Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2017

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search


A pointless non-article containing no information whatsoever and given w:Galatas, Troizina unlikely to ever be an article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Seems perfect for conversion to a redirect, no? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
"Galatas is a small mainland town with a high school, medical center, a church, banks and a new seafront plaza... known for its Lemonodasos ("Lemon forest"), a vast orchard of lemon- and other citrus trees, watered by watermills and made famous by author Kosmas Politis in his 1930 novel by the same name."
That's at least two "See" listings already (the waterfront plaza and the citrus grove), and there's likely more where that came from. It seems clear that Galatas can sustain its own article, and the fact that it doesn't yet is no reason to delete or even to redirect. (Redirecting, in particular, is a great way to dissuade editors from adding such content.)
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This is across a straight from Poros, which looks like it has some listings which belong here, and other information to expand this article. It could be merged into Poros, but I think that it is best not to merge mainland and island places. AlasdairW (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see the point of keeping a totally empty article, especially since there haven't been any edits since last year. It's unlikely that the author comes back to improve the article and if somebody wants to create a new article in the future, it can be recreated. Drat70 (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Expand --Traveler100 (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This looks like a perfectly fine article to me. And even if it wasn't, we redirect real places. User:Hobbitschuster, I am formally requesting that you stop nominating articles that cover real destinations for deletion. You've been told of our policy enough times. If you want to change the policy, open up a discussion on it, but don't keep defying it and wasting everyone's time. Powers (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it has been expanded. Otherwise a redirect may have been the best option. Gizza (roam) 20:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: So now it has been expanded thanks to Traveler100, and the verdict for keep is near enough unanimous (given the sole vote for delete was based on the premise the article had been abandoned), can we wrap this up and delete the vfd template? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I was actually about to remove the vfd tagg myself. Do go ahead if you so please. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Consider it done. Because it actually has been done, not because I'm about to do it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Montpelier (disambiguation)[edit]

  • See also discussion at Talk:Montpelier. This disambiguation page is unnecessary because there are only two links that aren't red: Montpelier, which refers to the state capital of Vermont, and Montpellier in France, which is spelled differently. I think a message at the top of the article about the Vermont city that reads something like For the city in France, see Montpellier, and maybe vice versa for the French city, would suffice. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I have added such a message to the city in France. However, how large are the redlinking places? At least the US ones are probably listed in the US census, right? Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
      • None of them have a population over 4,000 (Montpelier, Vermont is roughly twice that, and a state capital besides). I doubt any of them will ever get articles of their own. We can revisit the issue when one does, I suppose, though it seems clear to me that the undisambiguated Montpelier would still direct to the Vermont city in any case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Any reason why Barre-Montpelier are two articles instead of one? Their combined population is only 17,000 or so and they're only seven miles apart. K7L (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Andre on this. Ground Zero (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Delete Andre's proposal makes sense. Gizza (roam) 02:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Result: deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Not sure if this article is giving any useful information and there appears to be no where for the traveller to stay. And what is a Hurtigruta? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hurtigruta is a cruise ship / ferry company whose vessels tour the fjords. I assume the article means you can watch one of the Hurtigruten pass (or dock?) twice a day. As for Hiller, I am hesitant to say delete the article, but there seems to be almost no information on this village out on the interwebs, and I can't even find it on a map to find the nearest proper article it could be incorporated into. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I found the supermarket suggested by the article, but the places for hiking that I could find looked to be an hour's drive away. So I am not really convinced that this is a real place, and so deletion is an option. Alternatively merge into Narvik, or move the article to Bogen, and delete about half the text. AlasdairW (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: Deleted. A town with a population of 1 handily qualifies as an "insignificant dot on the map that doesn't meet wiaa and is not a likely search term", and a single Yellow Page-y listing for a supermarket doesn't merit merging. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Calendar of events and festivals (and all its month-subarticles)[edit]

I think those hardly get updated any more and are thus clearly something we don't actually have in our scope any more. I would suggest deletion. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • So before every one starts saying keep and it just needs some updating. Please ask the question, will you keep these pages up to date? We had this discussion in 2014 and the consensus was keep. I therefore cleaned the pages up, but since then there has been little contribution from other to keep the pages relevant. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Delete. My hopes for this project are as ambitious as anyone else who edits here, but it's the height of foolishness to assume that we could ever 1) assemble a complete list of all the annual events and festivals everywhere in the world that travellers might be interested in, or failing that, that we could ever 2a) come to a consensus on which events and festivals are important enough to include and 2b) sustain enough interest in the article over the long term to consistently identify and revert newbies who will inevitably add their insignificant hometown festival to the list. Those would be tall orders even if we had a community of editors the size of English Wikipedia's. Stated in plain language, this is a failed experiment that we should have known would fail before we even attempted it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
And to quote Inas from the original VfD discussion, I would be heartily in favor of reverting to our previous "strong oppos[ition] to the creation of list articles". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that we should restrict any by month listings to well established recurring events - events which have happened every year for the last 25 (or 50) years, and remove any actual dates unless they are fixed. Whilst long running events do get cancelled or change month, this is relatively uncommon. I think that we should keep the public holiday information in each article - maybe merge each month into Public holidays. AlasdairW (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. It's just too broad. Even if we could maintain a list, it's hard to limit it to "important" festivals since what's important is subjective. It may be possible to make a calendar of festivals for a specific travel topic, country or culture but trying to include every event in the world of interest to travellers in a particular month is impossible. Gizza (roam) 21:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with AndreCarrotflower, and I'd like to see AlasdairW's ideas framed into a more definite proposal for discussion. Inas (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I was a little confusing. If we keep the articles as they are, then events should only be listed if they have been held every year since 1993 in the same month - and any that don't have wikipedia articles or websites giving this history can also be removed. Unless the date can reliably be expressed in a way that covers every year, then the date would be removed - the city article should have this details. So in December remove "Midwinter Solstice" because it started (in the form listed) in 2003, and maybe "Edinburgh's Hogmanay" which started in 1993. Change the dates of "Christkindlmarkt" to "mid-Nov - 24 Dec". (Christkindlmarkt started in 1298 and Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race started in 1945, so they can stay.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Still, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of annual events covered within those proposed parameters. Are we supposed to list them all? If not, what are the chances that this often fractious community will ever agree on what makes an event worthy of being listed (and, perhaps even more importantly given that no one has edited these articles meaningfully for several years, would there even be enough interested participants in such a conversation for any conclusion to be meaningful in light of policy)? And even if we managed that, are there enough interested editors to maintain these articles consistently going forward? Aside from the "newbies who will inevitably add their insignificant hometown festival to the list" that I mentioned above, what about events established in 1994 that would thus be eligible to be added next year? Will anyone bother to add those? And if at some point an event on the list gets discontinued, will anyone notice? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Personally I would restrict the list to events that have their own wikipedia page, but I realise some may disagree. Of course the article will always have some events listed that no longer happen, just as many cities have closed hotels, but with these changes, I would expect that the article would be more than 75% correct if it was not edited for five years. At the moment the dates are wrong in 19 out of 20 August listings. Also I now looked more closely at the public holiday information and see that this is generally listed in country articles so there is less value in merging this all into Public holidays. AlasdairW (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I'm glad Hobbitschuster brought it back to our attention, too. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • The articles are not viable in their current structure. The only way this could work is if the first geographic (so "Calendar of events and festivals" splits to a country and region, so that the individual list only covers something no larger than an individual telephone area code. "Calendar of events and festivals in Nova Scotia" might make sense, while "Calendar of events and festivals in Asia in February" does not as it's too much ground to cover. Every town and village seems to have one or more festivals to attract voyagers, every county has a county fair, every city has a parade for one or a few causes or events (Christmas, Easter, Mardi Gras). An article just on Mardi Gras might make sense (and already is on the request list as "Carnivals"), a list of every event in every city worldwide in March does not. K7L (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • In theory the "Do" sections of cities and regions are meant to describe the festivals and events held in that place. This isn't as relevant for the global festivals like Christmas but we can check to see if the local festivals are mentioned in the city/region page and if not, move them before deleting the article. Gizza (roam) 21:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. In what way is this not in our scope? Geographically is not the only way of organizing our content; we have other ways of seeing travel. These sorts of lists can be useful (as the main article says) for people who know when they want to travel, but not where. Powers (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • It is in scope of Wikipedia and would be useful to travellers but does not to be in scope of contributors to this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I agree that it is in theory very valuable and that since the traveler comes first, it's important for us to arrange information in such a way as to accommodate many varieties of needs and persons. The fact that these are not well maintained is a real problem, tho. Could we have a way of automatically populating it or otherwise making the barrier to adding an event much lower? If data on recurring events are stored externally on Wikidata, would that help to keep it regularly updated? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I did start looking at that idea. The template {{Event}}, which is an extension of the listing template, contains parameter fields for dates and location. The idea is that events are added to the city or region page like any other listing but then we create a program to extract data out of these listings and build up a calendar of events by date and region. However this also requires effort from contributors to add the Event listing to pages and convert exiting entries to this format, at the moment there are only a couple of hundred done. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, as long as we have the content on the city or region pages where the events take place. (No, I don't have the time to check that it is, or to do all of the work moving the entries. Maybe moving the entries to the relevant city pages could be a Collaboration of the month?) --Robkelk (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: Calendar of events and festivals and all month sub-articles deleted. Template:Months also deleted, as it's pointless without the foregoing articles. December 25, previously a redirect to December, now points to Christmas and New Year travel. Events, previously a redirect to Calendar of events and festivals, now points to Activities. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Where to stay in Mumbai[edit]

It's only a redirect to Mumbai, so is not causing harm, but it still appears as an automatically-generated result in the search bar ahead of real articles and the ever-helpful Where you can stick it policy page. As to which clause of the deletion policy I'm invoking, this counts as a "Bad article title". There are no other redirects and no articles with a similar title. The chances of anyone actively searching "where to stay in Mumbai" are about the same as someone searching for any number of other similar things that we could have a redirect for ("Where to eat in Bangkok", "Hotels in London"), but rightly choose not to because they clutter the place up. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete. This certainly puts the lie to the truism that redirects are necessarily harmless. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete The Mumbai article has a "Sleep" section. We don't need a redirect to it, and if it's high on the search bar, that's a problem since we don't have or want articles of that kind. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like there's some SEO benefit to these sorts of links. I wouldn't encourage making them for every article, but I'm also not sure it's worth the effort to delete. Powers (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Seriously, how much effort is it to delete a page? Does it involve more than three clicks, because if so, the WMF really are working you admins too hard and you should call in your union :-) If there is really some SEO benefit, then surely it would make sense to create a few more redirects with the same title, just with Mumbai subbed with the names of other large cities? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I can see benefit in "Where to stay" redirecting to "Sleep", but not ""Where to stay in X" redirecting to X. If we keep this one then I would suggest that we create similar redirects for every huge city. AlasdairW (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Anymore views forthcoming on this one? If there is a consensus to delete, let's delete. If not, what is the solution? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually policy used to be to delete unless there is a consensus to keep. I think it still says so on some page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Juma, Tupana, Mamori[edit]

As per our bodies of water policy, we don't allow rivers written like destination articles. Gizza (roam) 23:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of our Bodies of Water policy (which I do not understand) I think this article is of little worth or value. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree on deletion, but where should the listing be moved to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: All articles redirected to Amazonas (Brazil). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


We only add a level of regions when there are too many cities or too much content in the existing breakdown. The parent region Jämtland County is not large enough to warrant further division. There are currently too many small regions in Sweden making it difficult to overview. MartinJacobson (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Real place names are not deleted, and these really shouldn't be here. Please just redirect all of these articles to the article for the parent region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Ikan. Old discussion parts of which (at least my comment about "specks on the map") are relevant is at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Completely_empty_skeletons. Pashley (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
My bad. I thought that an article had to be nominated here to be redirected and/or merged. If that is not the case I take back my nominations. MartinJacobson (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: Speedily kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Solair Recreation League[edit]

  • Should this not be a listing in the Woodstock (Connecticut) article? I can see having pages for things like Disney resorts but not sure if should expand to all resorts of a good size? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
̶A̶g̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶'̶'̶'̶d̶e̶l̶e̶t̶i̶n̶g̶'̶'̶'̶ and with moving (some of) the content into Woodstock. This is definitely not an article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no merge and delete because the CC-BY-SA licence requires attribution if we keep the content. Either delete this entirely (not keeping any of the content for re-use anywhere) or merge and redirect. K7L (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Good point. In that case, I vote for merge and redirect. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Isn't there the possibility that the article in question was created by an interested party? Should we therefore not delete it outright? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Who wrote it is irrelevant (see WV:Welcome, business owners), especially as the article is old. If there is touting, remove it. The rest can be merged (cutting it down to reasonable length). --LPfi (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
But surely the factual information is trivial enough that we can write it ourselves without saddling us with this redirect because we have to merge the content. Besides, if it has been here for years, how much of it is still true? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd argue that if this is touting, we should just delete it without bothering to merge the content. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Looking at the website, I don't think that they are wanting casual visitors - more people who will visit regularly. A single line listing "Nudist camp - advance booking and security checks required" is sufficient if any listing at all is wanted. (Those are my words and attribution is not required - I am happy for that quote to be public domain!.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I see a general consensus to delete. Will do so in a day or so unless a major objection. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Please read the beginning of this page. Except in cases of speedy deletion candidates, which this article is not, we are supposed to allow for a 14-day discussion period before any action is taken on vfd candidates. I agree with your assessment re: consensus to delete, but policy requires us to wait until at least 2017-12-30 before we actually delete it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Result delete --Traveler100 (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)