Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2006

Add links
From Wikivoyage

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in August 2006. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/July 2006 or Project:Votes for deletion/September 2006 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

  • Delete. Seems like something a little less tourist and more daily life. It started life here as a WikiPedia copyvio... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 20:07, 19 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Seems like something a little less tourist and more daily life. It started life here as a WikiPedia copyvio... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 20:08, 19 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I can only find a hydroelectric dam by this name and the copy in the article seems to indicate the same. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 16:17, 20 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Latvia copyvios

[edit]
  • Delete. All of the above images were uploaded by SEREGA784, and while I think the user was well-intentioned, they come from a wide enough array of sites that it seems to be clear that Project:Copyleft was not followed. I didn't track down every image, but copyio tags were added to the first few. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:37, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete all. The photos are of such variable quality and format that it's highly unlikely they came from a single source (i.e. the uploader), and the only safe assumption is that they're all copyvios. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:21, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:04, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 23:30, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Maj 09:51, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • I've started to speedy-delete these, at least the non-photos. The photos should probably be given the full discussion period, but logos for businesses simply don't belong here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:24, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. As the short discussion on the talk page suggests, the information contained within the article needs to be cycled into the main article before deletion, though... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 21:41, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. There's nothing to cycle into the main article; I've updated the talk page. ~ 125.24.16.84 07:12, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:00, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:04, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
Redirect. It's a region in New Hampshire . Oddly enough, we're planning on stopping around there next week on our way to Boston. (WT-en) Maj 20:11, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Hopefully, someone could convince Evan and Maj to pay special attention to the area, while they're travelling. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:13, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • The region is the White Mountains. If we're going to keep this then it should be a redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:16, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
There's also a "White Mountains" in Washington State. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:00, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Confused. When I click on the White Mountain link I get a page that says it's in Alaska. There does appear to be such a place. What am I missing? *OldPine checks his capital I's* (WT-en) OldPine 20:43, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • After reading "OldPine's" (if that is in fact your real Wikivoyage user name) comments. I did some sleuthing and according to Getty's there are many White Mountain locations, including one in the Czech Republic . I check my lower case l's :). It seems the best solution is to disambig. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:55, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
    • The question isn't whether a place with the name of "White Mountain" exists (there are lots) but whether a destination that we're going to write an article about with that name exists. Mountains and mountain ranges are not subjects for articles (per Project:What is an article?) unless the article is about a region named after the mountain or range. In this case Maj is proposing to redirect the article as a typo for the White Mountains region of New Hampshire - while I think that's being generous, creating a disambiguation page for this one would be going too far. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:17, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
      • What about the place in Arizona ? -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:20, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
      • And the one in Alaska that is what the page now represents. It's listed as a city by Wikipedia. Geez, so there might not be anything written. Are we policing out stubs? (WT-en) OldPine 21:24, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
        • Referring to the existing article about the tiny town on the Seward Peninsula, it's not that this article is a stub that's an issue, it's whether or not it has the potential to eventually become a useful guide, or whether the level of granularity should be at a more regional level. Normally I'd say the fact that someone felt a need to create the article would justify the level of granularity, but since it was created by a mischevious contributor who creates articles for inconspicuous dots on the map and fills them with useful content like "White Mountain a town", I think this one could safely go away. If some day someone who really does want to create a useful guide to the area comes along then there would be nothing stopping them from re-creating it or else creating an article at a useful level of granularity, but for now I don't see a reason to keep a useless guide about a place none of us knows much about simply because Wikipedia says it has a population of around 200. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:35, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
          • OK, OK, I'm starting to remember that I don't really care. Sorry. (WT-en) OldPine 22:08, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
        • What Ryan said. It is not one of Wikivoyage's goals to create an article for every place on the planet, but for every destination on the planet. An article with little potential to reach "usable" status (for a city that means at least one place of public accommodation, at least one restaurant, and at least one "attraction") and no potential for "guide" status (multiple options for each), is probably not a viable article unless we know that tourists are going there, regardless of the lack of facilities for them (e.g. a few of our Off the Beaten Path nominations). To be useful to the traveler, what little information we could collect about that place should instead be incorporated into an article that covers a larger area that collectively could be a travel destination with enough to See, Do, Buy, Eat, and Drink to make it worth a visit. Maybe that larger area is a county; more likely it's a region with a locally-understood name (e.g. Leelanau Peninsula). See Project:Geographical hierarchy#Cities for some "policy" about this, but a key bit is this: "Where suburbs, satellite cities and villages deserve their own Wikivoyage entries is a matter of judgement -- probably depending on the amount of information about those places." Not enough information to be had means it's not an article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:24, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Regarding all of the above "should it stay or should it go" conversation - whatever gets decided here may then should be applied to most of the work in my contributions lately. I worked through a stack of orphaned articles (created by you know who) to give them a parent. The majority of those articles are very, very dot on the map locations - plenty in Alaska and India. I have to agree that its pretty silly to have articles about dots... I'd say that most villages of +/- 200 people probably don't have a lot to offer tourists. Sure - there are exceptions, but we're going to have an awful lot of "City in region" only articles... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 23:49, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Just to clarify my position on this issue I was not advocating for the Alaskan town to be kept. I was advocating to disambig White Mountain and White Mountains, because there appear to be several regions with similar names. I.e. checking this page shows that the White Mountains article page had been confused by someone who linked to the article from Arizona thinking White Mountains was referring to the region in Arizona. Does anyone have a problem keeping the White Mountain page and making it a disambig? This really isn't a debate about whether or not to keep an article on some god-forsaken town in Alaska. -- User:(WT-en) Sapphire
  • Keep. Additional edits have made this into a reasonably useful article for someone visiting that region of Alaska. HOWEVER, I don't think that every small dot on the map should be given an article UNLESS there is a minimum of useful information about the place in the article. If we're going to have this discussion every time an article for a place with a population of 50 is created that contains nothing more than "Foo a town" then we might as well simply mine the US Census Bureau's data and create outline articles for every dot that's out there (which I'm not advocating). -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. And everything Ryan said. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:01, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Re: the Census Bureau import notion. The CIA Factbook import created a bunch of articles that were pretty dubious (the rock-in-the-ocean sort), and as I was converting leftover Factbook articles a while back, I considered VFDing a bunch of them. But because of their presence in the Factbook and other well-known "list of countries/territories" resources (and even labeled on globes), they were probably going to be recreated eventually by a well-meaning atlasmaker. So I figured it was better to instead turn them into basic articles that made it clear how poor a destiantion they'd be for a curious would-be visitor. Plus, since there's a certain class of traveler who seeks out these deserted and isolated places, these were arguably useful articles. With them being so widely dispersed, I couldn't even hope to combine them into a regional article. Furthermore, because they'd been in existence for a while, many of them had already been included in lists and linked to; it was going to be a pain to eradicate them. The thing is, none of these arguments that convinced me to spare the rock-in-the-ocean articles apply to crossroads-in-the-field articles: They aren't infamous and inevitable to be recreated, they aren't sought out just for their lack of lodging and things to do, they can be combined with neighboring small communities and have articles written that cover them collectively, and they aren't (yet) entangled into our hierarchy. With that said... a few of the rock-in-the-ocean articles did turn out to be actual destinations, with enough to support a real article. And like I've said, if someone can show me in the article that a dot on the map has enough going on to be a destination, I'll be convinced. The White Mountain article is now... borderline. It might be worth keeping, but I suspect it would be a stronger article if it were about the area including White Mountain AK, with other towns included, which is how we should strive to handle the dots of the world: put enough of them together and you can draw a picture. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:41, 27 July 2006 (EDT) Update: I see now that it is on the Idiot Ride I Did It, Rod Iditarod Trail. So a small but measurable number of people (perhaps not all of them with dogs) do in fact visit it every year. That's significant. Keep. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 19:29, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. I have added some content to this article, but I do think we should move the article to White Mountain (Alaska) and then create a disambig page on White Mountain. The reason is so people looking for White Mountains in New Hampshire have a parachute if they leave off the "s" on their search. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:04, 31 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Apparently this is just a neighborhood in West Warwick, not a town of its own. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 19:33, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Mention as a village in the West Warwick (along with the famous village of Arctic wherein I was married once(but I digress)) article (if ever written) as is customary in this area. (WT-en) OldPine 21:11, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:00, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. The article says it is in Nevada but is no more specific than that. If it is then it is too small and insignificant to be listed in Wikipedia as a place or population centre. Consequently, I do not think it is a destination and will never become an article. -- (WT-en) Huttite 21:04, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:15, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:04, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Apparently intended to be a country-by-country guide to when/where to offer bribes or not, which should be covered in the various country articles instead. Without that, there's little point to a separate article. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 07:59, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Concur. Will bribe you to delete it. Nah. Would be inappropriate. Nevermind. (WT-en) OldPine 21:07, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. But go through VfD? Why, Officer, that sounds like such a time-consuming hassle. Couldn't we work out a more informal mechanism to expedite the process a little? Please accept this as a token of my gratitude — oh, but I insist! 'tis a mere trifle — and now let me write out a small consideration to the widows' fund... (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:42, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I guide on where you can bribe somebody to get off the hook on something? Please maybe we can also add a page on the best pick up joints in Malaga
  • Delete. It's not really going to be that useful anyway- if you do need to bribe someone, the person asking the bribe will let you know. They'll dress it up as a 'tax' or 'fee' or something. Under no circumstances do you want to ask if they'll accept one, even if they were going to ask, because then you're in deep. That's really all you need to know and it doesn't need a whole seperate article to say. (WT-en) Mtvcdm 13:04, 5 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, reluctantly. As much as we'd like to ignore it, bribery is a fact of life in many countries, and TTCF would normally dictate that it be retained, since the practice certainly affects travelers. The need to keep Wikivoyage squeaky-clean from a legal perspective, not just where it's hosted but in the countries where bribes occur, must trump that, however. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:48, 5 August 2006 (EDT)

Not an article, as Maj already pointed out. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:59, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

  • Rather pointless meta-region, all the information within has been merged into Singapore and its other districts. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:52, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. You know the region better than me, so I trust you. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 09:15, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:00, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete - you've done a great job with Singapore, so if you want this gone, go for it. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:04, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • I'll delete this later today, but first, could one of you guys who know Singapore (complete mystery to me) please fix the redirect pages that currently redirect to this one? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:15, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Part of a well-intended attempt to create a region hierarchy for Alaska, but based on a very unintuitive scheme using names that only a bureaucrat could love. Alaska has now been restructured (a bit loosely so far) using geography instead. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:15, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
    • While the policy and concept is sound, I'm concerned about a competing concept of not cluttering the regional pages. I've seen in a number of (random) places editors removing smaller cities from larger regions because if all the small articles were listed in the region, the region article would be full of them. Counties, while bureaucratic stand in that middle ground. This, yet again, brings us to a discussion about tiny town articles - if we keep the tiny towns how won't they be orphans if we don't allow the large region articles to contain their mass? I hate to keep trying to hijack VFD discussion into philosphical ones, but its very related in my mind... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 22:22, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
      • Part of the solution is to stop trying to keep every worthless article created for a non-destination "town" as if they were actual contributions to Wikivoyage rather than random acts of chaos. But I digress. If there are too many genuine destinations in a region to list them all, the region needs to be broken down further. Counties are one way to do that, but they are very often poor regions from a travel perspective. Look at a map of U.S. counties and you can tell that most of them between the Colonies and the Rockies were drawn by some guy with a straightedge and no knowledge of the territority he's dividing up. A city I used to live in had a county line drawn right through the middle of it, and there are a few counties in my state that don't have any cities in them (just a few tiny towns). Alaskan boroughs are even worse. The fact that some guy in Juneau couldn't think of anything better than the name "Unorganized Borough" and used it for a collection of discontiguous tracts of land in various parts of the state, is all the more reason to ignore him and come up with something better. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:01, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep - Until we have a better way of organising all the places within the Unorganized Borough, a census area or other administrative division is probably the best way we have. Besides the term is used in Wikipedia, so we should maintain at least a redirect for such a place to the Wikivoyage article that covers the place listed in Wikipedia. Even if it is only a notional division or grouping - and seemingly worthless. In the future we can direct this to the divisions we do establish. Until we do, keep it. We should not be deleting redirect articles, unless there is never even going to be a redirect to a relevant article. Besides, many search engines love redirects. -- (WT-en) Huttite 23:05, 29 July 2006 (EDT)
    • We have a better way of organizing the random parcels of land called the Unorganized Borough: It's called a "geographical hierarchy". Places in Southeastern Alaska we put in Southeastern Alaska, places in Southwestern Alaska we put in Southeastern Alaska, etc. This bizarre bureaucratic construct defies geography. It's analagous to the non-geographic pseudo-region Island nations, which was created only because there was no other top-level container to put them in. And what are you suggesting we redirect this to... Alaska? It's literally all over the map: from the Aleutians to the Arctic to the Inside Passage! The fact that there's a Wikipedia article for it has no bearing on whether it is – or ever could be – of value to the traveler, and your argument that we should maintain an article or redirect for every place-name for which Wikipedia has an article, seems like a rather sysiphean task on a rather slippery slope. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:12, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
    • Keep, at least for now. Agree with Huttite. Alaska is another place that doesn't fit the most common US hierarchical structure well; this shouldn't be deleted until there is clarity on what the best structure is (we don't have that yet) and what the most sensible synonyms/redirects are (ditto). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:48, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
      • What lack of clarity? Are you looking at the same state I am? Since February 2004, Wikivoyage has had Alaska divided into five regions based on geography. Roughly the same regions are also used by the state's travel industry association (which I find a pretty persuasive confirmation). The only question about this structure raised in the past 2.5 years has been whether they should have names like South-Central (Alaska) or Southcentral Alaska and little bit of restructuring within those regions. right|250px Granted, I am not an expert about Alaska, but in the week I spent there and in the time I spent researching it recently to figure out whether the Unorganized Borough fit into that hierarchy, I found nothing that argued that we should toss out that whole existing structure to accommodate the UB. Nor has anyone actually proposed that we do so. This article was created in good faith under the assumption that we're supposed to follow government boundaries... but we're not. We use them when/if they make sense from a travel perspective, and look to other resources for guidance when they don't. And this "region" clearly does not make sense. Look at it: it overlaps with all five existing geographic regions, because it exists only as a bureaucratic construct (i.e. territory without a formal borough government), not in the real world. This isn't a question of following "the most common US hierarchical structure"; it's a question of following Wikivoyage policies. And as for the let's-redirect-it reflex, there are no "sensible redirects" for this article. If someone created an article Unincorporated Townships (Kansas), we'd delete it (I hope). Why wouldn't we do that with this? Under what overhaul of the Wikivoyage guidelines would this be a valid article? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:58, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Preferably redirect to Alaska, although I wouldn't be opposed to deleting. Todd's right - this region is too all-over-the-place, and it overlaps with existing Wikivoyage regions for Alaska. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:42, 11 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Okay, so what's the consensus here? I see one person who is adamantly opposed to keeping it, two who say keep, one who says "redirect, but delete OK," and one who -- I'm not sure what he says. I believe the consensus is to keep; one person saying the same thing over and over does not a consensus make, no matter how forcefully he says it. But we're overdue to resolve this. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:21, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
    • Alaska doesn't have counties, they have boroughs, so I think if we delete these articles we may see them re-appear in the future. A redirect seems like a good compromise to me, but that's just repeating my previous opinion so having someone else chime in would be a good thing™. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:50, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
    • Two people saying "Delete"/"Redirect", one person saying "Keep until we decide how to divide Alaska" (when there's an established structure that no one objects to), one person saying "Keep until we decide how to divide Alaska, and because I think we should have articles/redirects for every article in Wikipedia", and one person who created the article but has since said that he never liked it and only did it because he thought it was required... is not a consensus to keep. I've continued my (admittedly rather annoyed) explanations in an effort to point out that your objections have long since been satisfied, and that the article has no value, hoping that maybe you'd find this information persuasive enough to effect a consensus. If not... then we don't have one. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:02, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirected to Alaska, then, so that we can get the miserable thing out of the way. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:17, 13 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. See Unorganized Borough, above. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:15, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Why not redirect it to Bethel (Alaska) - once that article is written. Or move it there and rewrite. -- (WT-en) Huttite 21:58, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
      • Bethel Census Area is a county of sorts whereas Bethel is a town. Anyway - I created the census area in an attempt to unorphan an article, yet not clutter the region with tiny villages. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 22:19, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
      • Yeah, redirects are cheap, but there's little point in keeping a redirect for a name no one uses. I forgot to ask about deleting the Bethel Borough redirect to this article as well. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:30, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
        • The article is written now and has pages that link from it, so somebody thinks they might use the name. While Bethel may be a town and the census area may be a borough, there is also no reason not to write one combined article that discusses both the town and the surrounding area. This may be worthwhile even if the town or the census area, on their own, do not warrant a separate article. Besides, with the place being mentioned in Wikipedia, travelers are probably going to search for Bethel Census Area if they want to travel there. We should keep these redirects because they provide search associations that are useful to the traveler. -- (WT-en) Huttite 22:53, 29 July 2006 (EDT)
          • If someone's interested in traveling to Bethel, they'll search for "Bethel Alaska"; "Bethel Census Area" is not a name in popular usage (i.e. outside of governance and statistical circles). I think you overestimate the extent to which Wikipedia reflects how travelers perceive the world. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:37, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
        • Keep, at least for now. I am unconvinced that this is a "name no one uses." As in the case of the Unorganized Borough, we can stand to keep a couple of eventually extraneous things around while we sort out what the preferred structure for Alaska looks like. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:51, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
          • I'm sorry, I'll clarify: "a name no one in the travel industry and no one who has ever traveled to Alaska without the US Census Bureau picking up the tab". I may have been wrong about this being a valid article (an article for Bethel Borough makes sense), but I've seen nothing to suggest that this is a properly named article. And I've been looking. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:14, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Bethel Borough might be worthwhile, as it is analagous to a county in other states. However, until that is needed I suggest both be redirected to Southwestern Alaska, which are the Wikivoyage regions that contain them. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:48, 11 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Same as for Unorganized Borough: it's time to do something. Again, I see one person loudly and repeatedly opposed to keeping it, and otherwise, a consensus to keep and de-muddle -- a consensus that sees to be clearer than for Unorganized Borough. Last call for dissents from keeping (Todd, we already know your position...), otherwise I'll archive the discussion. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:38, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
      • Bill, you obviously don't understand my position, and just as obviously you don't give a damn. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:04, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
    • See the comment above - a borough is an Alaskan county, so someone is likely to re-create this in the future. Redirect to Southwestern Alaska, and it can always be split out again later if we need to. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:50, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
  • I've done the redirect and am archiving this. It's time to move on. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:53, 13 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Not an article. This should probably be made into a redirect to prevent someone from re-creating it in the future, but redirect to where? Tips for flying? -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:52, 31 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Just delete. Not an article, never will be one, no point in redirecting other than discouraging trolls. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:36, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
    • We get a lot of links to things like large transportation companies. The BART article for San Francisco has been deleted multiple times, and Amtrak is now a permanent redirect due to the number of people that want to link to it. I think national airlines are going to be a similar scenario, and while I wouldn't be strongly opposed to deleting this one it might be easier to just create redirects to prevent them from being recreated in the future. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:50, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. All three of the above images where uploaded with the stipulation "All rights reserved. Please advise Albert Lee before use: albert_lee1@yahoo.co.uk", which is not compatible with Project:Copyleft. I've left a note on the user talk page requesting that the license be changed, but if not they need to be deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:51, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Fixed —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Albert lee1 (talk • contribs) 13 Aug 2006
  • I think this -- marginally -- addresses the stipulation concern. It would be better to have explicit CC-SA releases, but we've kept a lot of images that don't have them. Do we keep these now? (The first of the three images isn't very good, IMO, and doesn't really enhance the article, but that's a separate issue.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:47, 13 August 2006 (EDT)
    • Nobody seems to be arguing, so I'm moving this to the archives and declaring the photo saved. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:50, 17 August 2006 (EDT)
  • I don't feel strongly about the other two, but this one is quite a nice photo that enhances the article that uses it (Marseille). We should go the extra mile to try to get the Copyleft issues resolved for it. If they can't be, well, life is hard and then you (or your photos) die... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:27, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Fixed —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Albert lee1 (talk • contribs) 13 August 2006

Incorrect language. -- (WT-en) Tim 16:23, 31 July 2006 (EDT)

  • What do you mean by Incorrect language, and why not fix it? --(WT-en) elgaard 21:15, 31 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this, and it's useful. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:54, 31 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Update: Elgaard's point below about ways to "improve" the map is well taken, but to do that, simply copy a new version over this one, which should be kept until then so that the links don't have to be re-established. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:34, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. I don't understand the reason, and can't see anything wrong. Nice map. -- (WT-en) Colin 23:58, 31 July 2006 (EDT)
    • I speculate (correct me if I'm wrong) that Tim may have been thrown by the language "Niels Elgaard Larsen from OdenseLoc.svg" -- which looks like a copyvio, until it is recognized that OdenseLoc.svg is not a web site, but rather the .SVG file that he'd previously uploaded here. In fact this transfer is perfectly legitimate. -- BotH, writing from 128.165.144.60 12:12, 2 August 2006 (EDT)
      • My apologies for that! I saw the map, saw Jutland written over the main land part of Denmark, and thought why doesn't that say Denmark?! On closer inspection, it appears I have made a bit of a cock up... (WT-en) Tim 13:00, 2 August 2006 (EDT)
        • I do see you point. The fonts could be better and maybe there should be a legend: "yellow=Denmark". What do you think? The same template is used for many destinations, so I would like to get it right before making more maps. We should have a policy for this kind of maps (Eg highligt focused area/city in red). --(WT-en) elgaard 12:44, 4 August 2006 (EDT)
  • This should be moved to shared and deleted from EN. -- 03:19, 3 August 2006 (EDT)
    • No, eg Jutland is the english name, in danish it is Jylland --(WT-en) elgaard 12:44, 4 August 2006 (EDT)
  • This should not be deleted! (WT-en) Tim 15:26, 14 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Photo of hotel with no illustrative value of the city it's in. Hotel is not remarkable in photos, so it is not a sight. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:38, 3 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 21:24, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Photo of hotel with no illustrative value of the city it's in. Hotel is not remarkable in photos, so it is not a sight. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:38, 3 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 21:24, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Photo of hotel with no illustrative value of the city it's in. Hotel is not remarkable in photos, so it is not a sight. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:38, 3 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 21:24, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Photo of hotel with no illustrative value of the city it's in. Hotel is not remarkable in photos, so it is not a sight. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:38, 3 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 21:24, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Photo of hotel with no illustrative value of the city it's in. Hotel is not remarkable in photos, so it is not a sight. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:38, 3 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 21:24, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. As cute as the image is I just don't think there's any reason we should keep this image. It's not really funny otherwise I'd say keep it. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 05:48, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Looks like a speedy-delete to me, per bullet 1 on the speedy-delete policy. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:11, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, probably speedy. Content is "icelanders wear uniforms pants and shirts.they wear shorts too". -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:47, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Looks like an attempt at creating a user page (see Project:How to create a user account and Project:User page help for the correct way to do this). I don't find any place with this name in Wikipedia. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:16, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
    • Getty doesn't spit anything out either. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 16:17, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
    • Can it just be moved to User:Vapour? (WT-en) Pashley 17:19, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
      • The problem is that the user who created the page was anonymous, so it's not clear that a user account for "Vapour" even exists, or if such an account exists that it's the same person who created this page. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:25, 15 August 2006 (EDT)

Not big or distinct enough to be a destination, already merged back into Incheon. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:18, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

  • I think the content should be merged with the Minnan phrasebook, but the title itself is too generic to be pointing anywhere. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 06:15, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
  • The phonetization methods being used in the current Minnan phrasebook already vary, and I was adding yet another. Not sure how to merge it all yet, suggestions welcome. Still have more to add to this section and want to keep it separate until it is obvious how to merge them.--66.47.254.30 16:37, 14 August 2006 (EDT)
Let's copy the contents to a subpage of Talk:Minnan phrasebook while you work on it. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 16:41, 19 August 2006 (EDT)

Copied to:Talk:Minnan phrasebook/Phonetic phrase list for English speakers and the article is now deleted. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 11:52, 20 August 2006 (EDT)

Uploaded by self, forgot to change the name. New version in shared repository (Image:Dalian tram.JPG) so probably should be speedied. --(WT-en) Paul. 09:29, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

A single attraction, not a destination. Covered in Luang Prabang. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:07, 8 August 2006 (EDT)

A single attraction, not a destination. Covered in Montreuil-Bellay. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:21, 9 August 2006 (EDT)

  • delete -- (WT-en) Tim 14:04, 11 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Montreuil-Bellay. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:22, 11 August 2006 (EDT) Delete or redirect is fine in this case. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:48, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
    • Thing is, the "article" for Montreuil-Bellay exists only to mention this castle. It has no content, and insufficient information to judge whether the place is a destination. If someone can populate the Montreuil-Bellay article before deletion time, then redirect; otherwise, simply delete (and consider doing the same for Montreuil-Bellay). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:41, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, speedy unless anyone disagrees. Someone asking how about a driving route. I didn't speedy delete because, with some imagination, this could be a valid itinerary, but so could "From Anywhere to Anywhere" - keeping an article with no useful content just because it might somehow be a valid article someday is a bit of a slippery slope. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:17, 14 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, but I'd prefer not going the speedy-delete route; while it doesn't look like it could ever become an itinerary to me, a fair hearing won't hurt. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:34, 19 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, but also not speedy just for the principle of the matter. It could be an interesting itinerary with a lot a detail... it just doesn't look like it is. (WT-en) Maj 16:55, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 19:55, 27 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:29, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:29, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded in April, has been marked as a copyvio since early July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:29, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:29, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:43, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:43, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:43, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:43, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Image was uploaded by a new Wikivoyageer, but is from Wikimedia commons and licensed under GDFL.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2006&oldid=4924695"