Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2013

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← June 2013 Votes for deletion archives for July 2013 (current) August 2013 →

Category:Articles with disputed facts

I may be wrong, but I think this was created to hold pages tagged by a template that has already been deleted. The category is empty, and I can't find anything that links to it and am not aware of any fact-check type tag in use. If anyone knows the story for sure, it may be a speedy deletion candidate.

(Should the now-orphaned remnants of that discussion at Template talk:FactCheck, which were swept out of the Pub, instead be swept directly back into the Pub archives?) -- D. Guillaume (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. --Saqib (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done --Saqib (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4 years and it's still totally empty. If no one will provide contents, this page shall be deleted, because it doesn't make sense to have a page this way.

Generally speaking, I would suggest to search through the site for similar pages (criteria: dimension below certain amount of bytes) to understand if there's anyone that is interested on let them grow, otherwise, after a certain period (14 days?) they should be deleted.

And comment. I agree with deleting/redirecting empty articles, I know we keep them for future users to fill them, but future users may recreate them if they want to and these empty ones are a put off. Jjtkk (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I know that is a real place, in fact I should visit it in a couple of months :-) but my point is: is it correct to create the redirect of a beach versus its city/region/country? In the affirmative case, do we have to create new redirects for the missing beaches? Malta (like every island) is rich of nice/famous beaches. --Andyrom75 (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that we can and should redirect articles about real places that don't pass muster per vfd, but that we generally don't create redirects for their own sake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say redirect too. You can sleep and eat there, so an article of its own is possible, but in this case I think it fits just as well in a nearby destination article. Yes, interesting beaches often get a redirect to the nearest or most convenient town. I'd say creating redirects only makes sense though if there's at least basic information about that beach in the article the redirect leads to, otherwise it's just as empty as an empty article. In this case, Mgarr and Mellieħa are both less than 10 minutes away. I'm tempted to redirect to the latter, as it's a bigger and more popular tourist destination and -I'm guessing- the place many visitors will use as a base to go to Golden Bay? JuliasTravels (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I understand the redirect approach and it's sounds reasonable. But I have another doubt. I would agree to redirect a beach to an article that speaks "a lot" of that beach, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea to redirect it to an article that has just few lines. Let's take as an example the Golden Bay. There is one row in Malta#Other destinations, another row in Malta Island#Other destinations. As Julia says, Mellieħa is an option as a base town, but is not the only option, so I would wonder if if it's a good idea to link the beach to it; furthermore it doesn't mention the Golden Bay. These three alternatives doesn't seems to be so much fitting. What do you think? --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's not very relevant which article has or hasn't got the most information about the beach at this moment. A redirect should lead to the most suited article, if there's useful information in other articles it's a small effort to copy it to the right place. For now, I've added a few lines to Malta Island. On second thought, it makes sense to put the information there as Nick suggested, since people seem to visit the beach from all over the island - as it's small anyway. However, feel free to put it somewhere else if more appropriate. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've talk about "quantity" because I'm not fully convinced about redirecting one site to another, but, if in en:voy it's a normal habit, I'll be ok with that. However, after your change I'll be more inclined to the redirect, so I'll change my initial "delete position". --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To allow for all Wikivoyagers to weigh in and to ensure we review all possible courses of action, we traditionally hold off on taking any action until 14 days after the article's nomination (i.e 7th July). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Malta Island. --Saqib (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, files with displaying non-free content should still be licensed according to CC BY-SA or a compatible license, and this file is licensed CC BY-NC.

Result: Speedy deleted. Globe-trotter (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Altpagebanner

The only reason for this template was for on articles with lots of sections where there were too many to show the table of contents in the banner. So I've added a notoc parameter to Template:Pagebanner which if used as notoc=true then it will allow the same functionality as Altpagebanner. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. Thanks WOSlinker, I will delete it. Only used on three articles which I will update. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless and unused. --Saqib (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welcomeplus

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was copied and pasted verbatim from the preexisting w:List of national parks of Venezuela. I believe the policy in such instances is to delete the article in question and start afresh, as per previous discussions on similar instances, but please correct me if I'm wrong, as I didn't want to delete this article without any discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Keep: We should wait and see what User:Veronidae has in mind, if anything except copying the wp page (in mixed language versions). She (?) only started to work on it recently, so I don't see any rush for deletion. In this case I would rather prefer to discuss merging to Venezuela on the talk page. I am sure "National parks of... " articles have their place here (see examples for UK, US, Africa or Finland). However, they mainly make sense if WV actually has articles for many of the individual parks, which is not Venezuela case so far. Danapit (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we deal with the copyvio by providing attribution? WP does have a compatible license.
Done. Texugo (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we follow our policy of redirecting rather than deleting real places? In this instance, could we make this a soft redirect to WP? Pashley (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy of redirecting real places has never been applied that way, and as far as I know, soft redirects are only used for user pages and a couple of things in the wikivoyage namespace. I would strongly oppose starting to use them in the main namespace. Texugo (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the same user has in months and years past contributed to the article on both wp:en and wp:es (which are basically identical), and also a few days ago added the whole article to wv:es: (which unfortunately appears to be a wild west free-for-all where anything goes these days), so I rather doubt he or she even realizes that very significant changes would have to be made to this article for it to stand here. I did eliminate the external links section and clean out all the refs from the article last night, but for it to have a chance here, all the information would need to be de-tabled and organized into sections probably by region, pointless numbers removed, image-missing markers removed, other images culled and arranged to the right, and descriptions/details added, essentially a rewrite which would probably not result in any prose copied from WP. I am busy the next few days but would be willing to give it a shot next week if we can slap wp attribution on this and set it aside for a while. It may not be a valid article as is, but it is an article type for which there is precedent, and a higher percentage of articles exist on WV (6 out of 43) than for the Finnish National Parks article (10/93). I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to give such an overview even when we don't have a lot of the articles created yet, provided we give some information/description/etc. Texugo (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quiet can delete the article, in fact I'm not intensada in this Wiki, I find many lack and empty here so do not cooperate, I wish you luck with your project.
Mr Texugo, I say I'm very aware of or I do. Realize I can understand the thing, I'm no animal left the mountain, I thank you measure your words.--Veronidae (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I did not mean to offend or criticize! I just figured you may not yet have noticed that things here work quite differently from es: and from wikipedia. I was in fact defending the article you started. Texugo (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Veronidae, I hope you would reconsider leaving Wikivoyage. Every new user here experiences a learning curve here and has some edits deleted, and that certainly includes me. We want anyone who wants to help travelers to contribute to this project. Please don't think that any of this discussion is personal or means to show you any disrespect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't get it. Sure, we should give proper attribution, but why would we want to delete useful information with a compatible license? Sure, we strive for original content, but we're obviously fine with using a free-license copy of existing information as a start: it's what we've built this whole site upon. We're constantly banning external links with the argument that any useful information should be included /here/, why would it be different for an overview of natural parks like this? It's clearly an interesting list for naturally oriented travellers so it's not just "encyclopedic". And then there's plenty of ways to expand it with more useful travel information. The fact that the articles aren't all available yet doesn't change that and in fact, an overview makes it a lot easier to establish those guides systematically. I say definitely keep, and if people are willing to improve it: great! :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My experience in the past has been that when unattributed copy-paste articles from Wikipedia have been brought up in VfD, the consensus has been that Wikivoyage policy is to delete them. I started this particular VfD in part to clarify the policy. I don't see why an outright deletion is necessary, either; I just thought that was policy. I also don't think the topic is inherently encyclopedic, though of course the format is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe some of that stems from before the great relicensing, when we couldn't legally import Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA-3.0 text in bulk, and some of the rest is the usual way to deal with unattributed dumps of information regardless of its source. The second one still applies in part; the user creating the page here is a contributor to the WP article, but by no means the only or even primary contributor, so we'd be running into licensing problems without proper attribution attached. (Which could be done, but the question of whether we want a copy of that article at all is a separate one.) Deletion in the case of copyright problems is certainly in policy.
"Out of scope" also applies in terms of the article's actual current content. I agree with Texugo that an article under that title could be a good WV article, but it would have so little in common with the WP article that there's no advantage using the WP article as a base. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure, it is too encyclopedic for WV and there are some Spanish words that do not belong on the English WV, but those are reasons to edit, not to delete. It says at the top of this page Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our current policy. and I see none. Pashley (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the more obvious problems are now fixed. The rest need someone who knows Venezuela. Pashley (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is all useful information to have on Wikipedia, and fortunately we have it there ;) We're friends with Wikipedia, so we don't really need to duplicate content. I don't think there is any travel info on this page that needs to be merged elsewhere—that sort of information that would be hugely useful to have at Venezuela#See#National Parks. It would focus on which parks are actually places that are visited by tourists (as opposed to those that are unsafe, have restricted access, or are lacking in transport), which are developed and touristic vs. remote and off-the-beaten-path, etc. Regarding whether to delete or redirect, it's not terribly important, but given that there is a small attribution issue... I think the scale tips delete. --Peter Talk 03:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apart from whether or not to keep this particular article, that's a rationale I find difficult to follow. If it's enough to have information in our sister project WP, that would also mean we leave out history sections from now on? If we're going to use information on another project in such a way, we should at least make navigation there a whole lot easier (more specific direct links or something), no? Also, unsafe, remote, hard to get to or off the beaten track shouldn't be a reason not to include places in our guides, I think. Restricted access is another matter perhaps, but just the fact that you or I would find a place too remote doesn't mean my friend who's biking his way through South America would too. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two very cogent points, Julia! --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we shouldn't have exact duplicates of content on Wikipedia. And I didn't suggest that we shouldn't include information about places that are dangerous, remote, or have restricted access. --Peter Talk 18:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, but it is usually a quicker and less time-consuming exercise to edit the vfd candidate (as Pashley and Texugo have now done) so it ceases to be an exact duplicate of content on Wikipedia rather than nominate for that reason solely. --W. Franke-mailtalk 22:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter: very well, then I misunderstood and we're more agreed than I thought ;-) Thanks for the clarification. As for the duplication, I agree with Frank. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What extra content would be included in the article that is not yet on Wikipedia? It's a list, so all it is meant to do is list the parks. That means no "Get in" info or anything of the likes, as that belongs on the respective national park pages. The article could never be improved over what it currently is now, which is unacceptable. James A ▪ talk 08:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So just for my understanding, do you think Finnish National Parks is acceptable, and would a change in that direction be able to save the article? JuliasTravels (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope there is no doubt about Finnish National Parks, which contains also useful prose sections apart from a complete list of national parks + a list of hiking, wilderness and other areas sorted by WV regions. In case the Venezuela article in question should be deleted, is the same true for United States National Parks and Canadian National Parks? Danapit (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Neutral - I'm still not convinced those articles or this one is useful, but if the Venezuela one can be modified to match those, it may be worth keeping as a directory-type article with some extra prose. James A ▪ talk 13:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voyagefy or Delete - well, obviously a travel guide and an encyclopedia have different goals. A traveler would have very little use of an article containing just history and square meters but lacking information about getting in, fees, accommodation, safety precautions and so on, and the reverse is true for e.g. someone who writes a school paper about South America. And yes, the above mentioned Finnish National Parks serves as a good example of a travel guide about national parks. To Voyagefy the article it would preferably take someone who has some personal knowledge of the area. Ypsilon (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now since both the attribution and duplication issues has been resolved but review in six months to see if it has been "rescued" by being Voyagefied. --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is getting confusing ;) My two basic questions are these: what is here that isn't an exact duplicate of what is on Wikipedia? And what content does not belong instead at Venezuela#See (why put this on a separate page that far fewer people will read)? --Peter Talk 19:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now that is a valid point. However, most articles start out small and undeveloped (many also stay that way, unfortunately) and we'd really be in trouble if we applied that logic to all new or outline articles. However, I do sympathise, there are quite a few district articles of large cities that I am tempted to apply the same logic to. --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that this article has been improved somewhat, and I'm happy to change my vote to allow you all to continue whipping the article into decent shape (which it is not yet in), but I'm still confused about policy. Is Wikivoyage policy that articles cut and pasted verbatim from Wikipedia without attribution should be deleted, or not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy, vfd-ing such a page was exactly the right call. If the source was from "commercial, governmental, and non-commercial sites that clearly attest copyright," then a speedy deletion would be in order. But given that it's from a site with which we regularly share content, and can take care of attribution issues post-article creation, listing it here first made perfect sense. I'm still unclear on what we're keeping, since I haven't seen anything travel-relevant enough to merge to Venezuela#See, though, and no one has pointed out what I'm missing... --Peter Talk 05:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for the See-sections, I think the purpose and intended content is significantly different. In my mind, a country see-section should be easy to read and provide an inspiring overview of some of the highlights in a country. They should not contain complete overviews of all the natural parks, as they should not have complete overviews of Unesco sites, national monuments, museums etc: it would clutter those sections. I would say the "best" parks (by some measure) should be in the See-section, like I did e.g. in Peru#See. In the case of natural parks however, I do believe a complete overview is of interest to at least part of travellers. I'm not a real hiker or biker, but I tend to pick 1 or 2 national parks when travelling to a country. I know people who work the other way around: they build their trips around natural sights and national parks. For them, even more than for me, a complete overview with relevant parameters makes perfect sense. I do however agree that those parameters differ from the ones in an encyclopedia: they should (in time) include things like accessibility, safety, camping options or admissions prices. On a whole, I'm not particularly interested in Venezuelan parks, I just think we should find a way to allow new editors and articles a chance to develop, with some explanation instead of a vfd, whenever we can. (Which is no criticism in this case - it's just the policy we have, I'm aware). JuliasTravels (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said!
We're not so replete with tireless wordsmiths and finished articles that we should be carelessly discouraging and gratuitously (even if unwittingly) insulting new editors (and longer term editors whose command of English is poor). Policy needs to emphasise a diplomatic notification on relevant editors' talk pages before a bald vfd template is slapped on what may be someone else's pride and joy or first baby steps. Again, no criticism of Ikan Kekek is intended since he just followed our existing (defective?) policy. --W. Franke-mailtalk 09:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that I completely agree with W. Frank here. The VfD page is the place where we as a community discuss whether particular articles should be deleted, and for good reason—it's a far more visible page than a random user's talk page, and to determine whether an article should be deleted or not the input of the community at large is required.
I think it goes without saying that throwing policy out the window as soon as someone's feelings get hurt is not something we want to begin doing. If a user would like to have our policies and the logic behind them clarified to them, or perhaps even change policy, the way to do so is to initiate a policy discussion on the relevant page—not throw a tantrum and threaten to leave Wikivoyage. I really don't want to minimize the importance of diplomacy and "not biting the newbies" because those are both good and necessary things, but if we begin to institute a double standard whereby new users—the very users who are most likely to create articles that end up at VfD—are treated more leniently, Wikivoyage becomes weaker as a travel resource.
Also, if we're to compare a VfD with a personal insult—I absolutely don't buy that it's a valid comparison, but W. Frank made it openly in the comment above mine—how would a double standard of that kind not be unfair to veteran editors, who would then be rewarded for their dedication by being "insulted" more frequently than newbies?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I expressed myself poorly.
I am not suggesting greater leniency for some sub-cohorts. Rather greater sensitivity and diplomacy where a polite word on a talk page before placing the template can forestall "tantrums" if it looks to be somebody's pet (and, especially, new) project. That sort of personal touch can sometimes help. And I'm not suggesting that this be mandatory - merely a gentle suggestion in the policy that it might be the diplomatic, nice and friendly thing to do, André. We should do everything to encourage a collegiate spirit here. --W. Franke-mailtalk 14:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. Give it time to develop. It's a perfectly valid travel topic, even if the content is weak at this point. Venezuela#See should have only a summary of the information that would appear here, which can get much more detailed. LtPowers (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What to do?

As over two weeks have passed and there are still several outstanding votes against it, a strict reading of Wikivoyage policy would have me delete this article now. However, I'm given to understand that efforts are underway to improve this article and bring it into conformity with Wikivoyage convention, though it bears mentioning that the most recent edit to the article is datestamped July 2nd. So, before dispatching it into the ether, I will wait a day or two in case my colleagues have any objections. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as people have made a serious start changing the article, I would say just give it some more time. There's no urgent reason to delete it, is there? It's summer and vacation season. I imagine I'm not the only one with little time to edit here. Can't we just treat it like we do with travel topics all the time, e.g. give it a couple of months (3 line travel topics even get a year!) and then reconsider? For the record, I don't have a personal interest in Venezuelan parks. I do however feel as a small community we should be as compliant as we can; it just seems silly to frustrate editors and their efforts because an article isn't completely done in 2 weeks. If you feel you have to delete it anyway, please move it to my user space so us non-admins can access it. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding frustrating editors and their efforts, as evidenced on this thread and on the large, boldfaced message on her talk page, the user who created this article is, to put it mildly, not demonstrating a desire to work in concert with the community in that collegial spirit that W. Frank mentioned. For me, that begs the question of why we Wikivoyagers are bending policy to placate an uncooperative user who engages in passive-aggressive self-pity every time she does not get her way. I hesitate to frame it in those terms, but the editors of this site are human beings with human reactions toward that kind of behavior. Meanwhile, the article as written now, even after the improvements that as of this writing seem to have ground to a halt, remains quite clearly VfD material. To cap it all off, the editor in question has stated in no uncertain terms that she's no longer willing to make any effort to improve the article herself, or anything else on Wikivoyage. In my opinion, let's wash our hands of the whole episode. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose that before we delete the article, we give all users 2 days to make further edits to the article or state their readiness to do so, in such a manner as to make the article halfway decent. Failing either of those things, I'd suggest deleting the article on July 16, if that seems fair to everyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remain skeptical about this article's potential even in the best-case scenario, but that sounds fair to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I wasn't so much talking about frustrating the original author, but rather about steady contributors like Pashley, Texugo and myself, who have shown an interest in fixing it up. It's just odd that some head over heels confirmation and editing is needed, when stub travel topic articles as a rule get a year to develop. I don't know your schedules, but I have only limited time to edit this site. It's a pity that for policy's sake established editors seem to have this urge to delete instead of at least finding a flexible solution. I for one have no time to to fix it all in the next two days (or 2 weeks for that matter), and to be honest the way you're talking about this now makes me feel it won't really matter anyway. "Quite clearly VfD material" is obviously a personal opinion, put as an undeniable fact. As for my personal opinion about this article: nevermind, I give up. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, JuliasTravels, regarding "the way [I'm] talking about this now mak[ing you] feel it won't really matter anyway", I'm not doing anything but taking a realistic approach to the issue. Policy constrains us to delete all articles nominated on VfD absent a clear consensus to keep, merge or redirect, which in this case would mean Saqib, Peter, Rschen7754, Globe-trotter, and myself would all have to be convinced to renounce their votes to Delete. Needless to say, that's a battle that can charitably be described as "uphill". I personally don't care any more than you do whether this article stays or goes, but our policy is clear on the matter.
Secondly, you're contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, you talk about editors contributing steadily to fixing the article; on the other hand you complain that no one has time to edit the site. Which is it?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Julias, this was my proposal: "we give all users 2 days to make further edits to the article or state their readiness to do so, in such a manner as to make the article halfway decent." I think you're stating you readiness to do so. I would vote to Keep the article for now under such circumstances, as I would trust you to follow through within the coming weeks and months. My suggestion is that if Andre finds it necessary to delete the article for the reasons he's stated, that it could be moved to your userspace instead, if you'd like to make a project of whipping it into shape. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, I'm fully on board with Ikan's proposed solution and I will be more than willing to a) keep the article provisionally assuming Texugo and Pashley indicate their readiness to continue editing, or else b) move the article to JuliasTravels' userspace so she can edit it with no time constraints. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to complain, Andre, I was just indicating I at least don't always have as much time to edit here as I'd like. With steady editors I meant regular users who have been on this site for a long enough time and have enough good edits to trust them to work on something - not that they are editing this particular article right now. In my eyes, wiki-policy is never meant to "constrain" us to a point where we can't be flexible of complaisant. In this particular case, as I read policy, an admin "can" delete an article when there's no consensus to keep it, there's no "obligation". Nothing in policy prevents a friendly admin to just go with it for once and give such an article the benefit of the doubt for a few more weeks/months. However though, of course these proposals are technically and policy wise sound - so please go ahead. It's just not important enough to spend much more time on it, so I'll hold my tongue keybord ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to continue editing this one, yes. Texugo (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are two trusted editors willing to continue working to whip this article into shape, so let's give them the time to do so. Shall we revisit this in 6 months or a year? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's retire this nomination as a provisional keep and revisit it later. I'd like to say that it was never my intention to try to force my viewpoint down anyone's throat, and I hope no one took my above comments in that manner. As a habitual questioner of my own judgment both on Wikivoyage and off, I'm most comfortable "going by the book" in my administrative duties here. As I intimated elsewhere, I think that makes me a better admin than I would be if I bent the rules more often. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept provisionally pending further development of article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because there are already guides for the three districts that make up this district, making this a redundant article. I don't recommend redirecting this since no one has ever referred to these districts as the "Western Center." -- Sapphire (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Warsaw has too many districts (18, waaay bigger Berlin has 6), this article was created as a step to reduce the number. See Talk:Warsaw#Districtifying. Jjtkk (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry guys, I am the perpetrator. See talk page as per Jjtkk's comment above. I thought that I'd be done with this quite quickly given the consensus there, and then had to abort it for a moment and forgot it is in the mainspace. I shall push through with merging districts ASAP unless there appears significant opposition. Kindest, PrinceGloria (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These districts absolutely should not be merged in the way that were. They have a tremendous amount of importance to many travelers and it would be a disservice to wrongly merge these districts. Never once in my six years in Warsaw have I ever been to Wawer, Wesola, Rembertow, Bielany, Bielany, or Białołęka, so I could see this districts being merged into something more reasonable, but absolutely not this concoction. -- Sapphire (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss in the talk page where we started talking about this ages ago, and not here. If they have such tremendous importance, there should be content to support this, which there currently isn't. One day there might be enough content to start splitting those articles, but at this moment there is very little action to those pages at all. I would just like to attempt to build a usable guide with the information we have and some effort the few editors who care at all can expend.
In my many decades of living in Warsaw, comparing it to other cities I visited and know well, there really isn't a need for every district of Warsaw to have an article. Berlin does fine with 6, as mentioned, and it has at least an equal wealth of tourist attractions and points of interest.
Again, come to the talk page and do not nominate pages for deletion, it is better that way. Thanks, PrinceGloria (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PrinceGloria, I have commented on the talk page, but its also important to explain why this district article is a bad idea when its been nominated for deletion. -- Sapphire (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to miss the point - you should first join the districtification discussion in the main article if you do not like the currently consented-by-community districtification and voice both your opposition and counterarguments there, and only VfD articles if the discussion is resolved. VfD is not a substitute for discussions on talk pages, otherwise we'd have everything at VfD because somebody doesn't like it. This is a last-resort measure and mostly used for clear-cut cases. And if you took a deep breath you would realize a better solution would be to move it to e.g. my userspace rather than delete, which you can feel free to do. Relax. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept per strong consensus to "keep" and Peter's speedy-keep rationale -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept per strong consensus to "keep" and Peter's speedy-keep rationale -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ifd

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy keep, a clear consensus has been reached including the nominator himself. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy keep, a clear consensus has been reached including the nominator himself. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy keep, a clear consensus has been reached including the nominator himself. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy keep, a clear consensus has been reached including the nominator himself. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy keep, a clear consensus has been reached including the nominator himself. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This expedition was created prematurely in spite of various concerns expressed (now on the expedition's talk page). It has poorly defined rationale and goals partially based on the creator's assertion, for which we do not have consensus, that we are hurting for more theme park articles. To my knowledge this expedition has not received any work since its creation.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as Texugo said, created prematurely against consensus by a user who is at present active only on a very sporadic basis and, given his inexperience, was very clearly getting in over his head. Said user has mentioned already that he had abandoned work on this expedition. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems to be dead. Danapit (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It really shouldn't have been created in the first place. I'd like to also see some other inactive Expeditions "archived", so we can keep the whole Expedition movement focussed and active, and it is clear what needs help. The Expeditions would remain in the archive until someone comes along motivated enough to kickstart it again or the community grows to a more sustainable level. James A ▪ talk 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. For this one though, I do not think archiving is necessary, as it never accomplished anything at all, and was never sanctioned in the first place. Texugo (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. James A ▪ talk 14:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Ryan said here, this page seems promotional. --Saqib (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to somewhere in one of the map expeditions, as the talk page suggests. As I see, promoting other projects that contribute to the commons of open-source knowledge is a good thing, and even better if the tools can be useful here. Pashley (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information has been moved here. --Saqib (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Wikivoyage:How_to_draw_a_map#ShareMap.org. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ischigualasto is a Provincial park not a National park.

FYI: See at long description paragraph.

Result: Kept as redirects. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page banner that uses an image portraying a copyrighted work. I don't think this is allowed per our non-free content policy. We could easily use something free of copyright to show on the banner, thus this wouldn't constitute minimal use. Globe-trotter (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's a banner is irrelevant. If the photo would be permitted as a normal article illustration, then there's no reason it shouldn't be allowed in the banner. LtPowers (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image on the Mission article is also of a mural, and I see that you yourself verified the license on that image. So I'm confused why an image depicting non-free content is justified, but a banner is not. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original image on Flickr uses CC BY-ND instead of the license displayed on Wikivoyage. Globe-trotter (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There's a possibility that when the photo was uploaded here, it did use the license stated, but the uploader on Flickr has since changed their license. When I contact Flickr users who have copyrighted works I wish to use, I always tell them they can change the license back afterwards on Flickr, although the free license would remain on Commons/Wikivoyage. Commons has a Flickr license review bot to ensure the license was free at a particular time, but we have nothing of the sorts, so it's a difficult case. James A ▪ talk 13:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We may not have a bot, but we do have admins, and the License review template. LtPowers (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sertmann is obviously a highly trusted contributor, but I was able to replace the image in-article with a Commons image with no issues, so it's easiest to just delete this one. When uploading Flickr images locally per our non-free content exemption doctrine, I highly recommend poking another admin to add the license review template immediately. (If you have the email record of permission, that can work too, but it's easiest to have it reviewed when the Flickr page shows the acceptable license.) --Peter Talk 22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I forgot to include the deletion rationale ;) No longer in use, so point #3 of the EDP. --Peter Talk 22:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

We've got our own barncompass so I think we don't need these barnstar templates anymore on this wiki. "Template:The Original Barnstar", "Template:The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar", "Template:The Editor's Barnstar", and "Template:The Working Wikivoyager's Barnstar". --Saqib (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are templates, not articles. These can be be either kept or deleted. --Saqib (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, templates can be redirected too. --Rschen7754 18:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in this case, I don't think anybody will ever go to search for barnstars nominated above for deletion when WikiLove is already present. I don't see any benefit in redirecting these templates. --Saqib (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is simple. I have an Original Barnstar on my talk page that would be a redlink if the template were deleted. Instead, I suggest that it be redirected so my Barnstar becomes a Barncompass. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose redirection (and deletion, for that matter) for that reason: Someone gave you a barnstar, not a barncompass. If they want to change the award, that's fine, but we should not change it for them. LtPowers (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you must had said redirect only the original barnstar. Btw, we can perhaps replace the original barnstar template code with actual template code so deleting the barnstar will not affect user talk pages, it has been used on. --Saqib (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the 7 pages that The Original Barnstar is currently used on it could be replaced with {{subst:The Original Barnstar}} -- WOSlinker (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WOSlinker gets today's prize for being right on the money ;) --Peter Talk 21:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an admin barnstar on my talk page & I agree with LtPowers above. We should not change it.
Also, in general any template that is common on our sister wikis should get the benefit of the doubt here; that makes it easier for people from other wikis to drop in. Pashley (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As WOSlinker points out above, previously given barnstars are a non-issue, as they can simply be substituted. Texugo (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Admin's Barnstar on Pashley's user talk page is substituted already. --Saqib (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In that case, there is no nostalgia factor involved with any of them except for the original barnstar. While the original image has a history of use here, none of the others existed here until they were imported in January, and have still not been used. Also, as an aside, the one on Pashley's talk page is not one for which a template exists, and such a template should not exists because the image is specifically made for wikipedia, with the puzzle-globe wikipedia logo superimposed on it. Texugo (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; the other barnstars don't have much purpose here. LtPowers (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Template:The Original Barnstar Kept, "Template:The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar", "Template:The Editor's Barnstar", and "Template:The Working Wikivoyager's Barnstar" Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleton pages

Few examples:

I would delete them because after several years are still blanks. Second choice to redirect them to anything that would make sense (if possible). Clearly, if within the next 2 weeks, before the final decision, someone would enrich them, it would be excellent.

PS: I've checked that none of the above pages are in the middle of a breadcrumb so no hierarchy-page could be broken. --Andyrom75 (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy at Wikivoyage:Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting is to redirect real places. Pashley (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per existing policy. (It was great that you did the hard and tedious job of checking to make sure that none of the above pages are in the middle of a breadcrumb trail or are linked from elsewhere, Andyrom75. So many of our more experienced editors forget this chore before they delete things like shortcuts and templates. --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and/or evaluate individually). I also don't see a blanket reason to delete or redirect. The ones which are districts of cities must not be deleted or redirected without revisiting the districtification of the city so as not to leave geographical gaps in the coverage. For others, if they are exceedingly tiny and near a larger place, they could be redirected, but this must be evaluated on a case by case basis. The point is, being blank alone is not enough to call for a redirect. Some of these are almost definite keeps, like Nelson (England), which is almost 30,000 in population, and Liliw, which is more than that. Others, such as Diamir and Barbagia, appear to be real regions or administrative districts which may perhaps have been part of an over-regionification of the parent region and should perhaps be redirected there. Texugo (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Texugo observation. I don't say that we have to revise the articles that are referring to them, because those are real places. Let's pick up Taipei for example. It will have a redlink instead of a blue link (in case of deletion) in the distric page, but it's a clear invite on developing a new page with some information on it. Having a page with just the name of the place and zero information it's quite useless. A blue link is less evident, but in en:voy the policy is to keep instead of delete, so I don't argue on that. On the other hand, I agree on discussing case by case and not apply a general rule. So once we got a preliminary position on the pages above, if usefull, I can check another set of similar pages. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in general, we have considered that for pages which should clearly have their own article, such as those district pages or pages for sizable cities, a blank skeleton may be better than a red link because at least it contains the article template, whereas a redlink may result in users making up their own article organization scheme/headers, or adding info without headers at all, which may be organized differently and require rewriting to separate it into the appropriate sections.Texugo (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These articles need to be nominated individually. For me, the question of whether to keep or redirect an outline article hinges on how good the chances are of that article ever being expanded upon, and I strongly suspect that the odds of that are not the same for all the articles listed here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right off the bat, any article listed above that's a district article needs to be kept, as deleting it would equate to tampering with an already-agreed-upon districting scheme, which (given ongoing events at Talk:Warsaw) can be a pretty massive hornet's nest to poke, and (given recent events on this page) should be done on the talk page of the city in question, not here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Texugo, each new page starts with a template (it's just one click away), so I don't consider the structure an added value on the above articles. According to my experience in it:voy, in 6 months only twice users has started an article without clicking on a pre-filled template. Andre, I agree on evaluating them individually, but I don't understand how the deletion of an empty distric aricle could change the asset of the distric of city. Maybe I miss something, let me know. --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple: because districts are real places we would not delete the articles, we would redirect them. But redirecting District X to District Y would imply that District X is part of District Y, directly contradicting the consensus on the districting scheme. Redirecting District X to the main city article would be only slightly less problematic: if District X isn't worthy of its own article, why was it set apart as part of the districting scheme? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I got your point. I didn't get it initially because I contemplate the deletion of useless article, but if we assume that only a redirect is possible, well... we are forced to keep them :-)
  • Keep. Lack of content is not a deletion rationale. Redirects may make sense on an individual basis, but only if the article should not exist, not just because it currently lacks content. That said, there may be a real SEO benefit to deleting and recreating blank outlines manually, but that is not currently our policy. --Peter Talk 20:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, they are not simply lacunous, they are completely empty :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Articles need to run afoul of a deletion rationale to be eligible for vfd, and as Peter said, a lack of content - whether that be a relative lack or a complete lack - is not a deletion rationale. I recommend that all the articles in question (with the exception of Praia D'El Rey, which is a commercial resort property) be speedily kept as they are ineligible for vfd per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that it's better to have a huge empty container instead of a precious smaller one? :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's got nothing to do with what I think. Our policy is clear on this issue. I encourage you to take the issue up on Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy if you really feel that strongly that policy needs to be changed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is made by people (not by a divine entity :-D) so it's important to know the people's opinion. What's your about it? --Andyrom75 (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that this is not the appropriate place to discuss the policy itself. Texugo (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Our actions on Wikivoyage are governed by policy, but policy itself is also changeable. It's not changeable on this page, however. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that asking for a personal opinion would be so complex :-D .... however, as per your request, I've just opened the discussion here. --Andyrom75 (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion - which, again, has nothing to do with the way Wikivoyage is actually run - is that it's always better to have a separate article for a destination than not to, and furthermore, that it's always better to include information than exclude it, that for the most part longer articles are better articles, that VfD procedure should be that we default to keep absent a unanimous consensus to delete, rather than vice-versa, and that if any policy needs to be done away with, it's the one that says we're to avoid looking like the phone directory. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm not sure what that has to do with either this deletion discussion or deletion policy, but that last bit is quite a statement. I do wonder how it could possibly be better to look like a phone directory. Texugo (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Texugo, Andyrom75 asked me, essentially, if the only opinion that counted was mine, what I would do about empty outline articles? I answered him in a way that covered a lot of other territory too. In my opinion, it's better to have than not to have - an article, even if it's empty; information, including types of information that many other Wikivoyagers feel makes an article look like a phone directory (e.g. the lists of laundromats and dry cleaners that some thought I should remove from the Buffalo district articles). It may be apropos of nothing, and it's not as if the fact that Wikivoyage doesn't actually work this way bothers me to any real degree. But Andyrom asked me a question and I answered him honestly. I've antagonized him enough on this thread; the least I can do is accede to his simple request for my thoughts. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Antagonized? I didn't know that we were fighting for something; I've thought that we were collaborating and brainstorming to create a better service for wiki-tourists :-P --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: All articles renominated individually. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, why some of the article were not renominated individually such as Richmond/Near West End, Monterrey/Northwest, Taipei/Zhongzheng, Beirut/Manara, and Beirut/Manara? --Saqib (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No information on the page, find no reference to the location. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader responded to e-mail saying the map was traced using Google Earth. --Saqib (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept per lack of any policy-based objections to User:AndreCarrotflower's speedy-keep vote. See also User talk:Peterfitzgerald#Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept per lack of any policy-based objections to User:AndreCarrotflower's speedy-keep vote. See also User talk:Peterfitzgerald#Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept per lack of any policy-based objections to User:AndreCarrotflower's speedy-keep vote. See also User talk:Peterfitzgerald#Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept per lack of any policy-based objections to User:AndreCarrotflower's speedy-keep vote. See also User talk:Peterfitzgerald#Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept per lack of any policy-based objections to User:AndreCarrotflower's speedy-keep vote. See also User talk:Peterfitzgerald#Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept per lack of any policy-based objections to User:AndreCarrotflower's speedy-keep vote. See also User talk:Peterfitzgerald#Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily kept per lack of any policy-based objections to User:AndreCarrotflower's speedy-keep vote. See also User talk:Peterfitzgerald#Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point, though I'm certainly willing to be convinced there is one. LtPowers (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that is theoretically what the index page is for, though I would venture a guess that the page is very far from including all existing templates. I certainly can't see any way in which categorizing the templates in a nice orderly manner could possibly be harmful. Texugo (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's another thing to maintain. Yes, the index page is out of date, but that's a result of the indiscriminate creation of templates and the failure (likely unintentional) of template creators to put them on that page. But I should think that this problem is not alleviated by introducing a separate, parallel organization system; rather, it seems that would make it worse. LtPowers (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we put even half the things missing on that page, it would be extraordinarily long and unwieldy and of basically little help. I would lean toward renaming that page to something like "common templates", and then neatly categorize and/or delete the rest, as appropriate. After that, the only maintenance needed would be to check Special:Uncategorized templates to see if anything has slipped through. Texugo (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this and also Category:Time, date and calendar templates and Category:Listings templates after going to Category:Templates and seeing that only a random set of the templates were categorised. Some of the others seem a bit under used and maybe also not named that well either, for exmaple Category:Templates:Content. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Texugo: it could become a useful overview of these templates. Also, as we're having more and more templates, our template index would be better off using categories as well. Globe-trotter (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "It might be useful in the future"? That's the best argument we can make in favor? A category doesn't include even half the information necessary for proper template organization. That's why we created the template index in the first place; so we could include examples and explanations. We can't do that with categories. Many templates don't have names that make their purpose obvious, so a simple listing within a category is no use. LtPowers (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Saqib (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Discussion re-opened for an additional two weeks due to concerns raised at User talk:AndreCarrotflower#Hatnote templates. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The reason why we judge nominated pages as "guilty until proven innocent" is to prevent precisely this kind of haphazard proliferation. If we're going to categorize templates, we should form a consensus to do so -- and not here on the VfD page. It needs to be done on Wikivoyage talk:Categories or Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates, so that it can be implemented systematically, and by consensus. Until then, we need a very strong, policy-based reason to keep this particular category, and no one has yet offered anything beyond "it might be useful". LtPowers (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Wikivoyage:Categories is the current policy guideline for category usage, but there is a note on that page indicating that it needs to be updated. Going solely by the guidance on that page I think a significant number of categories on the site would need to be deleted, so rather than deleting this hatnote category and leaving myriad others that are similar, let's move this discussion to Wikivoyage talk:Categories and try to get the policy page back into a usable state so that we can actually have a basis for making "a very strong, policy-based reason to keep" any particular cagtegory. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Those other categories were created after at least some discussion about why they were needed and what purpose they served. By all means, update the category policy, but I do not think we should start a precedent of "create first, discuss later", which is what we would be setting if we allow this category to stand. LtPowers (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The point was made that anything nominated for deletion could not be kept unless there was "a very strong, policy-based reason to keep" and that any keep vote that did not directly cite a policy that justified that vote should be ignored, apparently including all "keep" votes made so far in this discussion. Using that criteria, and given that we do not have a up-to-date policy for categories, nearly all of our existing categories should be deleted since there is no policy that justifies keeping most of them. If we're really going to toss out keep votes that don't quote policy, and since this category looks viable to me, then I'm suggesting that rather than deleting this category now we move the discussion to the category talk page so that we can get the policy updated, after which it will be very obvious whether this category really is a deletion candidate. As to "create first, discuss later", "delete first, discuss later" is also not a good precedent. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? And what else could 'guilty until proven innocent' possibly mean? I didn't say that there had to be an explicitly written policy applying to every page that we keep; that's an extrapolation on your part. "Policy-based" can mean agreeing to try something via discussion, or agreeing to implement a category scheme via discussion. I am not aware of any discussion that has taken place regarding this category except right here, and here is not the proper place for that discussion. Since the category was created without consensus, and there is no extant policy that makes the category necessary, I don't see any other way to interpret "guilty until proven innocent" except to say that this category should be deleted. LtPowers (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. It's been two weeks now. There was not a single vote in favour of this deletion nomination so I'm going to close this nomination. --Saqib (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:DotmNomination"

Has been superseded by Template:FeatureNom. I took the liberty of switching over all DotM candidates that used the old template, so it's safe to delete this now, I imagine. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Óbidos. --Saqib (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a region ("Diamir District") set up as a city article, and as a region, it most certainly does have plenty of places to stay. The capital of the district is Chillas, which currently redirects here (and I don't know if it should be a separate article). LP lists 7 hotels in Chillas. Texugo (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been complications around division & district articles in Pakistan; see Talk:Pakistan#Division_and_district_articles. Saqib is Pakistani & was part of those discussions. I'm very strongly inclined to just trust his judgment in creating this one. Pashley (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
W. Frank, you may want to refer back to LtPowers' commentary regarding the sleep test on the archived VfD nomination for Middlefield (Connecticut):
"The sleep test is not 'Is there lodging available here?'; it's 'Is this the type of place in which one would typically expect to find accommodations?' In other words, it is intended to distinguish between destinations and attractions, not to separate certain destinations from other destinations. Manhattan/Central Park is a valid article even though there are no hotels in the park."
and, regarding the text of wiaa as quoted by you:
"That wording dates only to September; prior to that the text was clear that it was a test to distinguish between destinations and attractions, not between good-destinations and bad-destinations."
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wasn't aware of this deletion nomination. Frank, there're few hotels in Diamer district if not many. Haven't you heard of recent Nanga Parbat tourist shooting which killed nine foreign tourist while they were staying in a hotel in Diamer? BTW, this area is quite popular with trekkers and mountaineers. --Saqib (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's it called? You're pointing to a hotel that's in the nearby (and larger) Burnley, not Nelson (England). The Oaks Hotel is one mile from the M65 (jct 12) and is about 2.5 miles from Burnley town centre, but more than 4 miles from Nelson. There are buses available from Burnley Bus Station that take you along the main road (Colne Road) and there is a bus stop outside the Oaks Hotel driveway: http://goo.gl/maps/lD1fQ
--W. Franke-mailtalk 00:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The address is listed as Colne Road, Nelson, Lancashire, BB10 2LS. Texugo (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting confused with POST TOWNS; have a look at the entry I wrote for it - I've posted a Google map link for it above so you can now see for yourself why I wrote what I did above.
It's a pity that anr only deals with stuff like hotels and restaurants. It would be really neat to have something analogous to "There's no reason to clutter up a guide with lists of places travellers will probably never bother to go to." While I'm in a didactic mood, I better point out that comments about unsavoury aspects of the destination in general are not "negative reviews". Comments about unsafe or boring areas, prostitution or drug use, police corruption, pollution, poor climate and so on; these should all be welcome as long as they are sincere and fair comments for the traveller's (or, in this case, careless traveller's) benefit--W. Franke-mailtalk 00:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you are right or not about that particular hotel, I do find it hard to believe that a city of that size would not have a single place to stay. I don't know of any previous case where a city that big had to be redirected for not having a place to stay, and even recent vfd discussions have leant toward keeping articles for towns much much smaller even despite not having accomodations. Texugo (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the wonderfully stupid things about our current vfd policy is that an article is presumed guilty until Proven otherwise, so it should be for you to show that there is a commercial sleeping opportunity there - rather than in a nearby town like Burnley that does have somewhere to sleep & its own WV article. That's why I asked you to name the mythical hotel in Nelson. Over the years I've had lots of good stuff that I created summarily deleted because just one person voted put forward a deletion rationale and now I genuinely feel that I am helping the traveller by not suggesting that they visit even a few dreary, northern (to Londoners - southern to me of course) mill town. --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article a few months ago when I was consolidating the Lancashire and Greater Manchester articles and saw that many existing pages referenced Nelson, but that no article existed for the town itself. I had meant to add more to the page, but I'm afraid it inadvertently slipped down my list. Thanks W. Frank for your work on it: I really appreciate it! :) I would be in favour of keeping the article ( though I am a bit biased) if only because it's a large town that's mentioned elsewhere and it does now have a lot of good content. --Nick talk 02:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) W. Frank, if you'd like, I'll show you some really stunning photography (if I do say so myself) that I've done of old grain mills and steel mills in the derelict industrial districts of Buffalo. I think it's a big mistake to take as gospel truth your own personal opinion, or even a generally held opinion, that a place is uninteresting to travellers. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're both talking sense. I thoroughly agree that "it's a big mistake to take as gospel truth" personal opinions. That's precisely why we need to visit this nutty "Guilty until proven innocent policy" where (if we genuinely actually treat all editors as having equally valid opinions) only one person needs to maintain an objection and the article is poof!
By the way, if we're serious about this nutty vfd policy, someone really should slap some vfd templates on all these bulk nominated articles. (Don't blame Andyrom75 - some people have made calculated efforts to make the instructions at the top less than transparent). --W. Franke-mailtalk 02:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend trolling at Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy instead of individual nominations, if only for the fact that these will be quickly archived, where your creativity will go unread. --Peter Talk 06:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is now a moderately long article, so even if lack of content were a deletion criterion (It isn't, though sometimes it indicates a redirect candidate.), this article would survive. Also, Nick has given a reasonable rationale for creating it. Pashley (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As this is a real place with almost 30,000 people, it presumably deserves an article, and if not, it would need to be redirected, not deleted. The fact that a single user wants to delete an article about a real place does not mean there is no consensus to keep. The policy here is that consensus does not have to be unanimous. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)m[reply]
To be fair, Ikan, consensus is not required on this page as the "guilty until proven innocent" rule applies. Nonetheless, the thing to do with this article remains keep, as the arguments of the lone commenter in favor of deletion ("there's no place to sleep" and "no traveller would be interested in visiting there") are, respectively, a) a misapplication of the sleep test, as my comment above intimated, and has been disproven in any case, and b) subjective, unproveable, and lacking any basis in policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of regions that have been renamed

--Traveler100 (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. --Saqib (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/July_2013&oldid=4924048"