Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2018

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Mars[edit]

This article formed the basis for our April Fools 2018 article, which is much better. Searching "Mars (planet)" in the search bar should lead to this new article, rather than the old. Plus, our April Fools article will have to move into this very named slot tomorrow. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep. We can't copy and delete without breaking attribution under the free licence. And no, 1 April pieces go in Wikivoyage:Joke articles which is not the same "slot" as Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. K7L (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Good. Thanks for clearing this up. However, I still think "Mars (planet)" should direct to the April Fools one. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. K7L (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

We can close this, correct? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Rail-interchange[edit]

As many would be aware of, I've been developing a new version of RINT using {{Routebox entry}}. I can, however, now that the new version has been completed, not overwrite the current version of RINT. Before the new RINT can be used, we will need to remove the current version. I am not sure if this does require a VfD, but it's better to make one, rather than not.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do the removal of {{Rail-interchange}} and moving of {{Rail-interchange/sandbox}} in short succession, to not break stuff for too long... Perhaps @Ikan Kekek: could do it? :) Thanks! Andree.sk (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Any admin can do it. This request doesn't require a Vfd at all. So you want {{Rail-interchange/sandbox}} to be moved to {{Rail-interchange}}, with the target template deleted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Yes, {{Rail-interchange/sandbox}} should replace {{Rail-interchange}}, with the latter being deleted altogether. I'm pretty sure I'll be able to move the documentation myself.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Planet Terra[edit]

Pointless redirect. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete AlasdairW (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete quickly and emphatically. Ground Zero (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete this. I am not sure if Terra should go as well. Pashley (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that outer space and Luna both have valid Wikivoyage entries (unlike Mars). Affixing "Planet" to the names of planets (e.g. Planet Terra) and "Satellite" to the names of satellites (e.g. Satellite Luna) allows consistent interwikilinking with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, e.g. w:Luna does not go to w:Moon but w:Satellite Luna does (likewise for the names of many other planets and satellites, including Terra vs. Planet Terra). Wikivoyage does not need the same disambiguations required for Wikipedia, but being able to type the same keyword into search to produce the same result on different Wikimedia projects is very useful. The Latin names of Sol, Terra, and Luna are often used as the formal names for "Sun," "Earth," and "Moon," both for consistency in the names of other Solar-System bodies, and also to avoid conflation with the usage of sun(s), earth(s), and moon(s). Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
This is Wikivoyage, not Wiki-Intersteller Travel. There is no chance to have confusion with other suns or moons as travel destinations, and I don't understand what potential there could be to confuse "earths". An article about rare earths would be irrelevant to this site and also wouldn't be a source of confusion if it were somehow relevant. I can't in my wildest imagination conceive of a Wikivoyage article about different kinds of soil. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Judging by their contribution history, this user seems very misinformed about the extent of this site's scope. Perhaps Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals would be a good read. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan Kekek. My point however is the utility of consistent interwikilinking between Wikimedia projects. Looking up Luna or Terra on Wikipedia vs. Wikivoyage will produce different result pages, since Wikipedia is much more comprehensive and defaults to a disambiguation page. This necessitates (on Wikipedia) the more specific titles of Satellite Luna and Planet Terra to redirect to the correct pages. However, if these synonym redirects do not also exist on Wikivoyage, then there cannot be consistent interwikilinking between Wikimedia projects. Essentially, I am arguing that if a location is valid for Wikivoyage mainspace (which Luna appears to have been accepted as, as well as "outer space"), than all valid synonym redirects for that location from other Wikimedia projects also need to be on Wikivoyage as redirects in order to maintain consistent interwikilinks with the other Wikimedia projects. Otherwise, there will be "broken" interwikilinks such as w:Satellite Luna (encyclopedic content about Luna), c:Satellite Luna (multimedia about Luna), and then wikivoyage:Satellite Luna (travel and tourism information about Luna). Note that these redirects are not only valid but necessary on larger-scope Wikimedia projects, which necessitates their existence here. (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a question of topicality here. I don't really think people looking for an article on the moon on an English-language travel guide will be searching under "luna". The moon is quite a stretch for a travel guide article, in any case. Of course we should keep the Moon article, but are the rest of your points really relevant to a travel guide? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can see Nicole Sharp's point that consistency with Wikipedia is important. We're sister projects, and we need to jump back and forth between the two. And if this was in in scope area that could be redirected, I could be easily convinced of the value. But I agree with Ikan Kekek as to topicality, and AndreCarrotflower as to scope. We've allowed ourselves to flirt with some silliness around the edges of our scope, but there has to be a line, and this one is over it. --Inas (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Satellite Luna[edit]

This redirect was deleted by @Traveler100: without any discussion, so I am listing it here. Presumably the status of Satellite Luna as a redirect will follow the decision for whether to keep Planet Terra as a redirect (ongoing discussion above). Please add any discussion particular to Luna here in this section. Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the fact a not well used term Luna would get you to article on Moon, this is a guide about earth so do not need to discuss deletion of a redirect (not even an article) as it is out of scope of the project. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, the only folks claiming that the project is "a guide about Earth" are conflict-of-interest editors posting from IP addresses on that planet. It's actually not where we draw the line. We draw the line by treating any place which has been visited by human voyagers as valid, so Antartica, the Moon, Space might be next-to-impossible destinations but if even a dozen people walked on the Moon, it's a valid destination.
Evidently, robotic visitors to Wikivoyage may find this restrictive, as robots have visited destinations (such as Mars) that our human contributors still seem to consider to be joke destinations and otherwise outside our project scope. Nonetheless, disqualifying the Moon would be lunacy. K7L (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
While the Moon may be technically considered a valid destination, I wouldn't go so far as to call it "lunacy" to say at least that it (and Outer Space) flirts with the very outer edges of our purview. When we're talking about redirects — especially ones consisting of esoteric terms that are not likely search queries — or when we're talking about situations like the non-capitalized outer space below, where we're worried about inline internal links to something to which it's virtually never appropriate to link from another article in the first place, then it's absolutely appropriate to bring considerations of scope into play. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure that K7L was making a joke about the etymology of "lunacy". I think this page should remain deleted as an extremely unlikely search term. Ground Zero (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Heh, that one slipped by me. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

USA South and USA Appalachian Region[edit]

I'd argue that these are also pointless redirects, though I'm less sure about that than the above. They don't strike me as likely search terms, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

These are both names for formal statistical regions defined by the USA federal government. As statistical regions though, they do have a correspondence with travel and tourism, so are relevant. It is also important to distinguish between United States American (USA) Appalachia and Canadian Appalachia as distinct geopolitical regions, though the cultural region of Appalachia is most strongly identified with the USA (and with Southern Appalachia in particular). Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't think there were any Appalachians in Canada, only the Laurentian Shield. Where is Canadian Appalachia? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Whether it exists or not, the natural way of writing this for someone searching for these places wouldn't be to type the letters "USA" first. If these are formal names, why can't I find anything on them elsewhere? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Canadian Appalachia is primarily just the extension of the Appalachian Mountains into Canada (mostly Quebec and New Brunswick). As a tourism topic, mountains are scenic and rugged and attract mountaineers, as well as present various geographic challenges. Regarding Canadian Appalachian culture and identity, it actually does exist. Living in Southern Appalachia myself, I never even heard of Canadian Appalachia either until I took a university course in Appalachian Studies. There is also an International Appalachian Trail that connects the USA and Canada, which is definitely a topic appropriate for Wikivoyage. Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
If the term "Appalachia" is used a lot in Canada, we could have a disambiguation page, but I think we'd all agree that the name is overwhelmingly connected to the U.S., so I don't think the redirect you created is needed. On the other hand, I don't think either of these redirects are doing any harm, so I could see them not being deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
In the USA, the main geographic distinctions are between the Appalachians (geophysical region), Appalachia (general and/or cultural region), and the Appalachian Region (captalized, as opposed to the Appalachian region) which is a federally-designated geopolitical region. There are significant differences between each definition though, each with different impacts for tourism. I.e. the physical mountains, the mountain culture, and then Appalachian politics. You see a lot of this for example in Virginia, where communities often do not want to associate themselves as "Appalachian" (to the point where they are no longer in the federal Appalachian Region) despite being in the Appalachian Mountains. Appalachian politics and identity is perhaps better suited to Wikipedia, but is still highly relevant for visiting tourists to understand that it is a complex issue, and that some communities embrace Appalachian-ness whereas others do not (to the point where it can actually be an insult, due to negative stereotypes about Appalachia). Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
All of that can be covered sufficiently in Appalachia#Understand. The watchword on this site is the traveller comes first, so we aren't going to take the encyclopedic approach of having 3 different articles on Appalachia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
"As a general rule" does not a policy make. In practice, this passage has been interpreted to mean the bar for keeping a VfD'd redirect, as opposed to deleting it, is lower than for an actual article. That doesn't mean there's no bar at all. These are not likely search terms and the redirects should therefore be deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I think "As a general rule" is a policy – one that allows for exceptions. I'm of the same mind as Inas, as below. Nurg (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there is a valid way to redirect, we should just redirect. That's the way we do things, simply because deleting things on a wiki is hard, we have to discuss, it's an admin function, we lose history, and redirects are cheap and unobtrusive. So, if there is a valid way to redirect we should do that. --Inas (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Except that's actually not the way we do things. Look through the VfD archives and you'll find dozens of examples of pointless redirects deleted for the same reasons as these should be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: deleted; no policy-based rationales to keep were advanced. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

outer space[edit]

This redirect was deleted by @Traveler100: without any discussion, so I am listing it here, with a copy below of the discussion from user talk:Traveler100#Deleting all those redirects. Notably, the default redirect for this is spelled incorrectly as "Outer Space." Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I see that you've recently been deleting redirects created by User:Nicole Sharp. May I ask why? Do they do harm? Is there a policy change I hadn't heard of? If I remember back to my efforts to get certain redirects (e.g. KLM) deleted I mostly bit on granite then... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I guess we should be discussing this at WV:Votes for undeletion? In any case, "Outer space" is a totally normal redirect for "Space", and I don't understand the speedy deletion. I would support restoring this redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I see. No big deal then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Though it presumably wasn't doing harm and probably therefore shouldn't have been deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Out of scope and redundant. --Inas (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • If that is your opinion, then you need to nominate Outer Space as well for deletion. The lowercase form is the more correct spelling (astronauts go into outer space, not Outer Space). Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Nicole Sharp, please familiarize yourself with this site's orthographical conventions. Page titles are always capitalized, regardless of the grammatical correctness of placing such a capitalized name in inline text. If you really want to nitpick about the capitalization, in inline text it's easy enough to type out "astronauts visit [[Outer Space|outer space]]", anyway. And that's assuming that it's appropriate to be linking to Space at all, which in virtually all cases it would not be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
So we need Outer space and Outer Space, but not outer space, which will redirect to Outer space and then to Space]]. We don't need space either. Correct? Ground Zero (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Outer space and outer space are the same title; creating one is the same as creating the other. If you hover over the links, you'll find that they take you to the same URL. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
We don't need anything except Space. Outer Space is a harmless redirect (if not a particularly essential one, given, again, the limited frequency with which a travel guide for Earthlings ought to be referencing space) because it comports with our site's convention on how to capitalize article titles (which, importantly, is different from how the MediaWiki software handles case-sensitivity) - namely, in all cases except itineraries, travel topics and phrasebooks, all words are supposed to be capitalized. Anything beyond that - outer space or Outer space - is unnecessary overkill. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
So if a reader types "Outer space" in the search box, instead of getting a redirect, they will be invited to create an article. I'd rather that the be redirected to Space. Can you provide a link to the site policy on capitalizing in article titles? Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not a written policy to my knowledge, but the consistency across articles is too consistent for it not to be intentional. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, the search box isn't case sensitive, so the Outer Space redirect is adequate for searching. Still, Outer space is equally harmless and more useful for linking. I think it shouldn't have been deleted. (As for the capitalization policy, that's here: Wikivoyage:Naming conventions#Capitalization.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Let's just stick with one then. Outer Space is already there, so leave the others deleted. There is no point in debating the capitalization of a redirect to a joke article, no less. Ground Zero (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It's arguably more useful for linking, sure, but we shouldn't be linking. Let's face it: Space is basically a joke article that managed to loophole its way into the parameters of our scope because there's a nonzero number of people with too much money for their own good who paid their way onto ISS-bound rockets. Space is never going to be a valid "Go next" destination, for example; there aren't any regularly scheduled Earth-bound transportation options to put into "Get in"; the utility of linking to the article inline from casual mentions of space in other articles is questionable due to the infinitesimal number of our readers who will ever have the wherewithal to go there. Given that, what is the point of having any redirects at all? And if we are going to have redirects, what about that written policy requiring all words in a place name to be capitalized in article titles? Isn't "Outer Space" a place? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the notion that Outer Space is never going to be a valid "Go next" destination. We're probably at a comparable time relative to space travel that we were relative to airplane travel over 100 years ago. But that's a tangent, isn't it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, everyone seems to be viewing space travel as an aeronautical issue, and dismissing pharmaceutical approaches to the issue. Ground Zero (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
But that would be inner space... Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: deletion upheld; no policy-based rationales to undelete were advanced. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

KLM[edit]

Can we please delete this redirect if we're at it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)