Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2022

← May 2022

Votes for deletion archives for June 2022

(current) July 2022 →

Obsolete documentation subpages of individual currency templates

These 13 documentation subpages of templates in Category:Individual currency templates are partly outdated, have partly typos and are inconsistent. I've replaced the documentation of the templates they were used for with a standard documentation template for them, {{Individual currency template documentation}}. LPfi has proposed to keep them and make them redirects here. I guess its more confusing to have unused and useless redirects then not having them, but I wouldn't mind too much keeping them as redirects. Thanks in advance for any comment, --Marsupium (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me the redirects would be useful, as I might type "template:USD/doc" in the search box to read the documentation. I don't have any strong opinion on that though. My main reason I think a VFD is better than speedies is that an administrator seeing one might delete it while not seeing the others or taking the time to look them up, which means several admins would be making the work of deciding whether such a page should be speedied.

There is also the issue that this isn't a standard way to handle template documentation pages. There may be all kind of issues that might be better discussed somewhere. Here the rearrangement gets some more eyes.

–LPfi (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: I don't think this isn't a "standard way to handle template documentation pages", at least on other projects. For a similar example see w:Template:Lang-en-XX usage and other templates in w:Category:Documentation shared content templates (and equivalents in d:Q7333447). --Marsupium (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any other templates handled in this way on English Wikivoyage – and that is what counts. It probably is a good solution, which should be used in any similar situation, but it is a new solution, and there might be a reason why it shouldn't be used. –LPfi (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom – inconsistent template documentations don't help. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that only have content in "Get in" that are unrelated to the destination

These articles fall into a similar boat as § "Airport articles", except that these also have something else in "get in" that are also unrelated. Take Illah Bunu as an example. Illah Bunu#By train does have some content, but it does not mention Illah Bunu once, and it seems duplicated within articles. These do not help travellers and are partially copyvios.

The biggest exception here is Ikwuano which has a hotel listed but the hotel listed is not in Ikwuano. Articles that are already mentioned in "Airport articles" are also not listed here. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the reasons identified. These articles list only airports and bus stations that are located in other cities. Ground Zero (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Atibrarian, I noticed that you added some listings to Ogaminana and Illah Bunu. Are there any other articles on this list that you'd like to save and improve? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Ping, I would certainly be working on the remaining articles listed for deletions to improve their content.

Unfortunately, my schedules have been pretty tight so I passively frequent this space. Hopefully, in the coming days, I would be opportune to improve the contents of the articles.

Kind regards. Atibrarian (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting these articles. I would like to work on them to improve the contents and make them more useful to travellers.

Another engagement on and offline has greatly reduced my time here. Regards. Atibrarian (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atibrarian. I think we should suspend the nomination for a month and reconsider the question then. We would all prefer to see the articles improved instead of deleted. Ground Zero (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind gesture! Atibrarian (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly 31 days since Ground Zero's comment, and while some articles have been improved, many listings are out-of-town, and none of the get in issues have been fixed. For reference, articles that have been improved include:

I'm happy to keep this nomination up for another 14 days, but listings well out of the destination don't serve the voyager. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today is 14 days after that post. I think we should delete unimproved articles today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+2 for deleting them today. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: All deleted except the unimproved articles per discussion above. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring abroad/Table

Right now, this table doesn't seem to be very useful – it's out-of-date by eight years and tables like these are out-of-scope on a travel guide. If someone would like to see such statistics, they can go to the encyclopedia, but this rather unusual encyclopedic page can't stand the way it is. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We should avoid legal and medical information which cannot be clearly verified. Travel topics should also have a minimum of ephemeral information that is likely to change over the years; if they are to be kept anywhere, it should be in the destination article. /Yvwv (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not unbiased since I created it. I'd say keep, though I'll not be hugely upset if the decision is to delete. I think it is useful to have this summary, at least for people seeking the right place to retire, because it lets you compare destinations. Some folk might discover destinations they had not considered; e.g. Bangladesh is dirt cheap & has legal prostitution.

Yes, most of the info here can be found in the encyclopedia, but it is spread out over many country articles and others like w:Prostitution by country, w:Legality of cannabis by country and w:Criminalization of homosexuality. Some, like the costs for retirement visas, is not likely to be in the encyclopedia; you'd need to check with each country's immigration department. Pashley (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Few countries change character in a few years, so not having been updated in eight years does not make it useless (although updating would be nice, especially as there may be ongoing trends relevant at least for those who are going to still be in the country a decade from now). I also think, like Pashley, that a summary here can be useful despite the individual data being available in Wikipedia and in UN statistics (or whatever). I don't particularly like having prostitution and drugs being singled out as important factors, and other tweaks could be made, but such issues should be discussed elsewhere. –LPfi (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think legality of prostitution and cannabis should be in this table. This isn't a sex tourism guide. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. But I'd support deletion; let Wikipedia keep these stats and otherwise, keep the info in country guides. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know people who have chosen retirement destinations partly based on availability of high-grade weed and/or tolerant attitudes to homosexuality. Pashley (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly. People have different priorities, but not just retired people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: There seems to be consensus to delete, but I prefer someone else to do the deletion as I'm not comfortable deleting a page that I nominated. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? I'll have to do it myself if no-one does it within 2 days. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it, but I don't understand why you ask other people to do a job that you have the power and apparent time to do yourself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: In fact, there is no consensus to delete after 14+7 days. There are but 3 votes to delete, 1 to keep and 1 comment about how to edit the table, so this table will be kept per no consensus to delete, without prejudice to further discussion about how to edit it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Visayan languages

Another encyclopedia page that is out of scope for a travel guide. If this were to stay, you could justify creating a disambiguation page for Romance languages or any other language family. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Romance languages are sufficiently covered by Europe#Talk, the country talk sections, and the phrasebooks. I think the situation is different in Visaya. –LPfi (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strongly support deletion. Having phrasebooks for the languages in question is appropriate and sufficient.~~ Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is meant as a disambiguation page, to find relevant phrasebooks. Is that role sufficiently covered in the relevant Talk sections? Is it better to have this one page than to repeat much of the information in Philippines, Visayas and the relevant (sub)regions? –LPfi (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as out of scope, phrasebooks for each language are sufficient. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 15:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If appropriate, the content can be moved to Visayas#Talk or the talk section of a subregion. It is not really a disambiguation page because none of the individual languages are known as "Visayan" so I support deletion. Gizza^(roam) 05:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we merge content to there, we need to keep the page for attribution. I see no problem in keeping it as a redirect, so keep, merge and redirect. –LPfi (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if we plan on mentioning more languages than are already in that section. Do we? If so, why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the case that 'none of the individual languages are known as "Visayan"'; Cebuano is often called Bisaya. This page originated because we once had two phrasebooks, Cebuano & Bisaya, & when we reduced that to one, we turned the other into an odd sort of disambiguation page. Discussion at Talk:Visayan languages. Keep. Pashley (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, keep, but redirect? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess keep and redirect is fine then. The dog2 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Redirected to Visayas#Talk. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]