Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2014

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← January 2014 Votes for deletion archives for February 2014 (current) March 2014 →

Toodyay calendar experiment

An experiment which has been abandoned since early November. I think by now we have sufficiently established that any improvement to the way we list events will not involve creating the implied additional 13 pages for each and every destination article.

Done. Texugo (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
would have been nice to have a direct link to the discussion Gnangarra (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Texugo's nomination rationale (- or move to Gnangarra's user namespace). --118.93nzp (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the page hasnt been abandoned it just that there hasnt been anything to update the January section is correct for 2015, this whole thing has cost me considerably the initial action to a new user set a larger project back. I have already committed further time and resources to it but please if you dont want new users say so now I dont want to encounter a repeat of the previous unfriendly welcome during the last Wikimedia workshop. As had been discussed at the pub the monthly ones I thought were being deleted back in December, prefer you keep Calendar of events and festivals in Toodyay. Gnangarra (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With 5 main events, I don't see why they cannot all be added as a subsection of "Do" in the main article? More people will see them there, too, I think. Some of the "events", such as Good Friday don't seem to be events at all. I would only list holidays and events where there is something to do. For example, is there an exciting event in the town held on Christmas? If not, it doesn't need to be listed in the town article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gnangarra, there is no question that these pages do not fit under the current definition of what an article is and would normally be subject to very uncontroversial deletion - the only way any of these pages could be saved is if our whole policy changed to allow this kind of thing for all articles. This is why it was tagged as experimental in the first place - so that you would have a chance to develop it and try to bring about a consensus to adapt the policies to fit your proposal. At this point, given that plenty of time has been given for experimentation and discussion, and no development work or discussion has occurred for months, the only question left to answer is: "Is this experiment developing toward a consensus to allow the creation of one or more separate events pages for every destination article we have?" The answer at this point is very clearly no, and to be honest I doubt that this particular approach has much hope for ever gaining consensus in the future either. While I appreciate the initiative to experiment and improve things, I think it's time to recognize that this approach is probably never going to get the support it needs to become legitimate. Maybe you can try a different approach that doesn't involve large-scale page creation, I don't know. But I do hope you can understand that your proposal's failure to gain consensus does not mean we are being unfriendly or unappreciative of your efforts. Many of us have made proposals that failed in the past. It's just part of the wiki community process. I certainly hope you will stick around and keep contributing. Texugo (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this calendar experiment would possibly more successful for a sufficiently large city with more and larger events (say Paris, New York City, Singapore or maybe even Perth). ϒpsilon (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A calendar makes sense for a country or large region, maybe Annual Festivals and Events in England would be viable, while Annual Festivals and Events in Southampton would just be merged to Southampton#Do. Another option would be a calendar for international-level events which covered the whole world but just a specific topic (like the Olympic and FIFA World Cup). At city-level, (city)->"Do"-"Events" is usually a subsection, not an article. K7L (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace. The user who created this event calendar seems to want to keep it around, so let's move it to his/her userspace. As Texugo noted, after several months this does not look like something that improves upon event listings being placed directly in articles, and as a result the experiment should now be moved out of mainspace. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace and allow the few other events (besides the 5 main ones) to be merged into the city article. Gnangarra, you are very welcome and we're happy with the information on events. The separate article was an experiment, and in this case there just seems to be no need to separate the information from the rest of the Toodyay article. I don't even think that it's not possible (for me anything is possible when there's a consensus, even when it's not the usual way we do things ;-)), but in this case there's no clear benefit. As a general rule of thumb, we only create subpages when an article gets overcrowded. So for example, we only create districts when a city article gets too much info, and a separate calender would only be a viable option for discussion if there would be a huge number of events in the Do section. This shouldn't keep you from maintaining an event schedule in the Toodyay article though. Chubbywimbus was right: it will even get more views there :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Result: Since the user didn't copy it or request a move to the userspace, deleted. Texugo (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Associated templates

These templates appear to be dependent upon the above proposal to create additional pages in the "MONTH in CITY" format, and should therefore suffer the same fate. Texugo (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. Texugo (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Started with info about only forts and palaces in Jaipur, which already has reasonable write-ups of these places and/or has had some of the information merged. The topic is far too general to be turned into a travel topic - it would seem to include literally thousands of sites, including everything from Versailles, Topkapi, and Japan's imperial palace to myriad colonial fortifications, batteries from the World Wars, and Indian hill station forts. There is not a particularly good place to redirect this, and there is no obvious reason the two words would be searched for in conjunction like that, so it's not a particularly likely search term either. Also see some previous discussion at Talk:Forts and palaces.

  • Delete or Move then Merge and Redirect or completely rewrite. I could see the value in a article which described the building techniques, choice of site etc of such major buildings. Possibly excluding those built in the last 150 years there is enough in common to have a single topic, but any mention of specific buildings should only to be to illustrate points ("some forts and palaces are in the middle of a lake, for example...") and the example should be selected worldwide. AlasdairW (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the vastly differing building techniques of forts from all the different cultures and eras of the world? Plus all the vastly different building techniques and styles of palaces from all the different cultures and eras of the world? It's rather a lot, don't you think? Not to mention the fact that there just isn't much you can say that is general to both forts and palaces — they don't have anything much in common in terms of purpose, design, style, or building technique. The only reason forts and palaces were put together in this title in the first place is because those happen to be the two types of things that Jaipur has to see. It's not really a more logical grouping than, say, "churches and bathhouses" or "courthouses and bookstores" or "museums and piers". Texugo (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do see some connection between forts and palaces. Many larger castles in Europe have performed both functions, at the same or different times. For example in Stirling Castle you can see a palace, fortifications and a military museum. "Museums and libraries" or "music shops and bookshops" would be a similar grouping - not one that I might start an article with, but one that I can see the reasoning. AlasdairW (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following from the discussion below, I like the idea of Move then Merge and Redirect and have added it to my earlier posting. AlasdairW (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's an extremely broad list of topics that don't seem to have much to do with one another and sometimes have only a tenuous claim to being cultural attractions in the first place. Perhaps it should be subjected to a Vfd itself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting would not bring hot tears, but I think the likelihood of anyone searching for "forts and palaces" together like that would be utterly negligible if not precisely zero; certainly no more likely than for any other juxtaposition of two random attraction types like the combinations I suggested above. It might make sense to redirect if it were just Forts or just Palaces, but I just don't see any advantage in preserving this particular combination. It would imply that we'd be ok with a couple of dozen similar redirects like Palaces and forts, Palaces and castles, Castles and palaces, Castles and churches, Churches and forts, you get the idea... Texugo (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly either way and suggested a redirect only as a possible quick solution. Ikan, to your concerns Cultural attractions is a top-level grouping from the Travel topics page and shouldn't be deleted unless we're going to update how we organize travel topics. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps War of 1812 or World War II in Europe would be about the right scope for an article on fortresses? Transylvania#Castles and Fortresses is a very different topic from Minuteman Missile National Historic Site because of the time period. K7L (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge the three items into existing listings into Jaipur. One could consider rewriting a more specific topic such as 'Indian Forts'. I would also echo a previous comment in that a fort and a palace are rather different things. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
K7l has a good point here, so I've struck out my "delete" above. Pashley (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into new article to redirect to Jaipur for attribution, then delete While articles about castles and forts in X country or region are of interest, within the same city, I think the city article should be enough. Merging into the Jaipur/Forts and Palaces as suggested above for attribution purposes and then redirecting that to Jaipur is fine. After that is done however, this article "Forts and Palaces" should be deleted. There is no appropriate place to redirect such an article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think K7L and ChubbyWimbus have hit upon the best solution here. Move to Jaipur/Forts and palaces, then redirect that to Jaipur (the merging already done is sufficient in my opinion). And delete this. Texugo (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Moved Jaipur/Forts and palaces without redirect, then redirected from there to Jaipur, for attribution purposes. Texugo (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese Wikivoyage was launched.--GZWDer (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the wiki. --Rschen7754 18:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the obvious solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we redirect to a different wiki? Powers (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Why couldn't we? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be a soft redirect of course. --Rschen7754 03:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Pashley (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Soft-redirected. Texugo (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed (see discussion in Template talk:Learn). Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third place this is being discussed. As I said at Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates#Learn template, the template can be redirected to Template:Listing, which a) obviates the need to replace existing uses, b) allows unfamiliar editors to use "learn" as a template name without having to actually implement (and keep updated) the template, and c) heads off any future attempts to create the template. Powers (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright with me and makes sense. Sorry I didn't see your remarks to this effect in the first two places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I raised this issue on the general Template talk page as well. Agree with REDIRECT to Template:Listing. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Pashley (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Template:Listing. Texugo (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two somehow-interrelated templates whose purpose is not really clear, introduced by IP 62.2.80.246 over a year ago, and wholly unused.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introduced by User:Globe-trotter last July, it is not currently in use anywhere. When it has been used, it is typically forgotten about and left there long after the spell of frequent edits has passed - I seem to recall coming across that more than once myself. Given the fact that its presence does not necessarily signify that edits are underway, I do not find this template to be particularly useful. Moreover, the text is technically true for all our articles, as everything is in a perpetual state of editing and improvement.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whilst I don't think there's much scope for this template in the mainspace, could it be of use in the project namespace? I remember that at least a couple of expeditions have carried similar notices at one time or another, whilst policy pages (which are, by their nature, more rigid) could also be a potential user when they're being substantially re-jigged. --Nick talk 01:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Created by IP 150.101.89.130 a week ago, with an unclear purpose that may be related to providing WP-style sources, which we don't need anyway. It has only been used once, where it was inserted into the middle of a 2006 comment by Evan, where it generates a rather large error message.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tab templates

Created 5 months ago and only used on one user page, User:Jmh649/M1. Purpose not really clear.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental since Jan. 2013, this template only repeats the same 3 sentences in 4 articles. The information itself is year-long and national in scope, and therefore the proper place for the full details on it is in the country article. I do not think this case is sufficiently comparable to that of Template:Schengen, our only precedent for using boilerplate text - in that case, the information, in its proper place, is far longer and more complex and just happens to be identical for each country where it is used, while in this case the info is short and uncomplicated, and city articles are not the proper place for full details on national phenomena in the first place. While it might be fine to have quick pointers from some city articles to the country article's details, I am not convinced that it is worth repeating all the details in every article nor, if it were, that it would be advantageous to make sure they are verbatim between a whopping 4 articles. Keeping it would imply that we would be OK with taking a boilerplate approach to inserting other national information into subnational articles, against our usual guidelines on where information belongs, and fairly contrary to keeping our writing lively and free of unnecessary redundancy.

  • Keep and insert it in the See section of various Dutch cites; put the information where interested readers are most likely to see it. Make it into an infobox so it does not interfere with lively writing and is more easily ignored by readers who do not care. Pashley (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you say "screw it" to our general guideline of not tirelessly repeating national information in multiple lower articles? Texugo (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmt: I've doubted about this one several times. I haven't added it because it was experimental (so the only 4 articles shouldn't really count as an argument, I thought we deliberately do not add experiments to too many articles). There's something to say for both sides really. In principle I'm with you on the "put general info on the country article". In practice however, there are thousands and thousands of city trip visitors who are not going to read the whole Netherlands country article -especially the cultural bits and so. So it would make sense to somehow repeat that information in "standalone destinations" at least, a bit like we do that also for climate info in big cities vs their region. An alternative solution, if we want one, could be to link externally, or to a section of the country article, but then the few sentences are one less click for the user. I'm good either way :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is that it is setting a precedent. Couldn't the exact same argument, that "people might not read x", be used to put boilerplate Eurail info across dozens of city articles? To add "Emergency number: 911" to every U.S. city article? What I'm saying is, why not put the details (price, how it works, etc.) in the country article where it belongs, and then from the main museum cities, you just put a pointer there "also see xxx". This is the standard way it is done. Why would this case be different enough that we need that whole listing verbatim in every relevant city? Texugo (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I agree. But is that the standard way really? It's not for climate and transportation info. Countless city articles more or less repeat airport information that their (low level) regions have as well. I'm just saying, this is rather a more general dilemma than one for this template alone. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Region articles should not and typically do not contain the full range of detail on an airport located in a city. The same goes for other area cities which depend on an airport in another city. They should and typically do give a brief overview and point to the location of the gritty details, whether that is the city article where the airport is, or a standalone airport article. Texugo (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly of the opinion that every museum (or at least See section) where the card applies should have something about it. A template seems the obvious way to do that. Should the template text describe the card in detail or just link to something in the country article or somewhere between those extremes? Leave that to whoever works on it. Pashley (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world makes this a special exceptional case for going against standard wisdom and repeating verbatim text instead of pointing the reader to the appropriate place for the gritty details? If this is a case for boilerplate, there must be a million similar situation that would also then qualify. Put the detail info in the country article and then all we need for each relevant museum is to write Accepts [[Netherlands#Museumkaart|Museumkaart]]. We don't need a special dedicated template just to make a wikilink like that. Texugo (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A wikilink does seem like a better idea, and sufficient for this. It's a pity Globetrotter isn't around (as he created the template) but absent any compelling arguments against Texugo's solution, I'm going with delete too. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as "used under freedom of panorama" rights, but this is clearly not incidental to a panorama. It is a close-cropped photo of a presumably copyrighted 2-d map, and should be deleted like so many others in the past. Photos of maps from books, brochures, and signboards are just as unacceptable as those lifted from other websites - just because you took a picture of it doesn't mean we magically get the right to use it as a map.

Question: Do we know that this map, posted publicly, is a copyrighted image? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more pertinent question is, do we know for sure that it is not? The claim given by the uploader indicates that it is copyrighted but used under FOP. Texugo (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite confused here, but I think I'm not the only one. Let me put forward a couple of points.

  1. "Freedom of panorama" is not the best term; it's a translation of a German legal term, but it's the best we have, and what Commons uses, but only for lack of a better term. Because of this, we should not read too much into the word "panorama". The Freedom of Panorama, as Commons understands it, applies to plenty of images that are not panoramas or cityscapes. It applies to any photograph of a copyrighted work in a public place (usually outdoors).
  2. Different countries have different levels of FoP. Indian law, for example, allows pictures of copyrighted buildings and sculptures, but not copyrighted two-dimensional works like maps.
  3. Freedom of panorama is not a fair use defense. It has nothing to do with fair use. Photos taking advantage of FoP laws may simply ignore the copyright of the subject work for purposes of determining the copyright of the photo.
  4. There may be some confusion here with the principle of de minimis, which is also not related to fair use. De minimis is a principle that says (for our purposes) that if a copyrighted work is incidental to the photograph, the photograph does not infringe the copyright. An example is a photo of a boy wearing a Mickey Mouse T-shirt; the photo does not infringe the Disney (or its licensee's) copyright unless the photo is zoomed in on Mickey or otherwise makes Mickey the focus of the image.

Given these points, I can draw the following conclusions about this image in particular:

  1. The uploader was incorrect in applying "freedom of panorama" to this image, as two-dimensional maps are not subject to FoP exceptions in India.
  2. The uploader should have applyed a non-free image template to the image, since the image is a derivative work. MGA73bot took care of this belatedly, but only because all images uploaded locally are presumed to be non-free files (as free files should be uploaded to Commons). And even then, the template did not specify an article in which the image was to be used, as is required by policy.
  3. The image violates our Wikivoyage:Non-free content policy in two ways:
    • The image is not in use on any article.
    • The image could be replaced by another, free image showing substantially the same information.

Thus, the image should be deleted, as I don't see any way to keep it under our policies. As an aside, I think allowing the bot to add the non-free template may be a mistake, as it hides cases such as this one where the image was never justifiable under non-free use in the first place. -- Powers (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: This image was previously discussed at Wikivoyage talk:Image policy#Images under the Exemption Policy, but it looks like no one followed up on the specific case. However, that discussion did prompt me to make a proposal for a change to our EDP, but no one ever commented on it, and the change has not been made. I believe that change is necessary to bring our EDP into compliance with the Foundation resolution. Powers (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I was on an extended wikibreak around that time and missed a lot of stuff. I've added my support to your proposal. Texugo (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result : Deleted. Texugo (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Used once, on the user page of one WT user who stopped editing in 2008 and has never edited here at WV. If we did want to have a user box for country of origin, the way to do it would be to make a single template with a switch, not to create a separate template for every country.

As we don't typically allow users to just create whatever user templates they want, this is at the very most a template that should have been considered experimental, and been long since deleted just like all others of its ilk have been in the past. "Is it doing any harm?" is not a valid criterion for templates, since we've always tried to keep them to a minimum for usability purposes. Templates are supposed to go through an experimental process and gain consensus before being released into the wild. Texugo (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This "experimental" process seems to consist of templating templates with "don't use this because it's experimental" and then, when no one uses them, nominating them for deletion. We've put up with this restrictive approach for content-page templates so that articles will all follow the same general format (Eat, Drink, Sleep, Be Merry...) but there's no need for every user page to look alike. The fate of templates needs to be decided individually on their merits. K7L (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a policy issue better discussed elsewhere. Texugo (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could simply substitute it on the user page, as a courtesy. Texugo (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result : Substituted on the one user's page, and then deleted. Texugo (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/February_2014&oldid=4924704"