecentChanges patrollers will adhere to our rules on redirects and try to keep questionable ones that pop up to a minimum, but in any system like this there's always a minute possibility something like that would leak through unnoticed. Of course, mayhaps a native speaker could simply restrict the creation of redirects to "official" native-language aliases for a location, only drawing on the names present in the lede of the article. That is, if a name is not in the lede of the article as an alternative, it should be deleted. In this case, I can't verify if that redirect title is simply vandalism or truly an accurate reading of its target in... whatever language that redirect happens to be. The "official" native-language version in the lede is "பொள்ளாச்சி" which was introduced in this edit by Forestking, but I cannot determine whether that version is also not vandalism either. So we need to reconcile which one of these is the true native-language alias name for the city in question. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with WOSlinker, think having a local name as a redirect is fine, and is simply akin to redirecting Trento to Trent or Genève to Geneva. There must be hundreds of examples like that - that is our practice for things in the western alphabet. I thought that we had always interpreted the policy's silence on non-western alphabets to mean that that should be our practice for them too, though admittedly it hasn't come up very often. You can see a number of other things that have been redirected in the past from their cyrillic, arabic, and chinese names at the bottom of this page. Texugo (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What that link shows is our attempts to eliminate diacritics when the common English name doesn't use them but there are some sources that do. Nearly all of those fall under that umbrella. They were not attempts to create redirects for every world city in its native language. "Native language" is subjective anyway, and another endless debate that can be avoided by simply admitting that Tamil isn't English and deleting these redirects. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, as I said, the cyrillic, Arabic, and Chinese ones at the bottom of the page. I wasn't talking about the diacritic ones. Texugo (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it's not that hard to come up with criteria for what counts as a local language. If the name in a given language is important enough that we would list it in the lead of the article itself, it's important enough that we shouldn't make such a fuss about keeping a redirect for it. Texugo (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw them, but the number there is negligible considering how many Chinese cities alone exist yet don't have redirects. For all those people who are so concerned about non-English speakers not being able to find information they cannot read/understand, type or copy and paste this (高知) without the parenthesis into the search engine. The results will show Kochi (Shikoku) and Kochi (prefecture) along with one other result. Those are what you would be searching for if you seriously typed that, so what's the problem? It's there!
If you really want to make it a redirect, then you need to make 高知 a disambiguation page with distinctions between the city and prefecture. But this is an English site, so that seems like a lot of work for nothing. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no reason why it wouldn't just redirect to Kochi (disambiguation), the regular disambiguation we have in English. Texugo (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it couldn't redirect there, because that page includes India's Kochi which "高知" does not mean. There are other examples that don't have disambigs if you really need them. I really think the search bar is fine for the rare times when someone might come here and try searching in Japanese/Arabic/etc. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it rather laughable to say redirecting to Kochi (prefecture) would be insufficient because Kochi, India happens to be listed there. The point is that it gets you to the disambig info you need. If there are other examples that don't have disambigs, then they are simply examples where we ought to have a disambig in English in any case. I don't think this disambig argument holds much water. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we go on a redirect-creating spree and try to cover ever destination in the world, but when they have been created I don't see any reason to go out of our way to delete them. Texugo (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it laughable? Because apparently, we're trying to help a traveler who can't read English navigate our English language website, so why would we want to link to a "confusing" disambiguation page with listings that don't match the translation? We hardly have to go out of our way to delete those 20 or so redirects. Better that than creating a billion foreign-language redirects that realistically, no one is going to verify anyway. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the fact that you personally may not be able to read it, what, in your opinion, is the difference between redirecting München>>Munich and redirecting العيون>>El Aaiún? We have hundreds of redirects like the former, yet you would allow none of the latter. I see little difference. And it's less about being able to read English and more about spelling/orthography and not excluding people who may not know every possible placename and its proper spelling in English.Texugo (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want my personal opinion, I wouldn't miss the Munchen redirect if it disappeared either. I believe the rationale there is that Latin characters are recognizable to English-speakers and sometimes mixed into English so that actual English-speakers could possibly come across it and also be able to sound it out, while العيون is completely incomprehensible to an English-speaker unless they have knowledge of the language and will NEVER appear in English-language anything by itself in the text. There is no way to "sound out" العيون .
For my argument, I still don't see what the big deal is with letting someone type العيون into the search engine to get to an article via foreign names. It works for the person doing the search AND it saves our admin the hassle of having to verify that the redirects are correct and not spam or stupid words. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many people who speak English as a second language know the city of Munich only as 'Munchen'. That particular redirect is certainly valid. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And speedy delete any created in future. Pashley (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That gets into changing policy and does not belong here. Texugo (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If something is a plausible search term, whether it be Montreal for Montréal or Peking for Beijing, it's reasonable to redirect it. If you want to advocate a policy against w:endonyms (the name of a place or language in that place's local language) then propose one - but currently nothing forbids their use. K7L (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all redirects from non-Latin alphabets, per Pashley's remark. Redirecting from local names in Latin alphabets is fine and not a problem, and to Texugo, the difference is that local names in Latin alphabets are readable to English-speakers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't even there to be read; they are there only to be followed by those for whom they might actually be useful as pointers to the proper English orthography. Texugo (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that re-directs in non-latin alphabets cause much of a problem, and they may be of use. I can see them being useful in a hostel common room when a local is suggesting somewhere to go in broken English and I let him type in the name on the computer. They may also help behind the scenes in providing links from other languages. Such names must only be used for redirects, never as the name of a regular page. AlasdairW (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right. But in that case, how do we police them? I support ChubbyWimbus' argument above: "For my argument, I still don't see what the big deal is with letting someone type العيون into the search engine to get to an article via foreign names. It works for the person doing the search AND it saves our admin the hassle of having to verify that the redirects are correct and not spam or stupid words." Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It is a problem, because the maintainers of this wiki are English-speakers, and having redirects we can't read is problematic. Powers (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really care whether this is deleted or not, but just out of curiosity, why is the possibility of keeping this redirect taken by some as automatically meaning that we'd be obliged to create thousands and thousands of non-Latin-alphabet redirects? We're not obliged to do anything. Simply redirecting the articles in non-Latin scripts that appear organically (and leaving alone the ones that are created as redirects) and otherwise not worrying about it is an option. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's keep the discussion on-topic please. For this particular redirect, I would be tempted to vote delete, based on the observations and comments I made above. It should be obvious to anyone looking at this that ஆவலப்பம்பட்டி ≠ பொள்ளாச்சி no matter how many ways you might try to look at it. Barring further circumstantial evidence, I'm inclined to believe that the endonymic translation provided for in the lede of the article page is "more correct" than the title of the redirect page. Questions about what kind of redirects ought to be allowed and what should not is a policy discussion and should be brought up at Project talk:Redirect (for the record, if you can discern from the context of my comments above, I am in general support for a limited amount of redirects allowed under certain circumstances, such as the endonyms of the articles they're pointing to). TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the rather questionable edits by Special:Contributions/117.254.148.107, the one responsible for creating this redirect. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How was my comment off-topic? It was a refutation of one of the arguments that's been used in favor of deleting. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't necessarily a response to you, just a general notice that we should keep the discussion about ஆவலப்பம்பட்டி which is what this deletion request is asking for, versus discussion about allowing non-Latin redirects across the site. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are two problems with such redirects:
They are not much use since the name in the non-latin alphabet should be in the article if the local language uses one, so a search will find the article whether or not there is a redirect. I just tested with لہور which has no redirect and searching for it either on this site or on Google with "site:wikitravel.org" does find the right article.
Second, and more important, most of our editors are English speakers and cannot check such names. In the particular case here, I'm not even certain what language it is. Some years back, I reverted an edit in which someone replaced our China article with a one-liner in Chinese; later I got a friend to translate. It was an old Cold War slogan translating as "Drive out the Communist bandits"; even my friend (a Taiwanese Kuomintang supporter) was surprised to see it used. I do not want it to be possible for such a thing to turn up as a redirect. Pashley (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TeleComNasSprVen's comments above are actually the perfect example of how we cannot patrol this. In trying to verify that this title is even the city's name, he notes that it is not the name used in the article itself HOWEVER, he cannot actually read either name (nor can I or anyone else it seems), so none of us knows if it would be a legitimate redirect or not. Quite frankly, any time spent attempting to verify these would be a lot of wasted time that would be better focused on things that matter to the project. There have been no convincing arguments in favor of keeping this that would not be answered by using the search bar. Having to use the search bar does not mean we've failed the traveler. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in this case. ஆவலப்பம்பட்டி] appears in Pollachi as Avaleppampatti in Go next. I don't think that we need non-latin redirect in this case - it does not appear on the map. (Maybe in general we should restrict non-latin redirects to those that are shown on Open Street Map.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if this is to set a precedent. I do see the problem with us being unable to check if non-latin redirects are correct: I'm tempted to say that we should delete those in case of any doubt. However, in principle I'm with Texugo on this, thinking we should treat non-western destinations the way we treat Western ones. And for Western ones, these redirects are very useful indeed. We use the English name of a place when it's known, but speaking English well enough to use a travel guide does not necessarily mean one knows those Anglicized names for cities on the other side of the globe. JuliasTravels (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this use is within current WikiVoyage policy and speakers of languages such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean would often find a non-Latin version more obvious than the Latin version. I also agree that redirects should be place names only (not phrases) and that we shouldn't encourage too many to be created. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do we police these? Do we allow only alphabets one or more "trusted users" can read? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate?
If it really is practical to patrol these, that eliminates my main objection to them. However, the only non-Latin alphabets I can really read at all are Arabic and Hebrew, so I won't be able to patrol any others. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I lie: I can recognize some Chinese place names like the example of the characters for Beijing that are shown on this page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to reply to myself so much: I understand that I could copy and paste an unfamiliar script to Google Translate but would rather choose not to do so. I think that patrolling things I can read and doing whatever copy editing and content adding I like is enough volunteer work for me to do. And Google does not translate every language. It did detect Tamil in this instance, though, and transliterated to Avalappampatti. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) There have been a few "keeps" recently popping up, but I haven't seen any arguments that have not already been addressed. Here are the arguments I've seen with the responses:

  • Current policy is silent on non-latin scripts: Citing "current policy" is not a legitimate argument in this case, because what we are discussing is putting practice into policy. Our practice has always been NOT to create redirects in non-latin scripts. Had someone aware of the practice noticed it was not written in the policy, they could have justifiably just added it themselves without discussion, so it's not helpful to cite policy. Practice is just as important as policy, so those who wish to cite policy will be met with practice and the discussion goes nowhere. Plus, "not written" has never meant the same thing as "permitted" or "encouraged".
  • An English-speaker may come across a city name in a non-latin script and type it in: This has already been addressed multiple times above by pointing out that they can find it from the search and that it will likely be even more helpful than a redirect, which I pointed out with my Kochi (高知) example.
  • Not accepting non-Latin scripts is "discriminatory": We are a site that caters to English-speakers, so we have no obligations to speakers of other languages. English is a language that uses latin script, so English-speakers will ALL be familiar with it and can navigate with it. The Latin script names in foreign languages often creep into English-language materials, so it may be helpful to English speakers to have the redirects, while non-Latin scripts are NEVER used in English-language materials. Other scripts are unfamiliar to English-speakers. If the "Chinese user" cited above types in Chinese, they'll still get the result via the search engine. They could also type it into the Chinese version and then click the English version. If the "Chinese user" is proficient enough to make real use of our guides, though, they'll be able to figure out the English name both on our site without the redirect or on Google. Otherwise, it is not a "Chinese user", it's a "Chinese-speaker" and they are not our responsibility. They should be using the Chinese version of WV.
  • If our admin take the time and effort, they can verify any and every world language: I'm not sure it will always be so easy, but more importantly, Is it WORTH our admin taking the time and effort to verify all of these when there is no payoff that the search engine cannot already provide? It took a user 2 days just to come to figure out what the name in this vfd is. And the proposal is only "official" languages, so the admin would have the additional burden of verifying that the redirect is in fact official, distinguishing traditional Chinese from simplified, potentially dealing with redirects in languages that are not official but perhaps common (or native) to a specific region of a country, etc. I don't think it's fair for us to expect our admins to know ANY language except English. English is the only language they should need to know. That's why they're admins on the ENGLISH version. Knowledge of other languages is always helfpul, but it should not be required. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "Current policy is silent on non-latin scripts" I beg to differ. Wikivoyage:How to redirect a page currently permits such redirects in lieu of an express prohibition against, specifically this interpretive clause "There are different ways of writing the article title, but only one article..." This clause doesn't specify whether the script has to be Latin or not, simply that even if there was a different way of writing the same article title, in a non-Latin script, we should provide a redirect.
  • Re: "Wikivoyage's search engine" I agree and this is perhaps most cogent counterargument to allowing these redirects. Ultimately this seems be an issue of whether or not the creation of a redirect would save our end users a few clicks or not, rather than going through Special:Search to do it, or whether it may introduce inaccuracies.
  • Re: "An English-speaker may come across a city name in a non-latin script and type it in" Like in the scenario I presented above, say you don't speak the local language but you know, judging from the context of the signs you see when you arrive in town, what the town's name is in the local language. You take a keyboard from one of the free internet cafés and find out the only keyboards they have are in the local language. You're left with a couple options, one is searching for the local language title in Wikivoyage's search engine, and the other is using Google Translate to find the English equivalent of the village's name. (Nota bene: Google Translate is often catered towards translation, not necessarily transliteration, so some English equivalents may not be easy to find with it.)
  • Re: "If our admin take the time and effort, they can verify any and every world language" Like everything else with spam/vandalism, all our administrators are again just volunteers so they're not obligated to really do anything. If they don't want to check the translations, they don't have to, and some other user will come along and tag it for deletion. That is the nature of the wiki after all. And besides, who is currently checking that the translations in the lede section of the articles are themselves accurate anyway? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your first response point, it still doesn't address the main issue that there is precedence for not accepting non-latin scripts based on practice. You can quote the policy all you want, but common practice still carries weight, and in this case, it's common practice verses a non-specific policy, so that makes the policy argument even weaker. At best, the policy argument creates a stalement against common practice, so our discussion won't go anywhere by citing the policy.
Actually, our admins are chosen based on their ability or perceived ability to deal with all the issues you've listed, and that does include enforcing policy, so it is VERY important that if we're going to create a policy such as this one that requires patrolling and policing that we can count on our admins to be able to enforce the policy. I've not heard of us creating a policy that we have predecided prior to its establishment that it will not be enforced or that admins should not be concerned with it. If we are going to form a policy that we want foreign-language redirects with stipulations about what languages and types of redirects are acceptable, then our admins certainly DO need to be able to properly patrol articles in violation of policy. This along with the search bar argument seem to be what this discussion is boiling down to. Our search bar is actually quite good even for searching specific destinations, restaurants, etc. in foreign languages if they are listed and filled out fully. I much prefer to trust the traveler to find their results in this case. I think they will actually be much better at it then we will be trying to create these redirects with all these rules and stipulations. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just taking two examples, the Tamil name was created in April 2013, and the Beijing example was created in 2008. If it were common practice to not allow such redirects then I would suggest that it was not enthusiastically prosecuted, and therefore probably does not constitute 'common practice'. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe 2 other users also vouched that a common practice did indeed exist. There are many violations all over this site, but their existence (no matter how long it may be) does not suddenly make them okay. As I stated above, the number of existing redirects like this are negligible. One Arabic redirect that fell through the cracks does not indicate that we ever wanted Arabic redirects for every/any article. I know we have deleted non-latin redirects before however, I don't know what they were for nor do I know how to retrieve no longer existing pages. Even if you believe I am lying about precedence, it still doesn't matter; the lack of clarity in the policy has been questioned, so citing the very same policy that has been brought to question doesn't make sense. You're choosing to nitpick at a point that is going nowhere instead of focusing on the points that matter. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At no point did I accuse you of lying. You can be passionate about this subject if you want, but I really don't appreciate such language used between contributors.
Additionally it is hardly nitpicking. You nominated a speedy delete because you contended that it was against policy and accepted practice on this site. It is completely valid to discuss that. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without seeing some instances of where we have deleted this type of redirect in the past, I would contend that our established practice has been just the opposite - to leave them be and not delete. I've been around almost daily since 2006 and I simply don't remember us ever deleting those, while I do seem to remember redirecting to be our standard response. If there are few existing ones, it is only because the issue just hasn't cropped up very often. Texugo (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The instances I recall were Chinese, but even if I and others who believe there was precedence are mistaken, the fact stands that there is opposition to allowing non-latin script redirects (with at least a PERCEIVED precedence by more than one user). Those who are in favor of these redirects should address the points brought up against them. Otherwise, let's move forward with limiting redirects to latin scripts and leaving non-latin scripts to the search engine and other language versions. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're going to have to agree that any perceived precedence does no more for your side of the argument than for mine and should be dropped, especially seeing as how you are unable to produce evidence to match our examples of redirects that have been kept for years. That said, the only remaining argument I understand from you is that of verifiability, but as pointed out, that already applies to the lede sections of the target articles. If any such redirect is to be paired with its mention in the lede of the target article, that whole argument is moot because we already have the burden of verifying those anyway. It really doesn't seem that complicated to me. Texugo (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) Funny, I'm the one being told to "drop the argument" of precedence vs policy when if you read above, I have mentioned OVER and OVER again that the policy argument is going nowhere. I'm glad someone finally agrees. Let's never mention it again. There are 2 remaining arguements. You mentioned one, which is that admins cannot and should not have to patrol these. Admin aren't actually required to be the ones to patrol the article leads; anyone can do that, but admins are the only ones that can delete articles, so it is an additional task and they would have to be familiar with the things I've listed in order to do it properly. As was said, it took 2 days to verify this particular one, and for what benefit? The zero people who are going to search for it here? The other argument is that the search engine works better than the redirect and requires nothing out of our admins. The user can get their information, and the admins won't even need to know it ever happened, so it's a win-win for user and admin. Also, it makes it easier for admins when these are created, because they will know that any article or redirect created in a non-latin script can be deleted immediately, no verification needed. Simple and sweet. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what {{speedy}} is for. Texugo (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That template is for speedy deletion, but if someone can't read the alphabet, how do they know it should be deleted, unless we make it our policy to disallow redirects in non-Latin scripts, as we disallow entries in other languages? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er. Not sure you followed the discourse there. ChubbyWimbus says it's too much a burden on admins because regular users can't patrol these because they lack the buttons to delete articles themselves if they aren't acceptable, I say regular users can just tag it with {{speedy}}. At any rate, with these things popping up at about the rate of 4-5 per year, I don't know why anyone is paranoid about not being able to patrol them. Texugo (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Would you change your mind if we had dozens or hundreds of them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but as with stub pages and some other types of redirects, people should probably be discouraged from going on mass creation sprees. Texugo (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral question: How many non-latin redirects are there currently? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The broader policy discussion does not belong here. I have raised it at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Non-latin_scripts_in_article_names. Pashley (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We are far too gone on the practice/policy discussion to focus on this particular redirect. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] Question just for information and comparative purposes: Does Chinese Wikivoyage have redirects in non-Chinese forms of writing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well first, zh:Template:Delete would obviously be needed for the purposes of tracking crosswiki vandalism and having local administrators do the dirty work, delete spam and whatnot. Then there's zh:Special:重定向页列表, which gives a fairly large amount of Latin-script redirects either pointing to internal policy/process pages or even real articles, e.g. Hong Kong redirects to 香港. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I count just 8 latin script redirects to actual cities, though. As another comparison, when we had a Japanese version, it did not have latin script redirects to the locations of Japanese/Chinese/etc cities. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


In spite of all the conversation that this vfd has sparked, I believe it was agreed upon that this particular redirect should be deleted regardless, so I think this vfd can be closed without controversy. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A generic term meaning "border" in Spanish, this was originally conceived as a WV-coined name for the border region of the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, then created by someone with some warning info and subsequently redirected to the town of Reynosa. Tamaulipas is very far from needing further regionification, and in truth, it makes no more sense to redirect "Frontera" to Reynosa or Tamaulipas than it does to redirect it to any border town or state in any other Spanish-speaking country. Disambiguation also wouldn't make any more sense than it would for the term "border" in English, so...

I do not know, but see w:Frontera and w:La Frontera, both disambig pages. It looks as though the term is rather widely used. Pashley (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Ok, yeah, if there are real placenames to disambiguate, we can do that. There are three small towns named "Frontera" and a number of them that contain the word somewhere in the name (See the Spanish WP disambig page under "Toponimos"). The only one we have an article for is Jerez de la Frontera. Texugo (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
w:Frontera Municipality, Coahuila, MX is population 70000 so not terribly small as a town. K7L (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as essentially a district and integral part of Monclova, it's unlikely to ever need its own article, but that's neither here nor there. Texugo (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, this article looks like it should indeed be a disambig. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed this to a disambig page, so unless there are any further objections, this can be closed tomorrow and the vfd tag removed. Texugo (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Changed to disambiguation page - Texugo (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

I don't believe it is a single recognized route, but rather a recognized phenomenon that people have historically often passed between the two cities one way or another, which I don't think is really the same thing. If you look at the Go section, you can see that right from the beginning, no specific path is intended — it gives you like a dozen possible places to cross the Syrian border. Texugo (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point but would then counter that neither is the Silk Road only one route, and fortunately, no-one is suggesting deleting that article. How does it serve the traveler to delete this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was taking the fact that this has already been tagged for merging for two years as enough of a sign that we'd decided this shouldn't be its own article and was nominating it here in an attempt to clean up things which had become permanent fixtures of Category:Not an article. Anyway, the Silk Road is a famous, historical, established collection of established routes in a way that this appears not to be. If there is a specific set of routes connoted here, we need to express them. If there is not, it just seems like we're telling people to "go by bus from Istanbul to the place of your choice in the next country, and then from there to somewhere in the next country, and then go by bus from wherever that is until you get to Cairo. That does not serve the traveller; it's just a waste of space. Texugo (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's at least somewhat more specific than that. It gives several routes from Istanbul to Aleppo, but all of them start in Istanbul and go to Aleppo. After that, there is a series of listed, linked locations. It seems to me that it's sufficient to help someone plan a trip - when the war is over and the route is again reasonably safe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[undent] Request for comments Hi, everyone. Please have a look at this article and give an opinion, lest it be deleted because there are only two people taking part in this discussion, and 50% in favor of deletion is sufficient to deny a consensus to keep. If a majority think this article is worthless, fine, but it would be a shame for an(other) article to be deleted because of the opposition of a single person. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to having this route, but it needs a lot more details to be usable. How long does the itinerary take? As it is "not practical to pre-order bus or train tickets online", I think that the article needs to have full details e.g. "the #22 bus takes 6 hours and leaves at 9am and 2pm and costs ABC123". If it is to be kept, then it should be 'outline', and some warnings should be added. AlasdairW (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Cairo to Jerusalem by bus which is currently tagged for merging to Cairo. I'd say merge & redirect it to this article instead, and put links at Cairo#Go next and Jerusalem#Go next. Pashley (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept - AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sights in this itinerary may be listed elsewhere, but Hong Kong is a huge city which is often visited for short stopovers. Why should a traveller have to spend half a day reading all our district articles, just to plan what to do on a one day stopover? This itinerary visits a good variety of Hong Kong sights, and is much more varied than most people would put together from reading our listings. It is only really lacking a map. AlasdairW (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe that people who have a 1 day stopover in Hong Kong would be simply too overwhelmed by the main Hong Kong article to get much meaningful out of their visit, and I see this article as a good way to address that. It does need a map however. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After carefully looking at the policy again, I would say this has to be deleted. I feel that there probably should be a way to accommodate this kind of personal itinerary, although as it stands today there isn't. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps one of you could volunteer to have the article moved to your user space in case there is a determination to delete this article on the basis of policy. I should say that I don't feel impelled to take a pro or con position on this article, myself. It's a nice article and a Usable itinerary with nice photographs, so one could argue that an exception could be made for it, as in the case of Three days in Singapore, but I would observe that this is just one way you could spend a day in Hong Kong and, therefore, it is seemingly a personal itinerary, exactly as Texugo says. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy for this to be moved to my user space if the decision is to delete. I don't know when I will next have a stopover in Hong Kong (my last was in 2001), but I could make use of this itinerary when I do. If it is being kept, I hope to add a dynamic map. AlasdairW (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this page might use more work (POI markers, map, etc.), but I find it very useful, as for all other large city articles where complete district articles is one thing, but guiding a casual tourist without weeks to explore every nook and cranny (and days to digest our filled-to-the-brim district guides) is another thing. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Moved to User:AlasdairW's userpace at User:AlasdairW/One day in Hong Kong. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring a few maintenance edits, the contents of this outline itinerary have not been improved for a year.

If it would be better to redirect, I'm all for that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Shepton Mallet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring a few maintenance edits, the contents of this outline itinerary have not been improved for a year.

Fine. In that case, redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Buckfastleigh. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring a few maintenance edits, the contents of this outline itinerary have not been improved for a year.

Could we get one decent travel topic or itinerary by combining these railway articles? Pashley (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a long list at w:List of British heritage and private railways which I plan on going through at some point and adding listings for them to the relevant articles. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look at the small list in Rail travel in the United Kingdom. AlasdairW (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to East Grinstead. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential copyright violation; while it is properly sourced to this website a significant portion of it had been plagiarized wholesale from the same. On Wikipedia for example, it is one thing to formulate an original expression of an idea and source that idea from somewhere else, and another to copy the same expression wholesale; in copyright, this is the idea-expression dichotomy. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted as requisite edits were not made. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No significant improvements in content since import. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

Do you have another suggestion on what to do with this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the name does not necessarily mean "Overland to Tibet" I guess I'd just delete this. There is nothing to merge, so we don't even have to worry about attribution. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that there's nothing to merge. A cursory inspection demonstrates that there are some place names in this article that aren't in "Overland to Tibet." So assuming that at least for the sake of argument, you can accept that there are things to merge, do you have a different possible solution than deleting this article (since deleting content based on the idea of an imperfect subject match doesn't seem logical to me)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still hold my position that we should never create redirects for articles whose titles do not actually reference the place where we are redirecting in the manner in which the title implies. Tibetan Journeys simply implies travel through a part or some parts of Tibet, so if there must be a merge, I'd merge into Tibet, not Tibet Overland, because I feel that Tibet is as narrow as this article can possibly go. Even within the article it gives information about air travel, so clearly it's not meant as a strictly overland journey. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would you merge to Tibet? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said redirect. The redirect makes more sense to go to Tibet than Overland in Tibet. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was that some of the text might go to the Overland article. I do not think a redirect is needed, but if we create one it should clearly be to the Tibet article. Pashley (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically my suggestion, too. Some of the place names that are in this article should be able to fit into the Overland to Tibet article. If the redirect is to Tibet, instead, I don't care. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An experiment which has failed to gain consensus and has been sitting there now for over a year. Time to sweep it out.

There're plenty of better deletion candidates in Category:Experimental templates but I wish this template wouldn't be deleted until we have an outcome to discussions on the template's talk page especially regarding the proposal of flagged revisions feature. The idea of reviewing is also on Wikivoyage:Roadmap so deleting this template would also mean we'll have to delete the from the roadmap page as well. --Saqib (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The wider policy question of how to handle review of articles needs to be addressed first, and VfD is not the appropriate venue for that debate. K7L (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that this particular template has already failed to gain consensus. It's fine for us to go on discussing how to handle review/updating of articles, but it's been a full year since any attention was given to it, and with the unaddressed concerns expressed there, I don't think there is any chance of broad consensus congealing around this particular solution anyway. Texugo (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's no consensus to use this template, so off it goes. Powers (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ASEAN is an economic forum for south east Asia. It is not a region in any practical sense and there are no travel considerations at all between ASEAN members, nor will there likely be in the foreseeable future.

Keep. See previous discussion both on the article talk page and at Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?#Index_articles.3F.
It does affect travel. The open skies aspect already has large effects on the cheap flights; SE Asia is one of the best areas on Earth for those.
The one-visa travel area like Schengen is coming; see ASEAN Single Visa and The Impact of Visa Facilitation. All but Myanmar already have visa-free travel for each other's citizens & Myanmar is expected to complete the process this year. They are working on a common visa for outsiders. Pashley (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Southeast Asia. As discussed there, any effect on flight prices is far behind the scenes like many other economic organizations for which we do not have an article, and with regard to visas, even if there were a currently active program, we would cover it at Southeast Asia, just as the Schengen Agreement is covered in the Europe article instead of a separate article. This is a merely economic organization that is barely tangential to our scope and anything we might need to say about it can be covered succinctly at Southeast Asia#Understand. Texugo (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still not certain that a redirect makes sense. Yes, the organization deals with Southeast Asia, but when we think about redirects, I think we also need to think about them from the standpoint of someone who types this into a search engine. For ASEAN, I see two scenarios:

1. The user is looking up information about the Association itself. That would be suited to a Wikipedia search and is outside of our scope. As such, a redirect to Southeast Asia would be a waste of the user's time. 2. The user is actually looking up information about ASEAN's affects on travel. In this case, we really need to make sure that our Southeast Asia article covers it sufficiently to warrant a redirect and I would suggest if we take Texugo's suggestion, the merge go directly to the Understand section (or to the ASEAN subheading if it had its own). Otherwise we run into the same issue as #1. We will annoy users by providing a redirect that does NOT actually have information (or satisfactory information) about the search topic. It'd be like redirecting NRA to United States or Songhai Empire to West Africa. Deceptive and aggravating for the user. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ASEAN is also a region. When I was in Malaysia, politicians and the media frequently talked about the ASEAN nations. Ignoring the possibility that someone on a travel website is searching for ASEAN in order to look at coverage of constituent nations (and, therefore, Southeast Asia) is kind of like assuming someone here who searches for the EU is looking for detailed coverage of EU politics or economics, rather than European nations that are EU members. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was also considering those who might find us from search engines, because I'd say most people are not searching for travel info when they search for ASEAN in actuality. ASEAN is a regional association, but it's not a region itself. The EU is likewise not a region, nor the African Union. Someone might go to Southeast Asia, but they won't go to ASEAN. Point 1 aside, Point 2 is really where we are now, I think. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point 2: I would be happy to see an ASEAN section in South East Asia itself. Technicalities around PNG not really belonging to South East Asia are somewhat moot considering that ASEAN has no travel implications yet. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed an ASEAN region, as perceived as I recall in the region itself; however, that region is Southeast Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep ASEAN is a region, and it certainly does have travel implications. One ASEAN citizen can travel to other ASEAN countries without a visa, and for countries who are often not granted visa free travel, I see that as significant. We have an article for European_Union, so I really don't see the difference in this regard. --Inas (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The EU has so many travel implications for travel within the EU or from outside the EU to EU countries; by contrast, did you just mention the only travel-relevant distinction of ASEAN in a single sentence - that citizens of ASEAN countries can travel between them without visas? If so, in what way does that necessitate an entire article? Do you also propose for their to be articles about the Organization of American States and the Arab League? Where would you draw the line? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really any other consequence of an EU country other than visa free travel between them for residents of the region. I can't see a substantial difference between them? If the travel information relevant to ASEAN can be embedded in another article and redirected to, then that's fine. --Inas (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They have freedom to live and work in every other EU country, just for starters. Try doing that if you're an Indonesian and want to move to Malaysia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that is out of scope for a travel guide, yes? Travel wise, I see no significant difference, i.e freedom of travel without a visa. --Inas (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch time

Okay. The 14-day discussion period was over long ago. At this point, we clearly have a consensus not to delete the article, but there's no consensus as to whether to merge and redirect it or to keep it as is. As a concession to ChubbyWimbus' skepticism and Andrewssi2's outstanding delete vote, I'd like to tip the scale in favor of merging and redirecting this article to Southeast Asia. If anyone has any objections, let's hear them now; otherwise in a short time I'm going to proceed with merging and redirecting. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I agree with the redirect. Should have made that clear earlier. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the information that someone using ASEAN as a travel search would find useful is written in the article, I support the redirect, as well. For me, the important part is to make sure that someone doesn't create the redirect before adding the relevant information to the article. I also think the redirect should be made to the specific subheading where that information is located. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ChubbyWimbus, but I still think the article does little harm as short article, and its information would probably only be relevant to those seeking it out. --Inas (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged and redirected to Southeast Asia#Get in. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly full of overly general Captain Obvious-style advice. Deletion was suggested months ago at Talk:Singles travel#Merge tag.

Whoa! What happened to the "Stay Safe" topic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, it's Stay safe. Is there a way to have different capitalization automatically redirect? For now, I'll create the redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A search for the uncapitalized version of a title-case title will get there without a redirect existing; it's only links that cause a problem in that respect. Powers (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. That's a little strange, and I think I'd call it a bug. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But K7L, keep with what valuable content? And keep waiting how long for that content to appear? It's already been a long time, well past the period we usually give for travel topics to be developed into something useful. If it's never going to become a truly useful guide, we need to get rid of it, not keep it as a semantic marker for contrast with the other article. Texugo (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Singles travel for previous discussion. There is certainly potential for a decent article on this as a travel topic, but no-one has every actually tried to create one. The original creator just touted some cruises, I fixed that but did little else & a few people have added bits, but no-one has seriously tried to develop it and there have been no substantive edits since 2011. Unless we have a volunteer now, delete. Pashley (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
K7L, maybe you'd like to have the article moved to your userspace, so that you can whip it into solid shape before it's put back into article space? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Policy says we should delete this article now, but if K7L would like, I'll move it to his userspace as Ikan suggested, if he responds affirmatively in a reasonable amount of time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/April_2014&oldid=4924629"