Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2019

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← January 2019 Votes for deletion archives for February 2019 (current) March 2019 →

All the pages listed Category:Gallery_pages

There are only three of them. People can find these pictures at Wikimedia Commons if they want; these pages do not seem to match our goals. Two of them were created in 2009-2010 by the same user, and the other one was created in 2016. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Coral Gardens (Rooi-els)/Gallery and Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Pinnacle/Gallery. These are appendices to a star and a guide article. I think that they are a useful addition to the article, and at the time the minimal use of image policy would have deterred putting these in the article. Longer term they could be merged in to the articles, but there is no hurry for that. AlasdairW (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with AlasdairW's assessemnt and recommendation. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I remember now taking part in a discussion about this with Peter Southwood. I agree that these could simply be galleries on Commons, but I can respect that this is how the diving community wants to structure diving guides. I think it's perfectly OK for there to be differences in how articles designed for different audiences are structured. So I'll be neutral in this nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree—the two diving galleries don't seem to be doing any harm, so I'm happy to defer to editors who work on diving articles.
As for the St. Louis/Mississippi gallery, it might be better to redirect it to St. Louis#See, and include the images in listing templates. Alternatively it could possibly be expanded into a travel topic or itinerary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that very few, if any, pages listed at VFD do any harm. But VFD is still used to delete articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The St. Louis gallery should absolutely be deleted. There's no good reason to keep it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a significant fraction of pages that are deleted were doing harm, by misleading or distracting readers without offering much value. In any case, I'm not saying "They do no harm, so let's keep them"; I'm saying "They do no harm, so let's let the people who edit in this area make the judgement call". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I see. That makes sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes sense in terms of St. Louis. Galleries are for Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Granger was referring to the diving galleries, not the St. Louis one, but I may be wrong. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's what I meant. For St. Louis, I think merging or deletion makes sense, unless someone wants to expand it into an itinerary article or something similar. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And when you say "let's let the people who edit in this area make the judgment call", you mean people who know about diving, you don't mean people who live in the St. Louis area. That may be what IK thought you meant. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just clarifying. I think the result of these noms is clear: Delete the St. Louis gallery unless someone wants to put it in their userspace and keep the other two. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We should wait out the 2 weeks though, right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It could be moved to Commons, where galleries are in scope. Is it better than Commons:Category:Bridges over the Mississippi River at St. Louis or what could easily be done using the subcategories? At least these images seem to be well documented and valuable. I added them to that category and its subcategories, they were uncategorised before. --LPfi (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
as well as QFB QFV QJZ QKL QYX RWA XAX XDS XDV YBZ YCM YMY ZFV ZLN ZRP ZYP

Very unlikely search term and there is really no reason to link this specific train station IATA code but not others. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Removing breaks a link where it is used in articles such as Rail air alliances. A number of contributors have added the IATA code for rail stations, this ensures it takes readers to the correct page and section. There is the situation a traveler is given flight ticket with a number of stages, this makes it easier for them to identify/confirm that this section of the trip is by train not plane. As for why to this specific station and not others, basically task of creating them is not complete, but there are a number of stations defined on a few countries. Should these be deleted too? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Intention is ultimately every IATA code. Was initially just intending airports but if come across a rail station that is created too. Have done, with help form others, just over 1300, at current rate I expect will take another year to complete the task.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that every Amtrak station has its own code, that alone would make this a vast task. Do China and India have codes for every railway station? But sure, go to it. Now that I understand what you're doing, I rescind my delete vote and instead vote to keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amtrak stations, like National Rail stations in the UK, have station codes, but these are not IATA codes. When a station does also have an IATA (Penn Station has both), that is an additional, different code to the station code. As far as I know, UK stations don't use IATA at all.
I support this endeavour by Traveler100, so vote to keep.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a lot of these IATA redirects on Wikivoyage, and I think railroad station redirects should be treated in the same way. If we want to delete these, I think what's needed is a policy discussion, rather than a VFD discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on a second. What exactly are these codes above? I was under the impression that IATA codes referred to airports only; do they code train stations as well? Or are these Deutsche Bahn codes? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really good point and I didn't even notice it when I commented previously. TT's comment above says, "Amtrak stations, like National Rail stations in the UK, have station codes, but these are not IATA codes. When a station does also have an IATA (Penn Station has both), that is an additional, different code to the station code. As far as I know, UK stations don't use IATA at all." I think that at least partially answers your question, but doesn't give a clear answer. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, the three letter codes that have redirects are used in the {{IATA}} template, only for IATA codes, mainly airports but as you can see from the list above also rail stations if, and only if, it is the IATA code. There are obviously also TLAs that are for other destinations such as USA and PRC that have priority. The template handles these when airports are specifically required. There are some countries that have a coding system for rail stations that are nothing to do with IATA codes. I know US, UK and India does this, probably others. If someone wants to do a project on that then I suggest creating a template and using an index cross reference page. But really not sure if used as much or as widely as IATA. This is about making helping people booking the correct destination, checking their ticket route and making clear which city page has details on a non large airport. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're curious, Deutsche Bahn does have a system of station codes giving every single station a unique string of letters, but it is a) rather opaque (unlike many IATA codes) b) virtually only used internally and c) unbeknownst to all but railway nerds. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd say creating redirects for all those station codes wouldn't be the best idea, unless someone is actually interested in doing the project. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think redirecting station codes, other than IATA, are worth the effort. I find them useful when buying train tickets online (typing out "FNB" rather than "Farnborough Main" definitely saves a few seconds), but the impression I get from my circle is nobody else really knows about them, unlike IATA.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but if someone wants to make these redirects, I don't think we should necessarily stop his/her efforts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2570 railway stations with codes in England, Scotland and Wales. Some of these are the same as IATA codes of completely different places. (STN is London Stansted Airport and Stonehaven station) I don't think that we should create redirects for these codes. The codes should appear in station listings as they are useful for speeding up online bookings etc, by reducing the typing. However the code are unlikely to be seen without the full name. On the other hand IATA codes often appear in online fare quotes (e.g. Edinburgh to Auckland changing at LHR and PVG) and quickly finding out about the airport is useful in considering the alternatives. I see less value in the rail IATA codes, as I expect that anybody looking for a flight ticket which includes a rail journey will know where they are going. AlasdairW (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

here is a list. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ikan Kekek explained why the template is unnecessary back in 2016, but it was never further discussed, as it seems. I can see how a template like Template:Hoax would be used on Wikipedia, but per Plunge forward if there is something that seems to be untrue, you can simply delete it. Nowadays, there are plenty of sources on the internet to find out if something is true or not. And where is this template actually in use? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this kind of list end? More importantly, though, see here. All of the places listed there are also found in the Natural wonders of India article. Copyvio, or at least something similar to it? Or the text, "Monsoon brings the Sea of Milk or the magnificent Dudhsagar Waterfall from the high peaks of the Western Ghats. Dudhsagar Falls is listed among the top 10 highest water falls in India and one of the most beautiful in the world", which is exactly the same in both articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, compare these two ungrammatical sentences - one from the external link you gave and the other from the Wikivoyage artice:
The Root Bridges of Cherrapunji are also known as Double Decker Living Root Bridge are made from the roots of the Ficus elastica tree, located in the Indian state Meghalaya.
The Root Bridges of Cherrapunji are also known as Double Decker Living Root Bridge was made from the roots of the Ficus elastica tree.
The next attraction alphabetically looks very slightly edited from the source:
The third largest crater which is two kilometer in radius and about 100 meter deep is located near Mehkar in Buldana of Maharashtra. Lonar crater lake is the world’s oldest meteoric crater and the only one formed in basalt rock.
The third largest crater with a two kilometer radius and approximately 100 meter deep. It is perhaps the world’s oldest meteoric crater and one formed in basalt rock.
I think the case for deletion due to copyvio is strong. But the counter-argument is that this is a list of 53 attractions, not 10, so maybe it would be reasonable to demand a thorough edit of the attractions in common to any source and this article, the removal of excessive images, and the keep the article. It would be a lot of work to go to waste, and it seems like a very valid travel topic, as I could easily imagine people building itineraries around visits to some of these attractions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible, though, that the 43 other items on the list are also copyvios, from other, unacknowledged sources; when I did a web search for some of the content, I saw text that was very similar to other text on Wikipedia, although I think that was from the list of 10 (maybe WP has a copyvio as well!). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a couple of copyvios from other, unacknowledged sources in this edit. They're not exact matches, but definitely close, on the descriptions.
You can get a good idea of what I mean here or here. It is, of course, possible that the copyvio is reverse — the WV article was written first, and people have copied from it. That's something I'm not sure about. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If others are copyvios, then the article absolutely must be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that if the article is full of various copyvios, as it seems, a speedy delete would probably be the best solution. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed possible the plagiarism went the other way, but probably not where there's non-standard grammar more typical of Indian English. I seriously doubt Matroc would ever plagiarize. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that as well, and I'm surprised that there would seem to be any plagiarism under the name of a long-term, trusted Wikivoyage user. I'm not sure what the explanation is, but further research may be necessary on my part. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not await Matroc's input? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘(edit conflict — sorry that it goes exactly against what you are advising, I did not intend that) Looking back, I found this earlier and I was surprised by it. The edit on the left was the edit that created the page. Then, text was removed, for a reason. It seems strange that you would write an article including information that is negative about a place, and then hours later remove that content. The only reason I'd ever do that is if I copied something from a source and then found some text I didn't agree with. Sorry to put anyone under any suspicion here, especially a trusted contributor, but we have to look at everything.

Also, the contributors to the article (I get this by looking at article history) are: me (today), you (in November), ShakespeareFan00, Traveler100, T100's bot, DaGizza, Nurg, and Matroc. All trusted contributors. Strange. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article is worth keeping... I will be glad to go ahead and rewrite/reword/simplify each of the descriptions if that would resolve any issues one may have. -- Matroc (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Matroc, I think you should address the issue squarely. Did you copy and paste from one or more sites, sometimes with very slight paraphrasing? Because if you did, that would have violated Wikivoyage:Copyleft and require the article to be deleted. Do you know whether any of the listings are not plagiarized from somewhere? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Squarely, I did read various sources and basically all had virtually the same text. If I remember correctly (from over two years ago) I probably did alter the text I read and not just paste and copy. Not as an excuse, but there are just so many ways one can say "xyz is the largest waterfall in India" is there? I just rewrote all the descriptions on my desktop but that is neither here nor there. I won't argue if you want to go ahead and delete the page for whatever reason. Thanks to all, best wishes for the future -- Matroc (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many ways to write that, and express it more specifically. "xyz is the waterfall with the greatest drop in India", "xyz is the waterfall with the highest volume of water in India" (not the same thing), "It is at xyz waterfall where you can see the most drastic drop in all of India" "If you want to see the most dramatic waterfall in India, go to xyz, where the water plunges x-number of metres, the most extreme distance of any Indian waterfall", etc., etc. When I used to be a writing tutor, I often referred clients to this page at Purdue Online Writing Lab and similar pages, so they could learn the difference between good paraphrasing and plagiarism. I humbly suggest you look at that page. Meanwhile, I think the solution for this problem may be for you to copy this article to your userspace and work on summarizing and paraphrasing without a bunch of exact or poorly paraphrased phrases and sentences you got from some other source (especially one that no-one is free to copy at will, even with credit). Then, we can delete the article and you can recreate a clean article that's truly in your own words and also gives credit to your sources in your first edit summary.
Does this seem like a good solution to all of you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but I think we should check the re-written version to make sure there is still no instance where it is very similar to the original text. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copied page to Sandbox/Natural wonders of India and edited descriptions.. Will be rechecking page again and thanks for Perdue page link ... Should you look at that page - please leave any notes on its talk page for further improvements that should be made -- Unfortunately, I am not a writer. Also on the original talk page I did note where I looked for information etc. Thanks -- Matroc (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another template that has perhaps never been used. It was created in 2014 and it still has the "This new template should be discussed on its talk page to explain its purpose..." text at the top. Therefore, I vote to delete this template. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think this was used by a few contributors a few years ago to mark articles that needed cleaning up. Assume we addressed them all. Can in future use {{Regions discussion}}. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Traveler100 and our 'minimal use of templates' convention.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an experiment by User:ShakespeareFan00, but I do not want to delete without some sort of explanation on his part. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental, can go ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do a speedy delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/February_2019&oldid=4924212"