Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2013

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← December 2012 Votes for deletion archives for January 2013 (current) February 2013 →

Result: Speedily Deleted - per author request; I don't remember why I created this redirect, but it's unused and doesn't seem necessary. –sumone10154(talk) 02:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these templates are only for use on user pages, and given that people can do whatever they want on their user pages, do we think that this policy was supposed to apply to this kind of template? --Inas (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2012 (CEST)
Probably the closest discussion was at Wikivoyage talk:Using Mediawiki templates#User Page Banners, which didn't set any firm policies, but it seems most people were opposed to (a) template "bloat" and (b) userspace templates without a direct relation to travel.
There's also the usual consideration which applies to all templates: if it's not going to be used on a large number of pages and benefit from site-wide standardization, why create it as a template? -- D. Guillaume (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2012 (CEST)
Yes, I recall that discussion against userbox ugliness. However, I don't think anyone is disputing in this case that the userpage content is reasonable, are they? Given it is reasonable, is there any reason not to have a shortcut? I'd personally be in favour of keeping this template, but I appreciate the policy is for consensus for new templates, so..
  • Defer. Give the creator an opportunity to given the motivation for the template on the discussion page of the template concerned. If no consensus emerges, then Delete as per policy. --Inas (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Comment This template can be used when a user is either busy or going away. Peter tried to tell that he's going away for few days by using Template:Disclaimerbox however perhaps he could use this busy template if it was available at that time. --Saqib (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep. I assume it offers the trivial potential advantage over a customised infobox of saving our editors a modicum of time and, more importantly, of us being able to easily compile a list of editors that may not see site notices for a while so that they could be e-mailed instead. --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:24, 16 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep -- Alice✉ 08:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be an outdatd copy of Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians. –sumone10154(talk) 09:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed MediaWiki template. LtPowers (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violates EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is our policy toward users putting photographs of themselves on their user pages? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons allows user page images by tagging the image with {{User page image}}, so such images would fall under the "(almost) everything should be uploaded to Commons" guideline. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ryan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that true for copyrighted images, where the author does not want to release the image under a CC license? --Peter Talk 23:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons only allows freely licensed user photos. That said, unfree user photos are currently not covered by the exemption doctrine policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I gather the use who uploaded this photo is not Douwe Osinga, on whose blog the map was created. But is that a problem? On this page, Douwe seems to be making it easy for people to make their own maps and upload them to their own website/blog. I'm not arguing the point; I'd just like an explanation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually an old World66 map(ping service), which means it should be under a CC license, but it violates our EDP anyway, so delete. --Peter Talk 20:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a travel topic, just a gallery of maps. –sumone10154(talk) 09:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Mark and maybe Jani were using it for something; maybe we can userfy it? LtPowers (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark says it's fine to get rid of it. --Peter Talk 22:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of having country-specific guides never took off, and can probably be done more efficiently than creating a separate page for every country. It's been a "proposed standard" for years, and I think it's time to kill it. --Peter Talk 02:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files using this template automatically violate the EDP. As such, the template serves no purpose. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This template was present on WTS and also exists on other WMF projects (fr.wikipedia, etc.) We need to have a discussion about whether this is an appropriate license for this wiki, regardless of what the EDP says. This, that and the other (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WT Project Pages that should be deleted

Moved discussion from Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub.

There are several WT project pages that have nothing to do with Wikivoyage and are not needed for historical purposes.

We will develop our own history as time passes and these pages are from a fork that really has nothing to do with us and are not needed for any type of history that applies to Wikivoyage. I think these pages and links to them should be deleted. And any other pages that apply to WT only and are not needed to justify policies we are continuing on Wikivoyage. All of these pages will have equivalent Wikivoyage pages now and in the future. If someone wants to know the information covered in those pages, then they should visit WT. What are the thoughts of others? Should we start a discussion page on this? - Tom Holland (Xltel) (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Bear in mind that the history of Wikitravel up to the last data dump IS our history, along with the history of Wikivoyage between the fork and the reconnect, and all that has happened since. We who were Wikitravel have no need to pretend that we were not Wikitravel. Our disagreement was not with the community of contributors or with our past, it was with IB, who in spite of owning the name and the server, are not the people or the content. I do not support suppression or denial of that history. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point and I agree totally that Wikitravel is "MY" history and our history and I am not ever going to pretend it was not my/our history. This is "our" history and I am not suggesting anyone pretend we did not come from Wikitravel or that there is any disagreement with the Wikitravel community in the past. I have been a big part of that Wikitravel past very active as an Administrator/contributor and will be a part of the future of WV. I have tried my best to help WV with edits and cleanup where I could and will continue. But as time goes on some of these older pages may get a bit more muddy and confusing to new Wikivoyagers. We have changed "Wikitravel" to "Wikivoyage" just about everywhere on the site including talk pages when were talking specifically about Wiki""travel"". To be honest I don't really like that very much and it causes additional confusion in my opinion, but I figured there were legal issues (I apologize I have not read all the comments and discussions in that area). I never thought it was a purge of "our" history. When I was on Wikitravel in my past life and put comments on a talk pages and mentioned Wikitravel it was about Wikitravel, but now all my references and everyone's references to Wikitravel have been changed to Wikivoyage. If you go to User talk:Xltel/Mar 2006 you can see where I was welcomed to "Wikivoyage" in December 2005, but we know that is not the case. I am now on Wikivoyage and as we go forward I expect we will get farther apart from the content, policies, goals and overall objectives of Wikitravel. New people will have new ideas and as time goes on we will move farther apart from where WT and WV are now. Please don't think I have any difference in agreement whatsoever in your comments, just looking for some better organization on the old Wikitravel content going forward, maybe deleting is not the solution and possibly the way it is now is the best way to keep it. My comment on not needing it for historical purposes really applies to they are not needed to explain development of policy. Obviously, there is no rush or need to delete anything and we can discuss organization of our history going forward. Happy New Year! - Tom Holland (Xltel) (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom, next time when you nominate something for deletion, please do so at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. @Peter, I agree with you but then at-least we should have some information on this site about our (WV) background so that people who will join this community sooner may learn about our history. Happy new year everybody! --Saqib (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Peter. These historical pages should be kept, albeit perhaps in an archive section or tagged as historical.
I also agree with Tom, and perhaps go farther than he would. To me it seems obvious that, except where there are compelling legal reasons not to, the WT->WV substitutions on talk pages should all be undone. Pashley (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, though I fear it may be too late for the latter. LtPowers (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WT→WV substititions are particularly annoying on pages such as User:(WT-en) IBobi, where it says that Internet Brands owns Wikivoyage. It would be nice to have those undone, but maybe there are legal reasons not to. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should try and undo substitutions that don't make sense by hand. Most substitutions were OK, though, since most mentions are just referring to our project, and it is the same project, albeit with less-douchey hosts and a different name. --Peter Talk 23:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept. --Peter Talk 22:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, there is Template:Delete, which puts it in the speedy deletion category. –sumone10154(talk) 03:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the template is meant to be used like w:Template:Commons category then it is usefull because bots can maintain these like interwiki links. So unless the sidebar links works well on all languages of wikivoyage I think you should concider to keep it. --MGA73 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as I know (au moins que je sache...) the only issue with sidebar links in other-language Wikivoyage is that [[wikipedia: still points to [[wikipedia:en: unless you explicitly tell it you want to stay in the same language. There are no language-specific issues with commons: in sidebar. K7L (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Created from an IP address. Seems experiment. --Saqib (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File exists on Commons: Commons:File:Statue SaigoTakamori.JPG. The rule is that you can't upload photos of recent Japanese statues to Commons because the photos violate the copyright of the sculptors. However, in this case, we are talking about a statue from 1898 by a man who died in 1934. This particular statue is in the public domain because of age, so it is possible to upload photos of this particular statue to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article appears to be a copyright violation from a commercial tour offered here. If it were new, I'd speedy delete. It has been around for a year or so, so I'm listing it here. Pashley (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was created by User:(WT-en) Raceclub, so it might not be a copy vio, but I'd still delete it because it is touting. Pashley (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously to promote a particular tour. the information is interesting, but i dont think it can be here. If someone wants to research and source each historic site, that would be cool, but this has to go. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Pashley (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deleted, Rschen was right above & there were lots of other problems — wrong capitalisation on the title so it was not even worth keeping as a redirect, many red links from WP templates we don't have or links we don't use, ... Pashley (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before this template gets used in many articles (it is already used at Brahmanbaria District), I place it here for deletion. I think discussion should take place first on whether we need a template like this one. --Globe-trotter (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for use in large cities which are divided into districts. {{Routebox}}es are based on individual highways or rail lines, which don't make sense as a method to place districts next to adjacent districts of the same town as there are normally many local roads joining them and it doesn't matter which one the traveller follows. K7L (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policy. If anyone wants to keep this template, please, start a discussion on its talk page. We may find a compromise solution, but we can't start using this template right away. Even the Routebox template is kind of overused. This one will be a disaster. --Atsirlin (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It is against policy to create templates without discussion first. In any case, we emphatically do not need this one. Where city districts are concerned, a map will always be much better than anything you could do with the template. Pashley (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with tag) "Before a new Mediawiki Template is put into general use it needs to be discussed". "In general a template should be discussed prior to being created or modified." (emphasis added) I don't see that there is an absolute discuss-and-agree-before-creating policy, per Wikivoyage:Using Mediawiki templates. There is, however, a clear don't-use-until-discussed-and-approved policy. Don't confuse deletion with being put into general use. The template shouldn't be deleted until there is a discussion and clear opposition to its use. On the other hand, the template must not go into general use and should probably be tagged or somehow noted as such (according to linked policy, the uploader should explain any experimentation use on its talk page). I have started the discussion with a proposed change worth reading at Template talk:Geographic Location. AHeneen (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We seem to have this issue come up all the time now, where we have templates created and the the discussions as to the merits of them taking place on vfd. Clearly this isn't the way it is supposed to work. --Inas (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as experimental. I think our solution emerging to new templates is to add an experimental tag, and delete the template later if it fails to gain consensus for its use. --Peter Talk 20:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept, for now. --Peter Talk 20:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


A river. Jjtk (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reason for deletion? There are other river pages too, for example Danube. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Project:Bodies of water. Articles about a lake, river, or sea are useful when they are about the region surrounding the body of water, such as Lake Tahoe, or about traveling on a river, such as Along the Yangtze River, but since travelers don't actually visit the water of the Missouri River the guideline is to avoid articles about bodies of water. In the case of Warta I'd suggest redirecting to whatever is the country/region that contains this river. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wielkopolskie Pashley (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Ravikiran (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Should be a quick delete, the main page has already been deleted. - Tom Holland (Xltel) (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Talk pages, we generally don't delete discussions, even for articles that have been deleted. Is there a particular reason to do so in this case? --PeterTalk 23:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am kind of puzzled. I don't see a deletion log for Ram Island. Did it ever exist? The comment on the talk page doesn't add much value, so I don't see the point of keeping the page. Also, WP tells me that there are quite a few Ram Islands, though I am not sure if any of them will merit a Wikivoyage article. — Ravikiran (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted on Wikitravel in 2006. Logs and deleted pages were never copied from Wikitravel, so Wikivoyage shows no evidence that the page ever existed. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. This couldn't possibly ever have any relevance, so I've deleted it. --PeterTalk 21:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I am archiving this discussion. — Ravikiran (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC

This is essentially a body of water, but in either case, it seems to be too small a place for an article.--Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: merged and redirected to Hamilton (Ontario)#See. --PeterTalk 03:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Result: Kept. Template is in use on user pages, so my original justification for listing it for deletion was invalid. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our project is the only search result for this place name. I cannot find it on any mapping service, nor can I find any of the establishments listed in the article on any search engine. Ditto "Rodan," Serbia. While the article seems earnestly written by an anon, my best guess is that it's a hoax. --Peter Talk 22:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye. I confirmed that there's nothing on the web about any of this (except Arlandia Hotel, which is in Stockholm). Delete. LtPowers (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It says that this place is in Rodan, and Rodan is a fictional flying monster. There are a few existing place names in the article, but they seem to be unreasonably far away from each other: Zagreb (Croatia), Belgrade (Serbia), Rodan (France) and Arlandia Hotel (Sweden). Seems to be made up. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had looked at it, wondered what was going on, but left it. Glad to see Peter checking more thoroughly. Pashley (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I googled it Rodan & Tamphel are not real places.

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete South America or North America is not a valid definition of continent. There are only five continents in the world. Africa, America, Asia, Europe and Oceania. Some may consider Antartica another continent. However its mainly in the United States that this separation exists because of the co-mingling of the word America (referring to the United States itself) and the American continent. The United Nations, the Olympic Committee and other international organizations only recognize five continents.

The first page of Wikivoyage should reflect this definition.

I think they are useful travel regions. It's not relevant to travel whether they count as separate continents. --Peter Talk 05:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikivoyage uses the common definition of regions, even if the official one differs. Plus, North and South America are extremely different both geographically and culturally. Hawaiian Eskimo (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep Please pardon me for saying so, but the reasoning behind the argument to delete seems absurd to me. In no sense - neither geographic, political, historical, traditional, nor cultural - is there a single continent of "America." If anything, one could make a strong argument for a third continent of Central America, based on tectonic plates. But Central America is grouped more with North than South America. Nor, by the way, do I know of any geographer who questions Antarctica as a continent. You could make a much stronger argument for Eurasia being a continent, but we're not going to delete Europe, either. Tourists visit Europe, South America, Australia, etc. - all continents. And we would serve the traveler in what way be eliminating the articles about these continents?? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do you also plan to delete Southern Africa and Northern Africa? In many cases, it is useful to have an article about a group of countries even if the group of countries might not officially count as a "continent". --Stefan2 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. They are logical groupings that travelers will recognize. Globe-trotter (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not the travellers' concern whether they constitute actual continents or not. They are useful and often used distinctions. Texugo (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If Northern and Southern California have articles, so to should North and South America. Regardless of whether they are continents are not, they are well-known geographic distinctions. This isn't the proper place to discuss the merits of this being designated Purplebackpack89 04:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "keep" while some country's schools teach a world model where there is only one American continent, most of the world sees N and S America as very different. Frankly, Central America is not seen as being in North America by most Canadians. JadeDragon (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy keep. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: speedy deleted. --Peter Talk 23:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now available on Commons as File:Severn Beach railway station MMB 02C.jpg and File:Aberdeen large station sign.JPG respectively - the keeplocal templates are irrelevant, the logo is PD-ineligible. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: speedy deleted. --Peter Talk 23:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a note on this cathedral in the Wells article. Is this detailed info needed, and if so, how much of it? INeverCry 21:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as a copyvio. If we want the redirect, we can redirect it without the copyvio in the history. Not a big deal, though. --Peter Talk 05:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a chain of holiday parks in the U.K. per w:Butlins. I'm not sure if this would be appropriate to leave and turn into a travel topic, redirect to one of their resort's listing (except there's a few, so then it would need to be left as a travel topic?), or just delete. AHeneen (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Outcome: speedy deleted Resort belong to a region or city. With exception like major parks (e.g. Walt Disney World), they don't justify an article. jan (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lake; current article suggests walking around it but does not mention anywhere to stay. Delete? Merge (where?) & redirect?Pashley (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost empty now so seems not so useful anymore. --Saqib (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While I'd prefer to keep this, our special:statistics are messed up post-migration, and I'm not sure how to go about fixing them. Numberofuploads is ~14x our actual number of files. Numberofpages and numberofusers are similarly out of wack, largely because of the prefixed accounts and resulting duplicated userpages. --Peter Talk 18:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, to sort out this issue, someone that has access to the server such as WMF employees would have to run a maintenance script Manual:InitStats.php. I've created a bug report about this issue on bugzilla . --Saqib (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also note related discussions at Wikivoyage talk:Requested articles and User talk:Yvwv. I was hoping to achieve a consensus on policy elsewhere, before posting to Vfd, and I'm sorry for the fact that the discussion is now in three different places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question for all: I don't know where the discussion is archived, but I seem to recall there used to be a setup for requesting the creation of articles early in the existence of Wikitravel, and that it was deprecated several years ago, for much the same reason I argue for deleting this article. Can anyone please confirm or refute this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the discussion to remove that was here: Wikivoyage talk:Requests for articles. –sumone10154(talk) 14:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; sorry for the oversight. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why propose a topic or itinerary? Just start it and leave more work for later and for other people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Half-baked itineraries which are started but never finished tend to end up on this page. K7L (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful as an idea list for editors looking for something to do. While destination pages for towns/parks/cities/etc should probably be left as a red link, keeping this page for travel topics & itineraries would be useful. The advantage of having a requested articles list would be that someone knowledgeable can come along and get the page off to a great start rather than someone creating a page & adding a couple sentences. Having someone interested in creating the particular page will likely also mean that the page is set up properly...a descent template to guide further edits/contributions. This is especially true/beneficial for itineraries, due to the deletion policy for itinerary pages. —The preceding comment was added by AHeneen (talk • contribs)
  • Presumably someone who took the time to add a request to this page, though, would have enough interest to do the initial stub-work him- or herself, wouldn't he or she? LtPowers (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the hard question: does a page like this draw in potential contributors too afraid to make an actual article edit? Or does it turn away potential contributors from making such edits? --Peter Talk 08:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a to-do list per K7L and AHeneen, although Peter's question is a tough one to answer. Make sure the link to pf is suitably prominent! -- Alice✉ 00:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep but curate Curated to-do lists are useful. See RationalWiki.org for instance. But if it just keeps growing and growing, perhaps not. If it reaches the point of being overwhelming, then perhaps it may be sensible to kill it. As for why it's a good idea? Sometimes, you don't have time to build out a stub, and just want to mark something as needing to be done eventually. I maintain a personal todo list on Wikipedia precisely because there's an enormous amount of work that needs doing... —Tom Morris (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When I originally wrote the Quick Contribution Guide, I think I was trying to encapsulate that if you are only here to find travel information, perhaps you can make a quick edit while you are here. Everyone who visits can add at least one piece of travel info while they are here. However, if you are just here for 5 minutes to get some travel info I'm not sure I want you to create a new article. You shouldn't have to learn how to use the templates, to find the region, etc. Heavens forbid if the place sounds like it may be named after a body of water, or if you can can't sleep there. In the ideal set of circumstances, best that the casual visitor adds their travel info to the nearest article, and then puts in a request in this form. --Inas (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - having read the comments it is clear this is an excellent sign of the transition that wikivoyage is making from the old wikitravel mode - I can see the arguments for delete are valid, but I would support Tom Morris's suggestion, and also note the quandary created by Peter's question - as to whether it encourages or detracts... if there is an option - the redirect option raised by Ryan and Pashley looks like a good option as well. Many editors on wp en have 'to do' lists in their personal spaces, simply to keep track of the diversity of the topics they need to remember. Globe Trotters comment about other requests pages is a valid widening of this topic, and needs to be considered carefully sats (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong opinions about the 'requested articles' page. I don't see it as being super useful but I don't see it as being harmful either, but in response to some of the 'Request' articles, I'd like to say that the Request for maps is VERY useful. Many users, including myself, cannot make maps, and although people can learn, it's definitely not something you can just 'plunge forward' and do (barring a Paint program map). If a user is able to get content up to guide or star status but cannot make a map, then it's great to have a place for that user to find someone who will collaborate with them to actually make the map. Also, things like the Angola request on the page also come up where there is discussion to change a map but no map-maker to actually do it once the decision is reached. Phrasebook requests are a little weaker, but if you want a phrasebook, you probably don't know the language. Images may be a bit of a shot in the dark, but if someone sees an image request for a place they have pictures of but never uploaded them, I suppose it could be good for that (or someone wh wants to trolling Flickr for license-compatable content). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5. No need for both. It is additionally a scary template: "cc-by-sa" with no version number means 1.0 on Commons but 2.5 on Wikivoyage. If a file is moved between the projects, this is an ideal source for errors in the transfer. It's in use on five file information pages which should ideally be deleted: File:Bald Mountain.JPG, File:Grenoble - Vercors.jpg, File:Mont Aiguille.jpg, File:Pont-en-Royans.jpg and File:USA Beverly Hills Sunset boulevard.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think WT ever used 2.5; we leapt from 1.0 to 3.0. Did old German/Italian WV use that? Is it an option for image upload? Pashley (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, Template:Cc-by-sa has always meant version 2.5, even on the Internet Brands servers: http://wikitravel.org/en/Template:Cc-by-sa. There is also Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5 for that version of cc-by-sa. Commons accepts all CC version numbers. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: Do we keep search statistics?
As a general rule, I think it's a good idea to provide easily memorable shortcuts to most of our policies and policy sections.
The most common use for shortcuts is probably in edit summaries to explain succinctly why an edit was made. (Lots of newbies may not understand the "funny" HTML entity of " ").
The utility in a shortcut is at least three-fold. It's short, easily memorable and precise. If it's not precise, you either end up having to do more typing or it's difficult for the newbie to discover exactly what policy you are pointing him towards.
What sort of general reader is likely to go searching for "orphan" when they come to a travel guide - a paedophile sex tourist? If this was Wikipedia, where the shortcuts need to be ultra-cryptic and unlikely general searches I'd agree, but here we just need to avoid likely searches for travel destinations and topics (or probable mis-spellings of same). -- Alice✉ 00:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It's a snappy shortcut to one of our most important policies (spacing in measurement abbreviations), and I expect it will see heavy and meaningful use. --Peter Talk 00:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can take your tongue out of your cheek now, Peter. One of our most important policies, indeed? Bah! Humbug!
What would you suggest as a suitable shortcut for that other twin pillar of our guide, the en dash? -- Alice✉ 00:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and Redirect. Sure, it doesn't merit its own article. But, unlike some businesses it is a likely search term, so we should help the traveller out here with a redirect. --Inas (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the article, there's no place to sleep. Should probably be a redirect to Lahore, but I'm placing this here for someone to (when there's free time) copy any useful info to that page. AHeneen (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No articles for companies per Wiaa. This also contains a negative comment about the company. INeverCry 21:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd nom this, just because of the speedies on the other airline articles. We need to be vaguely consistent. --Inas (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to agree with this, but they tend to be largely neglected article - perhaps because they stray from our core coverage? --Inas (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Saddleworth Square is a small square" is obviously about somewhere too small to justify an article. I think that it referring to somewhere is England, probably East London. AlasdairW (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to London/East per Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting. --Peter Talk 05:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No articles about companies, please. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Why are we deleting an article about a cruise line and some articles about airlines and keeping other articles about airlines? Where should we be discussing the reasoning behind these decisions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also more articles:

Per other airline article nominations above, we don't create articles on companies. –sumone10154(talk) 00:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had searched the talk pages of those articles to find a discussion about meeting wiaa & even looked at the history of those pages for any edit summary about vfd...seemed odd that they've been around so long without being deleted. If that is the policy, the Delta Air Lines & Lufthansa should be undeleted (their nomination is above). There should be a clear policy on wiaa on how airline articles should be written. I also wish there were an easy way of incorporating up-to-date airline/destination info onto WV pages. Wikipedia has info for both airlines (w:Emirates destinations) and airports (especially useful for small airports, like w:Seychelles_International_Airport#Airlines_and_destinations). Currently, I have to sum up this info in the "get in" by plane section (see Orlando#Orlando International Airport), but take a long time and having a table might be better for travelers to know precisely which airlines fly where (but it might make our article look messy). Having airline pages could help fix this, as major airlines could be linked in the article's "Get in#By plane" section and a traveller can click on the airline to see further destinations (especially helpful for one-hub airlines). For example, I want to get from Victoria (Seychelles)#By air to Johannesburg. I could click on the Kenya Airways page and see that they also fly to Johannesburg. AHeneen (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we need to add a clear statement about airlines in wiaa, and explain which types of airlines should get a page, and which shouldn't. Information about frequent flyer programs and how to best exploit/abuse them, along with other information about their idiosyncrasies is a major topic, and one that we shouldn't rope off. If we do, we'll be ceding readers/contributors to some other site that I hear is owned by a bunch of d-bags. --Peter Talk 03:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of the deletions above, I think it would have been better to not speedy them, so people could debate them a bit. But there wasn't any useful and relevant information there. --Peter Talk 04:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We kind of do have one, but it's more general than just frequent flyer info. There really is a lot to say about individual programs, as evidenced by the size and popularity of sites devoted to the topic. I see benefit in these pages, but not harm. --Peter Talk 19:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very useful. Lotta content. Can be sourced Purplebackpack89 03:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all four per Peter's argument in the section above and since they have all vaulted over the retention hurdle set at {{usable topic}}) status or above. (In the case of SIA, I obviously have to declare a pecuniary interest). -- Alice✉ 07:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Globe Trotters and Peters comments suggest that something clearer at wiaa needs to be a priority to clarify issues otherwise the current votes for deletion look very contra-logic sats (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Largely duplicates the article Niceville about the same place. There might be something which can be merged, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is a river, which does not meet the guidelines for an article. Hawaiian Eskimo (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is to merge and redirect real places; even if they don't merit an article someone might search for the name & redirects are cheap. Also, the extra links tend to improve search engine rankings. Pashley (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Loire Valley, as per the merge tag at the top of the article. Reason: We do not have articles for individual chateaux, to my knowledge, and Villandry, though beautiful, is not so massive or of such extreme importance that it should be necessary to give it its own article. Also a comment: Right now, an editor is disregarding the merge tag and putting lots of content up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as, once the copyvio text is removed, the article consists of two lines of text (from 2009) and an empty outline. It looks like Villandry.  is an actual village (pop. 1000) and w:Château de Villandry a valid encyclopaedic topic. I am hesitant to keep all this copypasta in the article's history, due to copyright issues. If this topic were created here it should be done with original text and at Villandry, not Château de Villandry. K7L (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe I Googled some text from the copyvio, but oddly enough, the web search didn't direct me to the chateau's website, or perhaps that result was not high enough for me to see it at a glance. Based on your points, I would agree with you that the article should be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per K7L --Inas (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four experimental templates used to turn listings into tables, a proposition which has failed to gain any traction.

  • Delete (all) - It would be quite an uphill battle to get consensus to change all our articles over to this format, and the test article in which these were used may be too prominent a destination, especially for summer in Brazil.Texugo (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pullman Auckland (four images)

These were posted by a single-purpose account as an advertisement for an individual business in Auckland, violating Wikivoyage:Image policy#Photos of businesses. I've left a note on the user's talk page asking that this stop. K7L (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Arguably a speedy. Pashley (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for a speedy delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied Pashley (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence, belongs in talkspace rather than mainspace Purplebackpack89 18:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/January_2013&oldid=4920710"