Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2022

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← December 2021 Votes for deletion archives for January 2022 (current) February 2022 →

Obsolete and no longer used unless I'm missing something. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. So delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted per consensus. Ground Zero (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a humorous page, but the creation of the expedition was never discussed nor does it look anything like an expedition page. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a misunderstanding of what "expedition" means in the context of this site. Would you like to reach out to the IP user who created the article? In any case, I would suggest deleting, yes, but not right away, and they should be pointed to Everest Base Camp Trek in case they feel any edits are needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted per consensus. Ground Zero (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral point of view" is not a thing on Wikivoyage, only on Wikipedia, so it makes little sense to have this redirect in namespace 0. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the proposed move. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, WV:NPOV already exists, so I guess this isn't needed anymore. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted per consensus. Ground Zero (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this nom. 96.18.219.55 15:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Useless redirect page in my opinion. 96.18.219.55 20:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: withdrawn by nominator. Ground Zero (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created this disambiguation page yesterday not realising that I'd forgotten to add a "Desert" in the disambiguation. However, I've sorted out that by moving the old Simpson Desert redirect and so this page is no longer needed. The only reason why I haven't speedy deleted this is because I'm not sure whether to delete or redirect to Simpson Desert National Park. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: redirected to Simpson Desert National Park. Ground Zero (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a TRAVEL DIRECTORY,not a board game repository. 96.18.219.55 16:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean Keep or Delete?96.18.219.55 17:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be more useful as a sidebar to the Atlantic City article. I don't think that anyone is going to plan a trip to include Atlantic City and London and whatever other cities we decide are the most famous ones. Ground Zero (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I could really easily see someone visiting particular streets because they're in monopoly games, and I could also easily see someone taking a series of trips over time to different cities and visiting streets included in monopoly games. I think this is a legitimate travel topic, and the only issue is how to prevent it from being unwieldy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Includes me in 2018. Only reason why I visited Mayfair was because of that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are links to the localized variants of the game. I don't think "either" is the appropriate word as that suggests that there are two versions. Ground Zero (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, of course there's Indiana University Monopoly and Justice League of America Monopoly, etc. I don't think anyone is suggesting exploding out this article to all of the licensed variants. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that there are hundreds of city editions. Thanks for taking two non-city editions off the list. That narrows it down. Ground Zero (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking past one another or there's some sarcasm I'm not picking up on but I'm just saying that if this sticks to Monopoly proper, it could be an intelligible article. If it starts including all of these branded and licensed variations, then yes, this will be an unending list of trivia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is 'Monopoly proper'? Doesn't that vary by country? What version do Brazilians play? Or South Africans? Or Indians? I don't know. Ground Zero (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Monopoly is an American board game owned by a mammoth multinational company. I'm sure that there are some differences in the version that someone may buy in Thailand versus the United States, but the standard edition is the one you would get at a big box retailer in Indiana. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the Atlantic City version, then? That isn't what the article is doing now. Also, I view Wikivoyage as a travel guide aimed at an international audience, not an American one. Other readers won't have had the same experience of Monopoly and you or I have had, and I do not think that we should presume that. Ground Zero (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's change Breaking Bad to include a bunch of locations in Colombia just because Metástasis exists. That's sensible. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here. Let's stick to the topic under discussion. The discussion is about 'Monopoly', which is sold around the world in hundreds of different versions under the name 'Monopoly'. Many of our readers aren't American, which I think should be obvious, and have never played the Atlantic City version, but have played games called 'Monopoly' that feature streets from cities that are not Atlantic City. Ground Zero (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that in ZA and India play the London one, as the article says

The most common version in North America is based on the streets of Atlantic City, New Jersey, while the most common version in Commonwealth countries (excluding Canada) is based on the streets of London.

But no idea re Brazil or any other non-Commonwealth country and the US. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is my point, exactly. This is an international project. Let's not assume that Monopoly means Atlantic City, or Atlantic City and London. Ground Zero (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see how this travel topic turns out. If it turns into a well developed one, then keep, but if it remains an outline, I'd go for delete. However, given the article was only created yesterday (Jan 6 19:52 PST), DaGizza should be given at least a month to work on it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Singapore, there is a local Singapore version, but most people play the London version. Both are available in shops. The Atlantic City version is very rare, and when I was a kid, many people erroneously thought it was a British game. Anyway, I think this could be kept as an itinerary if someone is willing to work on it. Some people might in fact be interested in visiting sites that are featured in either version of the game. Also, if there are actual professional monopoly tournaments you can watch, that could also the basis of a travel article. The reason why we have articles for board games like chess and Go is because there are professional tournaments you can actually travel to watch. The dog2 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Travel topics are given a year and not a month before being nominated for deletion like itineraries, aren't they? And a blocked vandal nominated this for deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending expansion. Ikan is, IIRC, right that outline travel topics have a year's grace period; this is currently fine. We can come back here if it's not improved, and if it is, we've got a high-quality article on a relevant topic. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we can revisit this next year if the article hasn't changed. Monopoly is one of those games that people play when travelling because the game is lying on a shelf in the hostel, and the game is still playable if a couple of pieces are missing. AlasdairW (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: clear consensus to keep. Ground Zero (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a disambiguation that's travel guide related but what would rather belong in a Wikipedia disambiguation article. There isn't a town/village/city etc. called "White House" and the one in Espangol is a proper name – nobody will be wanting to search "White House" in English to get to that place. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • As Granger suggests Keep as a redirect to Washington, D.C./West End. That is much the best-known Whitehouse so the redirect should point there.
We probably also need a disambig page & a hat note pointing to it in the Washington article. Pashley (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this redirect is even about, and I doubt anyone will search this term up. Unless it's needed for attribution purposes, I don't see a reason to keep this. Even if, it's possible to give attribution on the talk page without a live link. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tai123.123 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a suggestion to deal with a problem of copyright violation. I can't see what this redirect is doing to harm anything or anybody, so what would be the point of going through a convoluted process of crediting its editors while deleting it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Speedy archive? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think so Tai123.123 (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: speedily kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to have been large-scale copying from Wikitravel. This Wikivoyage article was started in 2017, so the fork couldn't account for the amount of identical content to Wikitravel. Compare this 22:23, 18 August 2017 version of the Wikivoyage article with this Wikitravel Revision as of 22:21, 18 August 2017. In addition, a listing tag was used in the linked Wikivoyage version, years after that format had been deprecated, and I literally changed a "Contact" heading to "Connect" within the last 10 minutes or so. What should we do about this? Vagabond turtle last contributed in 2017, so I don't think we'll hear from them on this topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that we may need to take a look at other articles Vagabond turtle started on this site. User contributions. The other articles they started are Conceição de Jacareí, Pantoja, Yasuni National Park; I think that's it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Nuke/Vagabond turtle. (nuke all the pages they've created. Unless they give attribution, it remains a copyvio) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it is a real place, normal policy is that it should either be redirected or kept, with copyvio text deleted & maybe other things added. However, when I looked at WP to see if there was info I could use to fix it, I found that much of it was copied from there.
I give up. I'd still rather see it fixed than deleted, but I'll make no further effort to fix it & will not complain if it is deleted. Pashley (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pages created by Vagabond turtle (talk · contribs)

Pages up for deletion:

list from X-tools


As Ikan mentioned, these pages were copied from Wikitravel without attribution, and until they give attribution, it remains a copyvio. Since this user last edited in 2017, I don't think we'll be hearing anything from them anytime soon. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What was the lawsuit about? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lawsuit if no attribution is given because that's a copyvio. It's unlikely though that'll happen. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or, we could work on these articles and rev del Vagabond turtle's edits. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the edits by Vagabond turtle remain in the following versions, which should therefore all be revision deleted unless we provide attribution. If the WT articles still are licence compatible, then copying content is allowed, provided we strictly follow the licence. We try to avoid copying for policy reasons: we don't have much interest in having to attribute WT, we risk a lawsuite if we are sloppy with the licence (for other contributors following the spirit is enough) and duplicate content has search engine optimisation issues. By deleting the articles, readding what wasn't based on WT, and complementing with content from WP and own research, we eliminate the concerns. –LPfi (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. On that basis deletion seems reasonable. But if we then re-add the material that wasn't based on WT, we would need to include attribution to the editors who originally added it here, right? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could also work on it fresh, just acting like the article had never existed before and/or translating them from eswiki. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to hinder one from creating it with an edit comment on it being based on work by x, y and z. I'd blank the article, recreate from scratch using Wikipedia and own knowledge, then check whether there is something worthwhile missing (before doing extensive research), perhaps using the diff text instead of the article text, add that attributing the old revisions, citing the authors, then revdel anything before the blanking, and then add things based on own research to complete the article. –LPfi (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a clean restart seems best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. Anyone's free to restart these pages without copying from that museum piece. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the previous region structure, and have been replaced by Category:Inland Florida and other region categories. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, cattle ranches fail wv:wiaa. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you nominate this for deletion instead of merging and redirecting it to Obudu, which doesn't merit comment here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obvious to me whether this park is large enough to support its own article or if it should be merged somewhere else. Either way, don't delete. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, if a merge/redirect proposal needs discussion, that should have been brought up at Talk:Obudu Cattle Ranch. Speedy keep, and I'd say please don't nominate an article about a real place for deletion again, but let's see if others agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should archive this nomination. I’m not sure whether we should redirect the article yet. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Looking at google maps, this just appears to be a hotel. Individual hotels or cattle ranches fail wv:wiaa. It's not a city, it's not a district, it's not a country, it's not a continent, it's not a national or a jurisdiction park, and not a rural area. And from "what does not get its own article":

Companies, even those holding a de facto monopoly or those owned by the state (hotels, restaurants, bars, stores, nightclubs, tour operators, airlines, rail or bus operators, etc.) Monopolies that are likely to be used as frequent search terms may be created as redirects to the relevant article, such as Amtrak, which redirects to rail travel in the United States.

In saying that, Granger does have a good point though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Keep for now though we can start a discussion on the relevant talk page about whether it should be merged with Obudu. Note that Google says the mountain resort (another name for the cattle ranch) is about 72 km/1 hr 38 min away from the city of Obudu, which is quite far. If it is big and unique enough, it may warrant being its own park article. Gizza (roam) 23:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Comment If we're really going to allow something that fails what is an article, the only thing I'd suggest is moving this page to Obudu Plateau where there are other hotels as well. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it fails wiaa, it still could be merged somewhere, and don't you understand that that requires turning the article title into a redirect? Do you really propose to delete this content? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to move the current page to Obudu Plateau without a redirect and work on it from there. I'll be happy to do that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yes, you could move it, which is also not a deletion and didn't require a nomination here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sure. I'll do it soon and speedy archive this nom. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Moved to Obudu Plateau without a redirect. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if someone searched expedition in the mainspace they wouldn't want this result. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Now Tai123.123 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I now go for disambiguate per Pashley and Vaticidalprophet. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I took a first cut at it; likely others can improve it. Pashley (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Turned into disambig page. Pashley (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for any separate guide for a small subdivision of a bigger city. Also, there is negligible (foreign) tourism here. The deletion has been discussed on Talk:Cooch Behar. 2006nishan178713t@lk 14:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging in progress. 2006nishan178713t@lk 14:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Merged. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect doesn't seem to be serving readers. It's grammatically inaccurate, and by the time you've typed this much in the search bar the correct name (Tips for women travellers) has already come up. Because it's a typographical error, it's unlikely to be linked either onwiki or offwiki. In its entire lifetime, it's only received 26 views, which supports the suggestion it's not aiding readers with finding the article they want. Because of all of this, the main thing its existence does is leaves a grammatically inaccurate title to pop up in the search bar, potentially causing confusion. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted per nom. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? An incorrectly capitalised page and also that's unlikely to be a typo nor a misspelling --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, seriously? Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pashley (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedy deleted it. I don't think anyone with decent English proficiency will misspell it this way. The dog2 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: speedied by The dog2. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither a joke nor nonsense so the article should not exist at its current location. It got there by being moved from a mainspace article which was deleted. See Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2014#Islamic_State

I'd say Islam#Salafi-Takfiri covers everything we need to say about this movement. We might create redirects to that from "Islamic State", "ISIS" and/or "ISIL", but I doubt that is necessary. Warnings about their activities go in the country articles.

I do not think we want text that helps anyone go join these guys, for reasons similar to why we do not provide info for pedophiles. Pashley (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how you can mess up the spelling "Addis Ababa" so badly you get "Addis Abbeba". It's also only gotten five pageviews during its entire lifetime. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pashley (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept as nomination withdrawn. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empty skeleton articles created by Paulboht (talk · contribs)

Affected pages:

These articles were created in the unproductive page creation by the editor Paulboht likely to earn points in the contest. These articles don't even mention where they're located, just "{{PAGENAME}} is in [[Region Name]] along with the empty sections. They were created on 2021/12/28, which is almost a month ago(edit 2022/01/17 03:52: it's three weeks, not a month. Apologies.). They've had ample opportunities to work on it, and when Ground Zero and Ikan question that editor on what they're doing, they just brushed it off with personal attacks. We shouldn't be rewarding this sort of behaviour.

Although I do recognize that we have a policy of not deleting real places – this one is also among one of the exceptions. Additionally, for some like Gambari, it does not appear in a google search nor on Google Maps. I haven't checked the others, but they may be a similar case. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: 14 days is up, and there's consensus to delete. Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/January_2022&oldid=4920839"