Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2023

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← November 2023 Votes for deletion archives for December 2023 (current) January 2024 →
  • Delete. Not an itinerary, not a region and not an extra-region. If any of you can see any use for this incorrectly-formatted article that isn't covered by the individual articles on Salerno, Paestum and Amalfi or the region article on Campania, speak up, but it looks totally useless to me, and I think it should be deleted with no merge of any text or redirect of this term anywhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This directory of itineraries on Wikivoyage lists articles about specific journeys. Some traverse continents and could take months to plan and weeks to properly complete, while others demand no more commitment than an afternoon's stroll around a city. Nothing more to say. Anyway I thank you for the time that you dedicate to my article. Golfodisalerno (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What I can see, it contains one three-day itinerary. What itinerary articles does it list? –LPfi (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. I guess it does have an embryonic itinerary, shown at the beginning of "Do": Salerno to Paestum to Amalfi and back to Salerno. So should we keep the article but get rid of all of the refs, unnecessary details about each location that are or should be covered in the Salerno, Paestum and Amalfi articles, and other duplicated information ("Stay safe" doesn't seem specifically relevant to this itinerary, but rather, to each place), and change this into an itinerary format? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. How can I change to an itinerary format? Suggestion? Golfodisalerno (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Describe what sights one could cover during the "walking tour of Salerno", ensure they are properly covered in the city article, suggest when and how to leave for Paestum and check that the connections are covered in the Get in for that article. Likewise for the other towns. If there are issues with getting around, finding meals or accommodation or something else, discuss those in the itinerary article, but list ferry companies, eateries and hotels in the city articles. Take a look at Category:Star itineraries for inspiration and examples. –LPfi (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you. Golfodisalerno (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same thing doesn't give it more force. How is your article useful, Golfodisalerno? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same criticism against an article that 100% complies with the Wikivoyage axiom (a list of articles about specific trips) no longer gives strength to the criticism. Or not? Golfodisalerno (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking an aggressive, combative stance in a discussion in a small community is not going to bring others around to your way of thinking. Is this original text, or has it been borrowed from another source? Ground Zero (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I don't like and don't want to have an aggressive stance with nobody. Anyway I like constructive critics. The text is mine 100%. Golfodisalerno (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but copying your reply and pasting it 4 times doesn't make your case any stronger; it only weakens it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is kept, I think its name probably needs a tweak, at least by adding hyphens between the city names. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would Amalfi Coast be a better redirect? Pashley (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. By the way, I was just looking at a map. Salerno is between Amalfi and Paestum, so should we reconsider the order of the itinerary? Of course that's not a deletion reason. So maybe don't delete? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The itinerary as described makes a round trip, starting and ending in Salerno, with the best connections elsewhere. Also, the itinerary includes a ferry trip between the extremes, which you might not want to split up. I don't know the region, so I am not saying this is the best arrangement, but the choice seems to make sense. –LPfi (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In my opinion, Salerno is the perfect hub to explore Salerno itself, and Paestum & Amalfi. Salerno is well served by fast trains like Frecciarossa and Italo, has cheap hotels and restaurant, it's the starting point for train/bus to Paestum and train/ferries to Amalfi. Golfodisalerno (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so I think we're not simply deleting this. Should we merge and redirect this, or should we just allow 1 year to develop an itinerary article, as usual? Or should further discussion simply be done on the article's talk page? I'm still unconvinced this is a real itinerary article, though. Is merely "Start in one city, go to another and then end up at a third" a real itinerary? But it's at least an embryonic itinerary, once we delete probably more than 90% of the article that is not about going from point A to point B to point C and back to point A. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume there is some kind of vision about what the tours in the cities are about. Ideally those would be described more or less in the spirit of Historic churches of Buffalo's East Side, only with three cities involved. –LPfi (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    as of this moment, the article has not changed, the author seems to think it's perfect and is responding to us with sarcasm. The article must, at the very least, be formatted to comply with WV:Itinerary article template, get rid of those horrid bulleted lists of attractions, have the most important of them converted to listings, or else it must be deleted. Ibaman (talk) Ibaman (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced anymore that it should be deleted. The rule is to give 1 year for itinerary articles to potentially be developed, and when I nominated this for deletion, I didn't notice that it does contain the absolute bare bones of an itinerary. I seriously doubt this article could follow the trajectory of Istanbul to Izmir, which went from Vfd to featured, but I think we can delete 95% or so of this incorrectly-formatted article that has lots of content not relevant to an itinerary and then revisit it in a year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is easier to work on it and the related articles if anything that is useful is there to be copied to better locations. If the author starts actively working on them, I think it is better to leave any content removal to them. Perhaps the page should be checked after two weeks from now, and if they haven't got around to do something about the text that should be removed, only then cut down on it ourselves. –LPfi (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK with me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I don't support deletion anymore, think we need to keep this as an embryonic itinerary article, but also think that about 95% of it is off-topic and should be deleted, leaving almost nothing for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion has now been going on for nearly three weeks, although counting from the 25th, when the vfd template was added, not yet a week. There have been no edits for two weeks. I assume somebody needs to make the page confirm to our itinerary format and then hope that Golfodisalerno could continue from there. They did some edits according to my advice, but adding sights in historic order isn't how to write an itinerary. Ibaman, SHB2000 and Ground Zero: if this article is cut down to an outline itinerary, do you still think it should be deleted, now or soon? I assume it then should be given the one year. –LPfi (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it is cut down to an outline, then the one-year rule would apply, which I think is kind of ridiculous. Some random comes along and dumps a bunch of text into Wikivoyage, and then we have an outline of that person's idea for an itinerary sitting around for a year. But that's what the rule says. Ground Zero (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the article is useless, as GZ said, a text dump, no more, no less. My fingers are itching to press Delete. Ibaman (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a genuine tour route, someone might flesh it out in a reasonable, non-touty way. If they don't, we can nominate it for deletion in about a year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This nomination has been up for almost a month. Unfortunately, a consensus seems elusive. I count the votes as follows: User:Ibaman, User:SHB2000, User:Ground Zero for deletion; User:DaGizza, User:Pashley, User:Ikan Kekek, the article starter User:Golfodisalerno and I think I'm correctly reading LPfi's remarks as being for keeping the article (Gizza and Pashley are in favor of moving content, but that is not deletion per Wikivoyage policy). Does anyone have any other thoughts, whether for or against deletion? If so, state them within 24 hours; otherwise, I think a lack of consensus, with 5 votes more or less against outright deletion, would result in keeping the article, with wholesale deletion or merging of content not obviously relevant to the embryonic itinerary and discussions about what to do with the article being possibly continued on its talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the value in keeping an outline for a year and then deleting it then. The creator of the article has not returned to the discussion. Expecting that "someone else" will write a useful article because a passer-by decided to create a page and dump text into it is unrealistic. If anyone is willing to commit to writing an itinerary based on User:Golfodisalerno's idea, I'll change my mind. But we know that we can't rely on User:Someone Else. They're a slacker of the worst . Ground Zero (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's the small matter of Wikivoyage policy. Besides, there have been quite a few cases of people taking on stub or bare outline itineraries and making something usable out of them. We could try contacting some Italian users, if we really care about this, but my approach would be to delete most of the text, leaving a bare bones description that at least wouldn't be doing harm. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think there is enough content to be kept in the outline that somebody clicking the link won't get too frustrated. The suggested itinerary is probably possible (I trust the author on that), you just have to do the research yourself. –LPfi (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a misplaced draft by Omotecho. It clearly doesn't belong in the English Wikivoyage mainspace, but should it be moved to their userspace (en or ja)? JsfasdF252 (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created a month ago with no new content added since then. While this could be a valid travel topic, this article currently has no information and the page creator has not made any edits this month. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't plausible travel topics, even with no real content, get a year before being nominated for deletion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without hesitation. There is no content at all. No value to travellers. It isn't an article. I was just going to delete it without a VfD because it would be simple for someone wanting to write an article to start from scratch. Surely the "one year" rule is intended to give room for travel topics to grow, not to protect page creation vandalism. Ground Zero (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would settle for redirecting this to Istanbul if there is a desire to keep the skeleton of headings. I don't know why we would do that, but if it moves us more quickly to a point were readers don't stumble across this useless page, I'd go for it. Ground Zero (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Istanbul might be valid if there was content specific to kids in the main topic, but there isn't. When I searched for the words "child" and "family" there was 1 occurrence of each word in relation to scammers preying on your sympathy. Delete or give more time, but a redirect for this wouldn't be helpful. Mrkstvns (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expanding the article, Vidimian! Struck my delete !vote. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am now in favour of keeping the article. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that was intended to allow a travel topic article that has been started to grow. This one hasn't been started. It is a skeleton. Completely free of travel content. Ground Zero (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the rule mentioned? We should make sure it's fully clear. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost on par with the rationale we use for speedy deletions for articles that have nothing but "Destination is in Region name". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Reasons to delete articles says "Article entries should be deleted from the site when... they are travel topics that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year, and there is no suitable travel topic to redirect to." This article is not "at outline status", so this rule is not applicable. Ground Zero (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still probably good to clarify the policy in the appropriate place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would you suggest clarifying the policy? Ground Zero (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If some itinerary articles started in good faith should be deleted before the one-year grace period, then we should state how soon and on what criteria. Page creation vandalism is treated as a special case, but lately several itineraries seemingly created in good faith have been brought here in weeks after creation.
I don't think it is good use of our times to argue about whether to make an exception instead of waiting that year. Is there some pressing reason to delete some pages earlier? Nile has been around for four years without even having the template, and no information whatsoever on how to travel along the "itinerary". Does it then harm to have this skeleton also sitting around for that one year?
My standpoint is that any page can stand having a stub or two linked as city/region/park/itinerary/whatever. The random stubs brought here hardly harm much by sitting around for a year. If we want to delete skeletons (nearly) without content sooner, then that should be specified in the guideline, but I don't see why.
If the point is that those are forgotten and better nominated on sight, then instead add a timestamp to the outline template, to get them into a maintenance category a year after creation (a note on the page could be made visible at the same time).
–LPfi (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to clarify the policy would be to give a shorter time limit on articles attaining outline status before being nominated for deletion. I suggest we discuss that at Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy, but the time limit shouldn't be a couple of weeks, but at least a month, keeping in mind that, as LPfi says, Vfd threads take some amount of work and attention. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is reasonable to insist that a new article has one piece of useful travel information with 24 hours of being created. For a city article that could be one listing, or a basic description of one way of getting in. Obviously we would wait longer in practice, especially if the editor has been busy doing other things on WV. AlasdairW (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many things may be reasonable, but we need to spell them out on the appropriate policy page(s). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a proposal at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Stub_or_skeleton_itineraries_and_travel_topics. Ground Zero (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the itinerary doesn't exist – there are always special cases, and this is one of them. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry folks, I didn't want to interrupt the discussion which I guessed would evolve into a general policy discussion from the beginning. However, I had ideas about this article since GZ posted a comment on its talk page, but I couldn't get my act together until it was vfd'ed. Now that I added some content, could you please reconsider your votes? If a consensus emerges towards deletion, I would like to keep this in my userspace. Vidimian (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With Vidimian's text, I change my vote to keep. Ground Zero (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to keep. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created by a tout, and I don't see the point in keeping it, given that the essential information can be covered adequately in the Tashkent article. The dog2 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no confidence in a tout describing the general situation honestly and carefully and our practice is to rely on people finding rental agencies by themselves in places where several big chains are present, like here. The content is much too general to be of any use and is mostly covered in Driving, Car rental & al. –LPfi (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! The tout article says "Popular international chains like Hertz, Avis, and Europcar operate in the city" while the current version of Tashkent#Car rental says "Hardly any international car hire companies operate in Tashkent. Sixt have a rental location [...]". Was the tout article useful after all? –LPfi (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can always move the information from the tout article to the main article before deleting. The dog2 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's something we can never do. If there's useful information to move, we must merge and redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, we can check the web sites of a few big chains and correct the information based on that. I don't see a problem in mentioning the user in the edit summary along the lines of "international car rental chains are present, as suggested by Johnny0126". –LPfi (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's still allowed by the CC-BY SA license conditions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our practice has always been to merge/redirect and never merge/delete. See Talk:Be Smart When It Comes To Disney World and the linked Vfu thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Common practice ≠ policy or legalities, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between copying wordings and using the general idea that things might have changed. I think we should never merge and delete, but I don't see a major problem in checking things based on a to-be-deleted version. The attribution here is – I believe – purely a courtesy, although a courtesy I think we should afford. –LPfi (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict]I don't think we want to be screwing with basic Wikivoyage policies, and I would certainly be in strong opposition to it. If we use text from an article, it cannot be deleted without a redirect. Besides, there's nothing horrible about making this title a redirect to Tashkent#By car, if it comes to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the edit that Ikan Kekek reverted. The dog2 (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a deletion. Also read User talk:Johnny0126. I definitely question the usefulness of the article, but I hope we hear from User:Johnny0126 on what the article is useful for. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gives practically no new information. I asked ChatGPT to write this topic (with identical headings) and it generated very similar text. The telltale sign is the "exploring beyond Tashkent" section. ChatGPT wrote

Even "Fueling Up" and "Parking" sections in the article closely resembles the ChatGPT output. In short, I think this is an article that is likely written by ChatGPT. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good sleuthing! Yeah, I guess if this is likely written by ChatGPT, we shouldn't use any words from it, because they could be unacknowledged copyright violation. Therefore, deletion seems more appropriate than merging and redirecting anything. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we don't want to keep any phantom facts. I still suggest somebody checks the rental car situation from other sources. –LPfi (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is problematic for several reasons:

  1. It's a cross-namespace redirect, which although not banned, are heavily despised on most wikis.
  2. Who in the right mind thought that "Wp [sic]" means Links to Wikipedia and not just Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians?
  3. It's not a very useful shortcut either – it's only used on three pages, two of which are on userpages.

I for one, do think we should have a shortcut for Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia, but "Wp" is one of the worst possible shortcuts that could be used, and definitely not one that's cross-namespace. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to delete. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/December_2023&oldid=4924796"