Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2011

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← June 2011 Votes for deletion archives for July 2011 (current) August 2011 →
  • Delete. This template was recently recreated, but it previously went through the VFD process in July 2007. The Mediawiki #if parser function does the same thing as what the template is trying to do. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:55, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Has a copyright notice right there on the description page. While images that are properly licensed can still be copyrighted, the lack of any explicit free license in conjunction with the explicit copyright notice gives me great pause. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:19, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. For reason of the concerns expressed above. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:29, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Random gibberish, and no geographic location by that name as far as I can tell. (WT-en) Eco84 20:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

What about singles travel, the only other thing this contributor has done? That is obviously a legitimate travel topic, but the current article is nearly worthless. Anyone want to improve it? Or nominate it for deletion as well? (WT-en) Pashley 21:13, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

A highway, not an article.

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Overlapping interstate region article for the Hartford CT-Springfield, MA urban area, created mostly by copying things from those two articles and slapping them together. I think a redirect to New England along with a short note there would suffice.

  • Redirect - (WT-en) texugo 01:49, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep (for the moment). The anonymous user who created this region did so in good faith, and will (hopefully) either make the case for integrating it into the existing hierarchy or redirecting it. However, if that clarification isn't forthcoming then I'd be in favor of a redirect to New England since multi-state regions break the geographic hierarchy quite badly without offering much benefit. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:53, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
The fact that it crosses state lines rather precludes integration, don't you think? (WT-en) texugo 02:56, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
Having let this bake for a while, I think the right solution is to turn the page into a disambiguation-like page that simply points to the citys/towns/regions that this extra-hierarchical region encompasses ("The Knowledge Corridor is a region of New England that includes the following towns and cities"). This would keep the article around to catch anyone searching for "Knowledge Corridor", but then point those users to the proper Wikivoyage articles for information about what is contained in that region without adding confusion to Wikivoyage's regional structure. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:49, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep - The Knowledge Corridor is an official designation for the region surrounding the cities of Springfield, Mass, and Hartford, Conn. Just as there's a "Research Triangle" in North Carolina, there's the "Knowledge Corridor" along the Connecticut River Valley. It just so happens to straddle two states. From what I read on the discussion page, the reason why the article (which I worked hard on) would be deleted is because it doesn't jive with wikivoyage's current classification hierarchy. Rather than delete a page dedicated to a whole region, I suggest fixing the unaccomodating hierarchy... Otherwise wikivoyage will keep on deleting legitimate articles for the sake of preserving a hierarchy that might not be worth preserving (from the sounds of it.) Is the problem here that it's an interstate region? I don't get it. What of Kansas City, which straddles state lines? Or St. Louis? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.192.97.169 (talk • contribs)
The Research Triangle fits neatly into our hierarchy, Kansas City has two separate articles, and the parts of St. Louis in other states have separate articles as well. (WT-en) texugo 04:30, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
If an official regional designation and travel destination isn't fitting neatly in the hierarchies of WikiTravel, then in my opinion, the hierarchy is not working correctly to accomodate material it should be able to accomodate.
Here are references for those who do not know about the Knowledge Corridor, from a cursory Google search:
Here's my reasoning to Keep. I wrote this on the Knowledge Corridor's discussion page and I'll reprint it here so that people who don't visit the former can read the rationale.
I am new to Wikivoyage, and created this page after I searched for "Knowledge Corridor" (I'm currently staying with family in the region) and was surprised to find that it didn't exist on here. I don't think that a redirect to New England would do, because New England is vast. Perhaps if the Knowledge Corridor was drawn on a map of New England, appropriately described then its attractions fleshed out, it could be redirected. Alternately, perhaps if Knowledge Corridor was redirected to "Connecticut River Valley" (which currently describes only northern and central Connecticut,) that would work; however, that article would have to be expanded to accomodate the entire Connecticut River Valley, which (unfortunately for the classification hierarchies here) stretches from from the Canadian border south to Long Island Sound. Perhaps needless to say, the CT River Valley encompasses several distinct regions in different states. Perhaps that article as currently constituted is incomplete, describing only Connecticut's 'Connecticut River Valley.' I don't know.
Regardless, the Knowledge Corridor itself is a distinct region within the Connecticut River Valley. From what I understand, it does not extend past Middletown in the south, nor Northampton-Amherst in the north. It is a region about fifty miles in length and twenty miles wide (at its widest) within the CT River Valley, which includes parts (but not all) of the Pioneer Valley, (which itself includes the Five College Area, from which I'm currently writing to you,) and parts (but not all) of Connecticut's section of the Connecticut River Valley. How to you ferret out all of these overlapping regions?--it's a great question. That said, I don't think that deleting the Knowledge Corridor region-a dynamic, revitalizing region, with many points of interest--or consigning it to an obscure one or two-line reference on the "New England" page is appropriate. That would barely scratch the surface.
In my opinion, if you want to redirect "Knowledge Corridor," then at least it ought to be mentioned on the pages of Hartford, Springfield, their respective states, and their respective regions (e.g. New England, CT River Valley, Pioneer Valley, Five College Area, etc.) My ultimate point is that 1.9 million people live in a relatively small geographical swath beside the Connecticut River. If the region views itself as a region, why shouldn't Wikivoyage? Ideally, I'd be able to come here and receive travel tips for the region. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.192.97.169 (talk • contribs)
For what it's worth, the Wikipedia article says that the "Knowledge Corridor" is "an economic, civic, and cultural partnership between the Connecticut River cities of Springfield, Massachusetts and Hartford, Connecticut; and the cities' surrounding metropolitan areas" that was created by regional boosters in 2000, a trademarked moniker designed to attract investment in the region. I find it hard to believe that any traveller when asked "What are you doing this weekend" would answer with "I'm going to the Knowledge Corridor". That said, we do of course want this area to be thoroughly covered in our guides but, like Kansas City and other places, I'm not sure it will be possible to group these under a regional article. Keeping in mind that we don't want to duplicate listings or information that is already found in the city guide articles, what information do you hope to put here? (WT-en) texugo 04:14, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
Keep as an overview with links to the towns for most of the information.
On one hand, we don't recommend Procrustes as an innkeeper, and our region hierarchy should not work that way either. This has come up before, for example Project:Votes_for_deletion/November_2009#Andes.
On the other hand, we do have a hierarchy so we should use it. Most information should go in the town articles.
On the third hand (great for holding the flashlight while you work), this is a new user who is actively writing. Don't discourage him or her. (WT-en) Pashley 07:36, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
Keep. When reality does not comply with policy, policy is easier to change. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 07:17, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
Wait a minute... are you suggesting that we abandon our Project:Geographical hierarchy policy? (WT-en) LtPowers 09:49, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
Not at all. Merely that where it doesn't work properly, it should be adjusted. The Knowledge Corridor seems to be a regional destination by all criteria that I have seen so far except that it crosses a state line, which makes breadcrumb navigation problematic. The hierarchy policy is useful in almost all cases, but there will be a few where it is not ideal. I can't think of concrete examples, but can easily imagine things like national parks and the like crossing state/province boundaries too. How else can they be accommodated? (two articles is a bit over the top). Breadcrumbing does present a slight difficulty. the simplest solution would be to breadcrumb the region to the same level as the regions it is located in, and exclude the conflicting regions from the path. Cities etc. within the region get breadcrumbed by the most useful region they are part of (usually the state or equivalent). Otherwise a new system allowing for parallel breadcrumb paths and branching would be necessary, and I have no idea if that is even possible. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:38, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
I am still completely, absolutely 100% unconvinced that this is anything but a recently-created moniker useful only for local municipalities trying to attract investment. (WT-en) texugo 03:09, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
I agree; it's primarily an economic designation, not a tourism one. No one says "Oh, I'm vacationing in the Knowledge Corridor this summer!" They're trying to make it a cultural region, and certainly there are similarities, but I don't think it's strong enough to override the state borders.
Peter, we do currently have a number of extra-hierarchical regions, like Navajo Nation, as well as regions that are actually (sort of) in the hierarchy but overlap more than one state, like Metro New York. I think Metro New York is awkward and causes all sorts of navigation problems, but Peter F. was a strong proponent of doing it that way (as was done with Chicagoland. Anyway, that's just an example of the confusion caused when we try to insert these sorts of regions into our hierarchy. That's not to say it's never possible, but I think such things work best as a redirect or as a brief stub that just covers the basics. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:40, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
There is no prohibition of economic designations for destinations in the listing of non-goals, nor anything else that I know of to specify that articles are aimed exclusively at the non-business traveller. If that is to be the case, it should be spelled out in the policies, preferably somewhere easy to find. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:08, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
Given that we have to pick one or the other, it makes no sense to favor an invented, purely economic region that crosses state lines over more natural travel regions that have come together more organically. (WT-en) LtPowers 12:02, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
If that is the choice, I would agree with you, But is it? • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 13:46, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
No, it quite obviously isn't. We do not "have to pick one or the other". This article can act as a supplement to existing articles. It should not grow large; it should be just an overview and most of the information should be in the city articles. However, it does not break the hierarchy, merely adds to it. (WT-en) Pashley 11:55, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
This kind of thinking is causing us to slip further and further down the slope away from our directive to resist overlap. We do have to "pick one or the other" as to whether we continue to put stock in our policy of discouraging overlap, or we discard it in favor of letting this kind of thing proliferate. Exceptions made thus far such as Navajo Nation are special cases which were discussed at length before being allowed, but this is no such special case, just a chamber of commerce's recent notion of how best to attract business, and if we allow this, there are all kinds of other extra-hierarchical regions waiting to follow.(WT-en) texugo 12:49, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
(WT-en) texugo's argument matches current site policy - except in rare cases the benefits of having a clear regional structure outweigh the benefits of having an article for every named region - see Project:Geographical hierarchy#Overlap which states "If we have overlapping guides, readers don't know where to go to get travel information, and contributors don't know where to put travel information". That said, I think that the correct solution is to convert this article (and other extra-hierarchical region articles) into a disambiguation-like page containing a list of cities/regions that have related information, which allows us to keep an article for the region in case someone searches for the term in the future. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:05, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
I agree, and I've been thinking maybe we need to formalize a policy for pages that are valid tourism destinations (like Navajo Nation, Erie Canal, bodies of water, mountain ranges, and the like) but don't fit into our geographic hierarchy. We could just lump them under travel topics or disambiguation pages, but as evidenced by continuing discussion, that seems inadequate to many of us. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:30, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
This is why I proposed standardizing a meta-region template as a sort of "expanded disambiguation" category of articles. Discussion on that kind of fizzled, but I still think it's a good idea, because I really think we need a predictable way to handle these situations. Certainly wouldn't mind opening that discussion back up... (WT-en) texugo 21:42, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
I rather liked that proposal, though re-reading the discussion now, I see you never answered the questions I had. =) (WT-en) LtPowers 09:02, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
OK. I have now answered that here and hope to re-open some discussion there. (WT-en) texugo 11:13, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Knowledge Corridor has now been rewritten per this discussion. I think that means we can close this as keep. Does anyone object? (WT-en) Pashley 00:39, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Honestly, I'm still not convinced it's a useful travel region, but I suppose there's little harm in keeping it. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:49, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
  • Leaning delete. Sorry to hold this up further, but... If it's not a useful travel region, then why keep it? The whole concept has to do with marketing and branding for non-travel related purposes, so to me it doesn't seem a good fit for our website. (Furthermore, it's not the only section of the U.S. to call itself a knowledge corridor either, which raises other problems.) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:34, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

Result: Kept. This has been open for months, and there is enough sentiment for to "keep" that a deletion does not seem the appropriate resolution. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Another Lancashire division like the slew of them vfd'd above in June.

  • Delete or Redirect somewhere - Overzealous subdivision. (WT-en) texugo 09:49, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Lancashire, although a delete is very tempting given the amount of messing around there has been with our Lancashire and Greater Manchester articles, and the amount of time wasted clearing those up. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/July_2011&oldid=2956479"