Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2017

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← July 2017 Votes for deletion archives for August 2017 (current) September 2017 →

Created by a drive-by editor and not much edited since. Currently rated as a stub. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it looks like we're keeping it, I've added an intro, links to other articles, and copyedited a bit. Some attention from other editors would help bring it up to snuff. Ground Zero (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks a theme or point, combines the inane with the obvious and the outdated, contains numerous links of questionable compatibility with policy and partially duplicates Round the world overland Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since overlanding is fairly common & we should cover it.
Consider whether Round the world overland should be merged here; we currently have two somewhat weak articles; can we get one good one instead? I think any merge should go in that direction, moving the more specific topic into the broader one. Pashley (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you had a look at that article? It really doesn't know what it does, where it is going or aynthing really. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have looked at both articles & don't think either is very good, though both are valid topics. Since both do contain some worthwhile info, I do not think deletion of either is a good option. However I am not volunteering to fix them. Pashley (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as suggested by Pashley. Both articles are currently poor introductions to the subject, but do have just enough to give some ideas, and I think that overland travel (at least by "road") is something that we should cover. AlasdairW (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not overland travel by train or boat? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections if by train or boat are included, but they are sufficiently different that they could be in separate articles - we have a set of articles on Rail travel and Boat travel. AlasdairW (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to leave round the world overland alone, as merging other articles to it would not be an improvement. A trip around the world in eighty days is an entirely-different animal from a plain Trans-Siberian Highway run as the overland article explicitly excludes sea crossings. K7L (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged with Round the world overland --Saqib (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this article has set here as a redirect for quite some time, until it was recently recreated as a stub. Do y'all think we need this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete don't see how this is helpful to the voyager. Very vague and makes so many generalisations. And I seriously doubt that words like "paprika", "jacuzzi" and "penthouse" are English words that most of the world understand. Some words are not even common in all native English speaking areas (as an Australian I have never heard of Virage). And even if a word is nearly universal, like "CD", it doesn't mean it is pronounced the same way everywhere (e.g. it is chee-dee in Italian). The one thing this article could do is lull travellers into a false sense of security by assuming that most people are familiar with many English words when they are not. Gizza (roam) 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was a redirect to Talk, which is a much better attempt at the same idea. I don't think that it is obvious that this title covers getting by when you don't speak the language, so unless it is required for attribution, I don't see much point in having a redirect. I disagree with the list of words - saying "no" in the Czech Republic may be mistaken for "ano" which is yes in Czech. AlasdairW (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the article's talk page you find me nominating it for deletion in 2009. That ended with a new Talk article & the redirect being created. I've never liked this title & thought most of the content before redirecting useless as well, so I want to say delete now.
The question of attribution is real, though, & we have a legal obligation to provide that. I did use some text from this article when I created the Talk article. Is there a way to give appropriate attribution without keeping this redirect? Pashley (talk)
The easiest solution for keeping attribution is to keep the old history in a redirect, pointing to it (preferably with a permanent link) in the edition summary of the edit where content was copied. Usually there is no problems with keeping the redirect. Here no such link was provided, which means attribution is a problem already (a link and an explanation in the summary of a new edit should work).
In this case it would also be possible to merge the older history of Phrasebook International into that of Talk. As nothing happened to the former while the latter was created and content copied, there would not be any confusing alterations between versions of one and versions of the other. The "start article" edition summary will make things clear for those who understand how the history function works.
If using this solution, it is important that later history of Phrasebook International stays with the deleted redirect (and as nothing was copied from there, there is no need to keep it for attribution), not to make it seem like somebody tried to replace the Talk content with the "phrasebook" content.
--LPfi (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to combine the history of two articles, but it requires administrator intervention and has the potential to do some difficult-to-repair damage if the history of the two pages overlap in any way. Basically, the admin deletes one article, moves the other right over top of it, then undeletes the deleted revisions. Wikipedia has documentation on w:Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves but this is a tool to be used sparingly. K7L (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I see that someone has deleted this without checking to see if any of the text is in use elsewhere - which would raise attribution problems. There is no "merge and delete" under the CC-BY licences. K7L (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the text that was copied from there to elsewhere - would that fix the attribution issues, though? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would, but why waste good text (yes I know, to get rid of certain parts of the history), but Talk was indeed based on Phrasebook International, and rewriting it just to get rid of a redirect seems stupid (and if I'd been the original author I'd not like it). Paraphrasing would not be enough, and if somebody is going to do the job (other than an admin), the original article should still be resurrected so they could see what sections can be used directly. --LPfi (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the text was nigh universally acknowledged to not be very good... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted by User:Ibaman. --Saqib (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created in 2015, but it's stillborn: Not a single requested move has ever been made on it. Should we redirect this, and if so, where do we redirect it to? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it existed. If people knew it existed, it might be useful at some point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to move a guide (per Talk:Baja California#Split), but there's a redirect in they way, I need an admin to take care of it. I looked for a place to get admin help with that, and that's how I found the "Requested moves" page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read that post. I didn't realize you needed an admin's help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll partly agree. Considering how common "Requested moves" pages on wikis are, this should exist in some form, even if only as a redirect.
But you gave me an idea. "How to rename a page" only gives gives little more then technical information on moving a page. It doesn't really tell you where to go for help if you need an admin's help renaming a page, or where to go if you want people's thoughts on if a page should be renamed. I'm thinking we should put that information on "How to rename a page": Direct people to Requests for comment, and the administrators noticeboard (if we have one), and maybe the Travellers' pub. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And then, I'm thinking "Requested moves" should be redirected. That page is stillborn, and it's stillborn for a reason. It was created artificiality, and no one knew or cared that it existed. For now: Let RFC serve as our requested move page. And then, once we have enough requested moves that it's worth having a dedicated page, we can a re-create the RM page (and leave a note on the RFC page defecting people to RM). That way, the RM page will be created organically, as a spinoff of RFC. And it will actuality be used! Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added the note to "How to rename a page". And that gave me an idea for the "Requested moves" page, I turned it into this. Does that look good to everyone? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment . My response to AlasdairW is pretty long, so I'll summarize it here: I added a note to Wikivoyage:How to rename a page, pointing people to RFC if other editors don't respond when they propose a move on the talk page. And I created WV:Move, a redirect pointing to "How to rename a page".
More to the point: I changed "Requested moves" into this, A short page pointing people to RFC. Does this look good to everyone?
Looks OK to me. Pashley (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept, albeit in altered form. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was tagged for speedy deletion & instructions in that template say if you do not think it is a candidate for that, tag it VFD and put a nomination here, so I am doing that.

To me, it seems fairly obviously a speedy keep. Can we please stop nominating real & interesting places, let alone tagging them for speedy deletion! Pashley (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is how it was created. It should have been deleted back then. Now, I don't know. It still doesn't contain any information. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the history, but the fact that an article lacks information is not per se a reason to delete, rather than merge/redirect, an article about a real place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be an article but I really do not like empty pages. So until a good amount of detail is written by someone I think a redirect to a listing one the closest city page is what is needed in this case. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This "article" was only created as a place for someone to offload their spam. As I say, at the least we should get rid of the spam in its history. And I would argue that we should wait for it to be created organically instead of leaving an "A is in B" skeleton... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to creation of a real article at some point in the distant future. Normally we do not delete real places, but spam and page creation vandalism are exceptions. We normally shoot spam on sight. K7L (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the "don't delete real places" policy is a good one; this should never have been nominated for deletion, & that applies to many other recent nominations.
Whether to leave an empty skeleton in place or redirect is a judgement call; I generally lean to the former since I think that gives a better chance of eventually getting a decent article, but I understand the aversion to ugly empty pages & agree that in some cases a redirect is the right solution.
What upset me here was the timing; as I see it you redirected before a consensus had been reached. Of course my timing could also be criticized; I inserted a template, geo co-ords & WP link before I even nominated it. Pashley (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bontang. Empty articles just frustrate readers and drive them to look for information elsewhere. If someone adds enough information to the entry at Bontang to warrant shooting it out, it can be split out later. Add the park doesn't have a website, that seems unlikely for now. Ground Zero (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2017&oldid=4924613"