Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2013

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Sister project[edit]

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)


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. It would be churlish to remove something harmless that one of us is using on our userpage. Social networking is good and appropriate user space activity. --Rogerhc (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Harmless, and useful for user pages. sumone10154(talk) 03:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Alice 08:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm opposed to templatespace bloat, but more generally templates need community approval. --Peter Talk 10:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: Deleted. Only one user is using the template currently, and it's easily replaceable with standard wiki markup. LtPowers (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Welcome, Memory Alphans[edit]

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

  • Delete per nominator. Doesn't need a special welcome page for every other website users. --Saqib (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: Deleted. LtPowers (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Commons category[edit]

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

  • Delete - We need to discuss how we are going to link to sister projects first at the respective policy that is still being finalise. JamesA >talk 04:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep so we can discuss it. This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. From a related comment about Template:Commons the creator stated: "To put it bluntly, this template is a n00b mistake which I created and then abandoned as we already have mw:Extension:RelatedSites to put the link in the sidebar. Take it out and shoot it. Wikipedia uses these because they reserve the sidebar for other Wikipedia languages, not siblings.". -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 20:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Question: What is our policy toward users putting photographs of themselves on their user pages? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
Thanks, Ryan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't delete; transfer to Commons. This is my fault; I shouldn't have copied this here. It is not the user's fault. Please transfer it to Commons (from WTS if possible). Sorry! This, that and the other (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The "Copyrighted" template is incompatible with Commons. User photos on Commons need to be available under a free licence; this one is not. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The uploader signed at Wikivoyage:License upgrade, which means that he agreed to make all of his present contributions to Wikitravel available under CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, it says that the photo was taken by Natalya Kovaleva, so I suppose that the uploader isn't the copyright holder and that he wasn't allowed to make it available under CC-BY-SA 3.0. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - Incompatible license. Tiptoety talk 23:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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


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

  • Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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

File:WhereIveBeenMap Pinkfluffybrick.png[edit]

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

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[1], 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)
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)
  • Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Incompatible license which results in the file violating EDP. Tiptoety talk 23:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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


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

  • Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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)
Mark says it's fine to get rid of it. --Peter Talk 22:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikivoyage:Manual of style for the US[edit]

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)

  • Delete with the caveat that Wikivoyage:Manual_of_style_for_the_US#Roads may still be pertinent and should be incorporated at Abbrev. (probably in the addresses section re-named to something like "geographical") -- Alice 07:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Aside from the I- convention for Interstates, the advice under #Roads has never been widely adopted. LtPowers (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have no strong opinions about deleting or retaining this page, but it is brief, and as Alice says, any pertinent information in it can and should simply be merged into mos or other relevant pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Never liked it. --Inas (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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)
  • Delete. This vfd did spark a discussion here, but the consensus is that non-free userpage images will not be accepted under the EDP, making this template obselete. --Peter Talk 20:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

WT Project Pages that should be deleted[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
I concur, though I fear it may be too late for the latter. LtPowers (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Keep per Peter S. --Peter Talk 23:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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


  • Delete. Per the template's creator: "To put it bluntly, this template is a n00b mistake which I created and then abandoned as we already have mw:Extension:RelatedSites to put the link in the sidebar. Take it out and shoot it. Wikipedia uses these because they reserve the sidebar for other Wikipedia languages, not siblings." -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    If the template is unused and the author is in full agreement with the deletion, why nominate it at all and not just nuke it? :) Snowolf How can I help? 01:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Commons category[edit]

Yes, there is Template:Delete, which puts it in the speedy deletion category. sumone10154(talk) 03:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)


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

  • Speedy deleted. A functional version was already deleted once back in December; this is absolutely not the sort of thing that needs a discussion. LtPowers (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Statue SaigoTakamori.JPG[edit]

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)

Shanghai Tour[edit]

The whole article appears to be a copyright violation from a commercial tour offered here. [2] 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)

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)
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)
  • Delete The copyvio makes this a no-brainer. Someone could redesign this as some kind of itinerary, but this article definitely should be deleted ASAP. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pashley and Ikan Kekek. INeverCry 18:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Nyc airporter[edit]

  • Delete. We don't give transportation providers their own pages. And the content looks to be a copy-paste job from WP. --Peter Talk 05:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet Wikivoyage:What is an article?. AHeneen (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That does violate the licensing agreement (no attribution) and is technically a copyvio, IMHO. --Rschen7754 05:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • So in other words, this qualifies for speedy deletion. --Rschen7754 18:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. No articles for companies per Wiaa. INeverCry 18:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)

Template:Geographic Location[edit]

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)

  • 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)
    • I'm not following. You want to use this to navigate among districts within a city? LtPowers (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The {{routebox}} assumes things are arranged linearly, such as towns along one rail line or one highway. That model doesn't always fit a subject - it's fine for most city/town-level articles, but what about a region surrounded on all sides by other regions? or a district surrounded on all sides by other districts? K7L (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
      • That's because the routebox shows you how to get to the destination, along routes that are linear. LtPowers (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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


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

Is that a reason for deletion? There are other river pages too, for example Danube. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
  • Redirect to Poland then, I guess. Jjtk (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Wielkopolskie Pashley (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. — Ravikiran (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ram Island[edit]

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

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)
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)
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)
Good point. This couldn't possibly ever have any relevance, so I've deleted it. --PeterTalk 21:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
And I am archiving this discussion. — Ravikiran (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC

Vikram chuahan[edit]

  • Delete. Someone's name? Google results show a bunch of people by this name. In Google maps, there's a Vikram, India, but no Vikram chuahan or Vikram Chauhan. Moreover, the article has no content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedily deleted by jan. LtPowers (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Archiving this discussion. — Ravikiran (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Maithili phrasebook[edit]

  • Delete. Looks like an stalled idea from Wikitravel.--Traveler100 (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Why not just delete the rubbish (not quite all of it), apply the phrasebook template, & hope for the best? It is a real language, though not an important one, & given the template, there is hope someone might fill it in. Pashley (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Archiving this discussion now. — Ravikiran (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


  • Delete. Not a location under Wikivoyage definition. Information already in Gabrovo.--Traveler100(talk) 10:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Persian Gulf[edit]

  • Delete, Policy is not to do articles on bodies of water. There are exceptions, but this is not one.Pashley (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep & redirect -- While it is a body of water, the name "Persian Gulf" is also often associated with the bordering countries. Either redirect to Middle East or edit the page to read "'Persian Gulf' is a term often used to refer to the following countries: [in bulleted list] Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar,Kuwait, Iraq, & Iran". AHeneen (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Pashley (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Archiving this. — Ravikiran (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Albion falls[edit]

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)

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

  • Archiving this. — Ravikiran (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


  • Delete. Only used by Template:Commons. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looks to be in use on a user page to link to that user on other WMF wikis, which is valid. Maybe this could be coded to only display outside namespace #0? {{#ifeq:{{{ns}}}|0 |misplaced |created }} in Wikipedia returns "misplaced" if used in mainspace, for instance. K7L (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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)


  • Delete. I replaced this with a free alternative from Commons. --Globe-trotter (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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


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)

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)
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)
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)
delete. I googled it Rodan & Tamphel are not real places.

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

File:Debno Church.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Per the Project:Image policy and Special:Upload pages, all images should be uploaded to Commons and locally uploaded files are subject to speedy deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poland has FOP. --Peter Talk 23:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Additionally, it is unlicensed.[3] --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

File:1251889-Travel Picture-Eger.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Per the Project:Image policy and Special:Upload pages, all images should be uploaded to Commons and locally uploaded files are subject to speedy deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete The image is additionally unlicensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ryan and Stefan2. INeverCry 18:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete; searching for "Eger" on Commons turns up several which might be used instead. Pashley (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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

South America / North America[edit]

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Keep, obviously. They are logical groupings that travelers will recognize. Globe-trotter (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • "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)

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


  • Delete Does not have an article page. No talk content. Actual location at Fort Wadelai. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's OK for a talk page to be without an article page, but the lack of any talk content makes this a speedy deletion candidate. --Peter Talk 23:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Traveler100, and duplicates the content at Fort Wadelai. INeverCry 18:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Copy of Severn Beach railway station MMB 02.jpg and File:Aberdeen large station sign.JPG[edit]

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)

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

Wells Cathedral[edit]

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)

  • Speedy delete as copyvio of [4]. K7L (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wells AHeneen (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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)


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)


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)

Template:About Wikivoyage[edit]

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

  • 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)
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 [5]. --Saqib (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Deleted. AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Requested articles[edit]

  • Delete. Comment: There is no need for any user to spend any time on this kind of list. If an article does not exist and should, plunge forward and create it yourself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
  • Keep. Useful as a to-do list, if the requester does not have the information needed. /Yvwv (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
Yes, the discussion to remove that was here: Wikivoyage talk:Requests for articles. sumone10154(talk) 14:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Already commented here. --Saqib (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: This page did not have a VfD notice on it. I have added it. LtPowers (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; sorry for the oversight. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Compromise? On WT, it was originally created by one of the founders & it has cropped up again here. Clearly, some people see value in it. On WT, it is now just a redirect to "plunge forward". I suggest reducing it to a one-liner that suggests creating a stub article and asking for help with a link to the stub at Wikivoyage:Requests for comment. Pashley (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect. As others have noted, the consensus was that if someone wants an article that it should be created, so the similar Wikivoyage:Requests for articles page was redirected to Wikivoyage:Plunge forward. If the consensus is to redirect this new article to somewhere other than plunge forward then I would suggest that the legacy "requests for articles" page redirect be changed to point to the new target. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as a to-do list. Missing individual villages will normally be redlinked at the region page, but proposals for travel topics and itinerary pages don't fit elsewhere. K7L (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
Half-baked itineraries which are started but never finished tend to end up on this page. K7L (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 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 (talkcontribs)
  • 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)
    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)
  • 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 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • Result: kept. AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


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)

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)
For some reason, Template:Cc-by-sa has always meant version 2.5, even on the Internet Brands servers: 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)
  • Delete - Confusing, irrelevant and no longer potential for use. JamesA >talk 14:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Deleted. AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


  • Delete. Although I'm a great fan of those who wish to make sure our dashes are dotted, and dots dashed, this just isn't what a travel guide use would expect this search term to return. --Inas (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Er, I was just about to come here to create this discussion section myself. LtPowers (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
  • Delete Pashley (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete sumone10154(talk) 23:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Globe-trotter (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - I oppose worded redirects from the mainspace to the project space. Only abbreviations and acronyms I would find acceptable. JamesA >talk 14:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Deleted. AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Highway 64[edit]

  • Delete. We don't write guides to highways. --Peter Talk 00:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - We have Wikipedia for this. Dough4872 00:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. We do write guides to fictional highways like Route 66 if there's something uniquely suiting them for use as the basis of itinerary. Not sure what's notable about Route 64 that isn't already covered in w:U.S. Route 64, though. K7L (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think Route 66 is fictional.. merely history and no longer existent. Snowolf How can I help? 00:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    There's nothing stopping a well-known but fictional route through what were historically real places from being the basis for itinerary; for instance, one could take every place mentioned in w:Around the World in Eighty Days (which is pure itinerary) and briefly describe each stop with instruction of how to get from one to the next, then and now. For that matter, the fictional Radiator Springs of w:Cars (film) is based on a list of real towns which appear in the cartoon's closing credits, east to west, as a valid itinerary. It still works even if Route 66 isn't a real US highway and the talking motorcars are a figment of Disney's imagination. K7L (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    Route 66 is a very real highway. There's a big difference between historical and fictional. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete this isn't w:U.S. Route 50 in Nevada or Route 66. --Rschen7754 00:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, for now. Comment: First of all, Route 66 is very much alive, or at least was a few years ago, but not for its entire original length. Be that as it may, this stub is boring. If it were interesting, I'd be much more inclined to leave it. How would you all feel about writing the creator of this article, giving her links to some more interesting articles about US and Canadian highways, and giving her a chance to fill this out before we delete it? She just started the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    It looks like the original author did look at U.S. Highway 1 (a valid itinerary which starts 20 miles WSW of Edmundston NB and follows the Atlantic coast right down to Key West FL) before creating this. Trans-Canada Highway is woefully incomplete and could use some attention, Alaska Highway is too brief but usable, the level of detail in the small but dense Windsor-Quebec corridor might be a bit much if used as a model for a cross-country trip. Route 66 might be a good example, but "get your kicks on Route 64"? Not the same ring to it... K7L (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet Wikivoyage:What is an article?. AHeneen (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. At the moment it is just about a highway, and barely that. If someone, one day, wants to make this an itinerary article, then fantastic, but we can't create an article about every highway and keep our fingers crossed that one day it may be a useful route. This is what routeboxes are for. --Inas (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't believe anyone ever really says "I think I'll plan a trip on Highway 64". If it's not a worthwhile itinerary, it shouldn't have an article here. Texugo (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's a two-line stub which the author edited once on Jan 15 and never looked at again. K7L (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I used to live near a section of U.S. Hwy 64. It runs through some spectacular desert and mountain scenery in New Mexico. Then again, so does just about every highway in New Mexico. With nothing to make me believe this route is any more worthy of an itinerary than any other and no sign that any more work is going to be done on this article, I say delete it. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since the creator of this article has had ample time to put some meat on the bones and thereby make an argument for this as an itinerary, but has not done so, I am now thoroughly convinced that the article should be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Deleted. AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thorpe park[edit]

  • Merge with Chertsey and delete. This is an article about a theme park, and the article itself makes clear that the theme park is not so massive that, like Walt Disney World, it would merit its own article by the standards of what is an article?. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    Merge and delete is likely not an option, as if you keep the text you must keep the revision history for attribution purposes (the BY in CC-BY-SA). K7L (talk) 06:57, 17 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)

Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park[edit]

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)

  • Merge and redirect - JamesA >talk 14:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Redirected to Lahore. Content was placed at Talk:Lahore, since I was too lazy to incorporate into article. AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Lufthansa destinations[edit]

  • Delete. Not an article, under what is an article? guidelines. I thought it wasn't quite enough of a slam dunk to be deleted without any discussion, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom, company-related article. INeverCry 21:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Result:Deleted. AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


  • Delete. Not an article — Ravikiran (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. No articles for companies per Wiaa. INeverCry 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted out of scope. --Rschen7754 21:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think it would've been worth discussing this more extensively, considering there's a full debate about airline articles being acceptable below. Policy would be that articles should only be speedy deleted if it is a blatant violation of important policy. JamesA >talk 14:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Deleted. AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Delta airline[edit]

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

  • Speedy deleted out of scope. --Rschen7754 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Deleted. AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

American Airlines[edit]

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)

  • Delete per Wiaa, no articles for companies. INeverCry 00:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The other articles I speedied were also very malformed and recently created. This one I'm reluctant to speedy, as it's existed for years. --Rschen7754 04:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
  • Keep per Peter. (I know we're not supposed to discuss policy here, but I'd set the retention bar at {{usable topic}}) -- Alice 05:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: Very useful. Lotta content. Can be sourced Purplebackpack89 03:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Kept. AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Saddleworth Square[edit]

"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)

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

Carnival Cruise Line[edit]

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

  • Delete per nom. INeverCry 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete and delete de-facto subpages Carnival freedom, Carnival Elation, Carnival Conquest. K7L (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: How is the policy on cruise companies different from the policy on airlines? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Concur with Ikan on this - is there some sort of invisible code or logic that eludes the reader...?? sats (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Deleted. AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
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)

US Airways, United Airlines[edit]

Also more articles:

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

  • Delete per nom. INeverCry 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and other travel company deletions. Hawaiian Eskimo (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?#Airlines. These really are straightforwardly useful for travelers, we've chosen to keep them in the past (and in the linked discussion actually decided we wanted more of them), and they aren't here for promotional purposes. --Peter Talk 05:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • Comment. Giving each airline its own article sounds a bit much. Why don't we start a travel topic about frequent flyer programs and then deal each airline in there? Globe-trotter (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Keep: Very useful. Lotta content. Can be sourced Purplebackpack89 03:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)

Niceville florida[edit]

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)

  • Delete and merge useful information. Hawaiian Eskimo (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge useful information, as Hawaiian Eskimo said. I have already posted to the article-creator's user talk page, in the hope that she will move some of the useful information into the Niceville article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting. --Peter Talk 05:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete; we might merge & redirect if it were a correct title, "Niceville, Florida" or "Niceville (Florida)", but it is not. Pashley (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    The point of redirecting is so that we don't have to waste our time with a deletion discussion. Just redirect it and be done with it. Redirects are cheap and do no harm. LtPowers (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect sumone10154(talk) 21:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Whitefish Mountain Resort[edit]

Tones river[edit]

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

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)

Château de Villandry[edit]

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Delete per K7L --Inas (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:E-BR, Template:Eat/BR, Template:S-BR, Template:Sleep/BR[edit]

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)

Pullman Auckland (four images)[edit]

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)

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

Indira Point current status[edit]

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

  • Speedy deleted as out of scope. --Rschen7754 18:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)