Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2023

From Wikivoyage
← February 2023 Votes for deletion archives for March 2023 (current) April 2023 →

Pointless redirects

User:Nicole Sharp has been creating many of these, e.g. Cincinnati, OH. She has been asked to stop before. See Special:Contributions/Nicole_Sharp for a list & User_talk:Nicole_Sharp#Useless redirects for comment.

I think they should all be speedy deleted. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here's a list of every redirect they have created in 2023:
FWIW, I'm going to !vote delete, even though w:WP:CHEAP applies. However, none of these redirects meet WV:CSD so these should follow the regular 14-day process. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and in my opinion since the user already received a "last warning" about creating unnecessary redirects in 2019, it's time to start using escalating blocks per WV: How to handle unwanted edits.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to disagree with immediately escalating to blocks when we're asking them to do something that is not a Wikivoyage policy nor a guideline. Plus, it was Andre Carrotflower who didn't follow policy by unilaterally deleting USA Virgin Islands and Mid-Atlantic USA as "PCV" (a serious accusation loosely thrown) when it was created by a user standing in good faith (also minding w:WP:CHEAP, which applies to most wikis, including this one). I'm not saying that these redirects can't be deleted – if the consensus is to delete these redirects, that's what will happen (also hence my delete !vote) – but we need to keep this in mind before escalating further, because it's not like admins can't also get away using their "private club" excuse. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're asking them to not be disruptive. That's a very basic rule that everyone must follow. I'll take on board your call to not escalate matters just yet though. But I'm not sure what your last sentence means or how a "!vote" is different from a vote.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!: agreed with that, though – I'm not saying that Nicole's behaviour is not disruptive, because it is disruptive. As for the difference between !vote and "vote", w:WP:!VOTE has a good explanation of why many Wikimedians use "!vote" (not just Wikipedians, as the page claims). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are not useful, and this user is being disruptive. If the redirects are kept, the user will cone back and create more. Ground Zero (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think readers are likely to think any of these cities are not sufficiently well known to be the main article. AlasdairW (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part regarding how redirects are managed on Wikivoyage. You can delete the redirects if you wish, and I will not create any new redirects for Wikivoyage, but not having the redirects in place makes it very difficult for myself and likely countless other users to navigate and find the correct pages on Wikivoyage. I strongly advise reconsidering this to allow for proper navigation of the wiki. It can be argued that the only action that disrupts the wiki is by not allowing redirect pages, since this prevents users from finding the correct pages on the wiki. Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You will also need to delete "Washington, DC", "Baltimore, MD", "Chicago, IL" and every other city name redirect on Wikivoyage using this standard nomenclature for city names. Nicole Sharp (talk)
    • As an irregular editor, I cannot remember every discussion that I participated in from four years ago. This was an honest mistake but I can refrain from making any new redirects on Wikivoyage from now on without creating a talkpage to discuss the redirect first and then waiting for a community consensus on whether to create a redirect page or not (though this is very inefficient). Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • In all of the cases above, other than Washington DC, the Wikivoyage article for the city is the city name without the state postal abbreviation. Readers will not have any trouble finding these articles if they include the postal abbreviation in their search even if we delete the redirects. Ground Zero (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I never create a redirect (on Wikivoyage, Wikipedia, etc.) unless I am actually looking for a page and cannot find it using MediaWiki Search (which is why having the redirect page is necessary for navigation and not "pointless"). A typical example is I just searched for "Wapakoneta, OH". There is absolutely no way for the user to find a page on Wikivoyage for this town by entering the standard USA postal name ("CityName, StateAbbreviation") of the town into Wikivoyage Search. Wikivoyage Search returns only two results: "Ohio" and "Sidney (Ohio)". Clicking the Wikivoyage page for "Ohio" returns information about Ohio, but it is still difficult to find any information on the page for the entire state of Ohio that is specifically about Wapakoneta, unless you do a browser text search ([Ctrl]+[F]) for the string "Wapakoneta" within the text for the page on Ohio, which reveals that there is actually a page for this town already on Wikivoyage ("Wapakoneta"), but it is otherwise hidden from Wikivoyage Search without having a redirect page present. If you don't want to use redirect pages on Wikivoyage, then you should alter the MediaWiki source code to modify the MediaWiki search engine to return the page result for "Wapakoneta" when someone searches for "Wapakoneta, OH" since the page is otherwise hidden without a redirect page present. Otherwise the wiki is broken (disrupted) for useful navigation without having redirect pages or a change to the default search algorithm. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not American, so I don't know how common that usage is, but as you type "Wapako[...]", Wapakoneta shows up by the search box. Unless you have a very slow connection, very slow machine or close your eyes while typing, you should see the article turning up, and disappearing when you type in the " OH", if you are using the standard interface. Articles with such names shouldn't need redirects disambiguation, and no disambiguation should be assumed. For something like Washington I understand that you assume you need a disambiguation suffix. –LPfi (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted Pashley (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the Chiro article by User:Nelospecial has a lot of text, none of it is actually about Chiro. It is all very general text that could probably be true of any city in Ethiopia. The Gisagara article is only marginally better, but it lists a school and a hospital as points of interest. There isn't any practical information. Ground Zero (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

w:Chiro says ~27,000 population & a regional administrative center. Clearly a reasonable article could be written, but this isn't it. Would anyone care to volunteer? Pashley (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: both articles deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created by Dnshitobu (talk · contribs)

I had to speedily delete all but two phrasebooks created by this user as they were all copied verbatim from Wikipedia, with no attempt to even adapt it to Wikivoyage's MoS nor give the relevant attribution (making it a copyvio). For the other two (Abron phrasebook and Jiru phrasebook), I copyedited the ledes so they are not near identical to Wikipedia, but I hold no trust in the other 49 articles being copyvio-free, and we definitely do not want to reward disruptive behaviour here (all these were likely created in order to game the m:Explore Africa contest, which is why these articles were created on a mass-creation spree). It's also worth noting that all these articles are low-quality and deleting these will not result in the removal of useful travel content.

Listing all of them below:

If any of these have been copyedited to the point where it can be kept, please do add a note beside the listed article (e.g., something like "improved by SHB2000 on Dec 8, 2022"), but until then, I do not trust that these are copyvio-free, or have not been copied verbatim from Wikipedia with no attribution provided. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there is no improvement to these articles over the next two weeks, then we should delete them. On their talk page, Dnshitobu made it clear that they are expecting other people to improve these articles. We know from experience that that approach doesn't work in Wikivoyage: we don't have enough traffic on this site for phrasebook stubs to develop organically. And we can't allow copyright infringement. Ground Zero (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reviewed all of the articles. There are a few that have no information of practical use for travellers. Most of them, however, follow a simple formula: cut and paste information from Wikipedia, plus 2-5 listings of hotels or restaurants with no information about them except for coordinates, and a map. The intention seems to be to create as many articles as possible, with the minimum effort. But the listings and the map are of some use to travellers, and Africa is a region that is under-served by Wikivoyage. I think we should consider whether we want to delete these. The phrasebooks-without-phrases, though, need some content or they should go. We should also consider whether these editing competitions actually are a benefit to the projects as they are being run. I think their value is questionable. Ground Zero (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless they are greatly improved. (Also please can we review m:Explore Africa/Article Suggestions, where some of these are listed.) AlasdairW (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yendi might be developed enough to keep, depending on how much was copied and pasted. The problem is, as you said, we can't trust this user's contributions. Therefore, I agree with you: delete all unless something changes significantly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that. We should also do a web search to see if the text comes from anywhere else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek@Ground Zero@SHB2000 I totally understand the angle you all are coming from but instantly deleting all the articles I have created without recourse to time is not appropriate. Imagine I create an article today, hoping to improve it tomorrow then it is deleted, what benefit would you deleting when it could have been improved in the next couple of days or weeks. Giving users the benefit of the doubt is very good in a volunteer space because the efforts people make to contribute is a lot of energy we need to appreciate. Trust me, these articles would not be left the same with time but if you delete them instantly, you have only wasted someones precious time and infringed upon the knowledge sharing we all care about. Dnshitobu (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @User:Dnshitobu, Dnshitobu: your articles are not going to be deleted instantly. The votes-for-deletion process usually takes a couple of weeks, and if there are signs that a user is improving articles, editors will usually allow more time. We'd rather have more useful articles than delete articles. If someone creates a bunch of stubs and shows no sign of being willing to improve them, and no-one else improves them within a couple of weeks, they get deleted.

SHB2000, who nominated these articles noted "If any of these have been copyedited to the point where it can be kept, please do add a note beside the listed article...." In other words, improved articles won't be deleted. I've improved four of them already. I hope you will work on some, too. Don't worry about getting them a done in two weeks: as long as progress is being made, there will be no rush to delete. Ground Zero (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dnshitobu, let's discuss your statement, in particular, "deleting all the articles I have created without recourse to time is not appropriate".
  1. All the articles I speedily deleted were copyvios; copyvios are not allowed on this site, and it is your responsibility to know that (and I'm surprised I have to tell this to a sysop on dagwiki)
  2. I listed the other articles here, and did not speedily delete them, so we can discuss them. That's what VFD is for.
  3. I did not list all your articles for deletion.
--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 15 days. Have we made a decision about these articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's consensus (albeit indirectly) to delete all the articles that have not been improved. I'd wait another day before taking action, though, especially because there would be a COI if I deleted the unimproved articles without waiting. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of thes articles appears to be working on them, I am willing to wait another couple of weeks. The competition that these were crated before ends on 31/1/23, so deleting any time next month should avoid points be awarded for empty articles. AlasdairW (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait till 22/12/30 as per #Deleting, or not, but am willing to wait longer if needed. The only think that I feel strongly about is that these articles don't count towards the contest. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Let's keep this thread open and give Dnshitobu time to do more work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Dnshitobu has made some progress already, as I've noted in the list above. Ground Zero (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove the VfD tags from the articles that have been improved, and cross them off this list. Ground Zero (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ground Zero (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this could also be done with some of the proposed mergers. AlasdairW (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be done after they are merged? Ground Zero (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abron phrasebook and Jiru phrasebook have been deleted as they contained no phrases. Abon was believed to have had 1,000 native speakers in 1973, and Jiru had 3,400 in 2000. Ground Zero (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makhanda should probably be merged with Grahamstown, although I don't know which title should be used. the wub "?!" 00:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are any of the blue-linked articles above still nominated for deletion? If not, we should close this nomination. Merges can be discussed on the relevant articles' talk pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed a few more from the list. The rest should be deleted. At best, they each have a few business listings with no information beyond coordinates. It's been almost four months now. I don't expect any of these will be expanded further. Ground Zero (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's consensus to delete everything else. I'm reluctant to delete the whole lot of them given I was the one who nominated this. Anyone else willing to take the honours? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted through Gbawe, but are we dead sure Goaso doesn't have enough content to merge the listings somewhere or just delete the lede and keep the rest? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Goaso has three listings with only coordinates -- no other information. Like any article, it could be expanded into something useful, as I did with many on the list below, and as Dnshitobu did on some. I got fed up with working on articles whose creator didn't seem to be interested in them. Ground Zero (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't stand in your way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm done with this project. I don't think Goaso is an article, but whatevs. Ground Zero (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying I'm not standing in your way in terms of deletions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Deleted the rest. Although I was reluctant to do so given the fact that I was the one who nominated the entire batch, more than 4 months have passed since I made this nomination and I don't think anyone will object. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2023&oldid=4661989"