Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2024

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← April 2024 Votes for deletion archives for May 2024 (current) August 2024 →

Unused screenshots

I've been deleting some files listed at Special:UnusedFiles. In my view anything listed there is a candidate for deletion, just as general cleanup work, but I've started with the screenshots because they are all out-of-date, showing pages as they were years ago.

@SHB2000 objects, see User_talk:Pashley#Deletion_of_screenshots?, & even suggests I should do things like undeleting or copying files to Commons. I think the objection is nonsense & have no intention of taking the suggestions.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped these deletions for now. Pashley (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but I'd interpret it differently. A DOTM banner should be linked from one of the nominations page, main page or previous DOTM archives, so it should not appear at UnusedFiles. If it does, check if a link needs adding. If yes, link it. If not, delete. Pashley (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy undelete, then add links to the files we are expected to discuss; it is hard even for admins to discuss the merits of deleted files and non-admins should be treated equally on this page. While non-free images need to be in use for fair use to apply, the files under discussion are a separate category, which needs a discussion. –LPfi (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As these are historic images, they cannot be recreated if deleted. I suppose they should be moved to Commons (where they probably are in scope, unlike here), but I will wait for the file list before making further comments on their value. –LPfi (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, move to Commons, then delete here. And please, just someone put these unused banners on a relevant talk page so they aren't showing up on this report. These reports are useful and shouldn't be polluted with noise. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll undelete them since several experienced admins have suggested it. Looks utterly pointless to me, but I'll go along.
The file list is:
File:Wv.png, File:Screen Shot 2022-06-26 at 10.05.26.png (linked in Wikivoyage talk:Star articles#Putting the static maps requirement for huge cities to an end 00:22, 26 June 2022), File:Georgetown screenshot.png (apparently sent to the press, see User talk:Traveler100#Screenshots)
File:Screen Shot 2022-03-06 at 12.49.20.png (now at Commons: File:Wikivoyage screenshot of geoline on Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park.png), File:Screenshot 20190623-185946.jpg, File:Screenshot 20190219-224012 Chrome.jpg (linked in Wikivoyage talk:UX Expedition#Feature Banner: Desktop and Mobile versions 21:46, 19 February 2019)
File:Screenshot 2015-03-04.png, File:Screen Shot 2014-02-22 at 2.27.04 am1.png, File:Screen Shot 2014-02-22 at 12.34.18 am.png
File:Sheki screenshot.png (apparently sent to the press, see User talk:Traveler100#Screenshots), File:Frederiksberg screenshot.png (ditto), File:Kununurra screenshot.png (ditto)
File:Khao San Road screenshot.png (ditto)
There were a few I deleted that were duplicated on Commons; I have not included them. Pashley (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you move a file to Commons, it should give you an option to delete the file locally (provided you're a sysop here), too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt there will be some exceptions, but in general if an image is unused & unwanted here, I fail to see why anyone thinks moving it to Commons might be a good idea. Pashley (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that it won't sit here unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an image is linked, then it is not completely unused. Please check "What links here" before deleting/nominating a file (unless it has been moved to Commons). Half of a small sample of the images that I checked were referenced on talk pages. AlasdairW (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is either 1.) untrue or 2.) seemingly untrue because the report needs to be generated by MediaWiki again. Either way, the problem is solved by just using these g-darn files on the talk pages so it's a non-issue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between being used and being linked. The "unused" report doesn't care about files just being linked; that's why you need to also check "what links here". Those linked from a discussion may be essential for understanding the discussion. –LPfi (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now added indirect usage in parenthesis to the files in the list where I found such. The rest may be linked indirectly by having been put at the graffiti wall and linked by a permanent link. Those are harder to trace. Keep the screenshots sent to the press. Keep the screenshots used in user interface discussions and discussions about star article requirements. –LPfi (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: consensus leans keep. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a genuine misspelling or an attempt to play on with some unfunny humour? I have never heard anyone call Aoraki as "Mt Cock", nor do I see how that's a legitimate typo when c and o are on opposite ends of the qwerty keyboard. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google gives no relevant hits. Pashley (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Granted I would have thought that was brilliant as a 9 year old kid in NZ. Brycehughes (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lordy – what were you up to? /s --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True... it might have taken me until 13 to realize the first word was related. Brycehughes (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Ground Zero (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could an admin close this discussion? It's been 14 days, but I do not want to do it myself since I was the one who nominated this. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the third time as totally unnecessary. See Template talk:Smiley. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I'd like to know if there are unicode alternatives to this template. Then I'll make a decision. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Unicode block Miscellaneous Symbols (U+2600–U+26FF) includes U+263A White smiling face (☺) and U+263B Black smiling face (☻). There is also a newer dedicated block with many more variations: Emoticons (U+1F600–U+1F64F). There are also "variant selectors", where VS16 (U+FE0F) is for "emoji style" (☺️), i.e. often a yellow face. –LPfi (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to normally type them up, or would it be easier for a user to use this template? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be much more easy to use the template, at least in its default form, than remembering the U+ codes, of course. One could also have a page with the codes and "characters" listed, so that they can be copied from there. –LPfi (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some keyboards allow typing the emojis as such. I assume they are common only on smartphones. –LPfi (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an emoji keyboard on a Mac (ctrl+cmd+space), but it requires very specific input and doesn't always work; it would normally be easier to use {{smiley}} in such cases. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still haven't made up my mind yet, but this is critical information that I'll end up using. (and I also fixed the attribution issue) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say there's nothing whatsoever critical about anything having to do with smileys. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is critical, because I'd like to know how easy it is to use the alternative (i.e., emojis). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's super easy to use :-). I know if you had your way, you'd import pretty much every template from Wikipedia, or at least loads of them, and we don't need that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but who seriously uses ":-)" nowadays? The internet has changed significantly since 2015; I'm not aware of anyone who doesn't use emojis nowadays. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I rarely use emojis I can't type easily, and we don't need templates for them. If I'm using my phone, I can easily go to an emoji keyboard but usually get there by accident. The only use for them here, anyway, is on talk pages, as this isn't a social media site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if this is a generational difference. Or I might be convinced by JuliasTravels' comment: "It's a matter of taste, and no-on [sic] is forced to use these options. No reason to be the old-fashioned wiki in the family when it comes to smileys". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but it being about taste goes both ways. I get irritated when people get to dominate the view of a discussion page by their bells-and-whistles signatures.
    I also didn't like it when colour printing getting cheap resulted in school books transforming into some kind of colour show. And now people working with reading difficulties try to get the books back to a more "dull" i.e. less distracting layout.
    I share Texugo's worries that I quoted below.
    –LPfi (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current template seems to have been copied from Wikipedia without attribution (the code is identical). –LPfi (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to quote two comments from the September 2015 Vfd –LPfi (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC):[reply]
    • "It has no travel purpose, but it has a community purpose. This is not something we'll every see in mainspace, and I'll always vote for all freedom we can reasonably give to users, when it comes to talk- and user pages. […] If people prefer Template:Smiley over :-), that should be fine, just like it's fine if they prefer their username to be written in colour. It's a matter of taste, and no-on is forced to use these options. No reason to be the old-fashioned wiki in the family when it comes to smileys. It's only a small gesture in a world full of emoticons." JuliasTravels 09:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Delete - If used frequently enough to merit having a template for it, I think it would be mere visual clutter. Plus, any argument for keeping this would apply equally to a whole range of cutesy emoticons, and we have certainly never had any need for that." Texugo 13:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC) [that range is actually available through parameters to the template, as noted later in the thread][reply]
  • Question: Since this twice-deleted template was unilaterally recreated, shouldn't there be a bias toward deletion unless there's a clear consensus to keep it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree that this should be made an exception, but we should still wait for the entire 14 days. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, when it is closed in 2 days, it's likely to be deleted since consensus is leaning that way anyway. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 01:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking this through, my !vote is delete as this template uses images instead of emojis, posing an accessibility issue. I'd maybe change my mind if someone replaced the images with emojis, but I'm not doing it since people have different tastes and that is handled by an emoji keyboard. I should clarify that this is not due to any style (I'd encourage the use of emojis, especially with newbies) or personal preference. It's the same reason why having images (not emojis) in signatures is despised. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    14 days now, can another admin delete this? I don't think it's appropriate for Ikan Kekek or me to delete this given how heavily involved we are in this DR. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/May_2024&oldid=4916497"