Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2006

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in November 2006. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/October 2006 or Project:Votes for deletion/December 2006 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

- an empty page with just the title Waterfall (WT-en) WindHorse 11:29, 18 October 2006 (EDT)

Page has no info, not linked from or to anything.--(WT-en) justfred 12:59, 22 October 2006 (EDT)

The contend should be moved to the correct destination page, but I think this is a case where we dont want a redirect. I'd hate to see redirects croppin' up for every hotel and/or website out there... slippery slope imho. (WT-en) Maj 11:54, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

sleep?

  • Delete. There's a Baylor County in Texas, but I think it's more likely that we'd use that name. There's also a Baylor, Montana, according to the Getty Thesaurus, and I can find it on geonames.org, but I can't really find it with any other tools. Geonames comes up with a post office (historical) and a school (historical) close to the dot for the town, but as far as I can tell there's just a field there now. At best this could be a disambiguation; otherwise I say drop it. --12:26, 25 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect. To Waco, where the University is located. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:24, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Waco. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:07, 4 November 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect. I've changed my mind about three times on this one, but what harm can a redirect do? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:22, 4 November 2006 (EST)
  • Not an officially recognised district of the city, but rather one drawn by the original contributor, presumably on religious and cultural grounds. Recommend deletion and transfer of content into appropriate official districts. Much of the content belongs within a relevant "Understand" section. (WT-en) Paul James Cowie 16:56, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
  • It doesn't need to be officially recognised to be useful to travellers. I don't know Jerusalem. Is this more useful than official names? (WT-en) Pashley 19:23, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
    • The name "Mea Shearim" is overwhelmingly more common for the area. That said, it's not really a destination in the Wikivoyage sense, because the Haredi (the more common spelling of "Chareidi") locals are not keen at all on tourists traipsing around and there are no places to stay. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:40, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
  • How about redirecting to Jerusalem, and then this conversation can continue on Talk:Jerusalem/Chareidi. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:07, 4 November 2006 (EST)
    • Sounds good. This appears to be more of a question where to redirect than whether to delete or not... (WT-en) Maj 12:47, 5 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. It's documented as being copied from a site which does not give permission to copy. Also it's a picture of people without a release per Project:Image policy#People in photos. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:01, 8 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete - Blatant copyright violations would be grounds for speedy deletion. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 20:28, 8 November 2006 (EST)
  • This one is such a clear copyvio that I felt obliged to speedy-delete it. We can't allow that kind of thing. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:15, 8 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. A navigational menu for national parks in India, which is not something we normally use templates for per Project:Using Mediawiki templates. I'm in favor of keeping the template policy as-is, but there have been a few of these sorts of templates created lately, so others may have differing opinions. -- (WT-en) Ryan 03:14, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Same as above. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:17, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete - I tried to crop this one but I find it hard to keep it useful without violating privacy rights. - (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 22:47, 1 November 2006 (EST)
Well, I could probably Photoshop it into a useful form but I'm not entirely sure what it is and whether it could be used in an article even without privacy issues. Is it worth the effort? --(WT-en) Paul. 14:01, 2 November 2006 (EST)
I suppose blurring the faces or something like that would solve the privacy issue. I'm trying to check if we can just re-upload the fixed image or if it needs to be saved with a different name before it's uploaded again. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 10:04, 3 November 2006 (EST)
I'm replacing it by a trimmed and face-blurred version so this one can really go now. I keep my delete vote. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 14:26, 3 November 2006 (EST)
If anyone wants to use it I've uploaded a photoshopped version here --(WT-en) Paul. 16:16, 3 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. Ricardo's version addresses the privacy issues, and this one isn't needed now. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:59, 10 November 2006 (EST)
  • No joy with Getty, Google, Wikipedia or Yahoo, and too far off the mark to redirect to Kuala Lumpur ~ 203.144.143.10 11:05, 2 November 2006 (EST)
  • As a tragically bad speller, I'm wondering if there isn't a benefit to having fat-finger redirects. I mean, it's not like they take up space or clutter the card catalog or something... maybe a topic for a Project:Redirect guidelines discussion? (WT-en) Maj 12:34, 5 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. Re:Maj - I'm all in favour of redirects to common mispellings found on the web or in literature. I wouldn't oppose "fat-finger" redirects also but I think they might give us a hard time to tell from bogus articles.
  • Delete - I don't think this is a common enough misspelling that a redirect is needed. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)

We've been fortunate enough not to ban any users from editing Wikivoyage so there's no need for this template. The very very few times the block feature has been implemented is for scripts that haven't gone through the proper channels to operate on Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 01:24, 3 November 2006 (EST)

Looks like somebody didn't know how to use the Category function, or what it's good for. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:36, 5 November 2006 (EST)

Incorporates copyrighted Google maps. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 18:34, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Incorporates copyrighted Google maps. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 18:34, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Sleeper suburb of Helsinki, no attractions and no places to sleep. Not sure where, if anywhere, it can be redirected though... (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:50, 7 November 2006 (EST)

  • Unsure about this one but I'd feel inclined to keep it. Even by just letting travellers know that Kerava is just a sleeper suburb with no places to sleep, the article could be useful to someone - say, people who travel for family reasons or something and have to move around there or whatever. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 20:28, 8 November 2006 (EST)
  • Keep. Seems to me that if there's room for Congress, there's room for this one. Check out Talk:Congress for an airing of the issues, including ways to handle the absence of places to sleep -- remember that the "can-you-sleep-there" criterion is more about the kind of place than about whether it has actual hotels. In this particular case, the difficulty that Jani mentions, about finding a redirect, argues for keeping it. (Just how big is this place?) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:12, 8 November 2006 (EST)
    • I took a second look and would now myself vote to keep -- I'd always figured it was a district of something else, but no, it's actually incorporated as a city and has a population of 30,000. There are still almost no sights, but hey, at least they have the Garlic Festival(tm) every August, a festival so well known that I lived ~25 km away for ten years and never heard about it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:56, 13 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:43, 21 November 2006 (EST)

Clueless, pointless and violated privacy rights. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:59, 7 November 2006 (EST)

  • Delete if it's not been added to the user's page by the end of the voting period. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 20:28, 8 November 2006 (EST)
  • Agree with Ricardo. The text accompanying the photo probably makes this courtesy unnecessary, but it can't hurt to be polite ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:25, 8 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete unless it shows up on a user page. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:46, 21 November 2006 (EST)

I don't think it's a place name, and suspect it's probably not a candidate for a redirect. ~ 61.91.191.4 17:48, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Violates privacy rights and doesn't really serve much purpose. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:17, 9 November 2006 (EST)

  • Certainly not appropriate to illustrate an article, but let's give it its full two weeks before deleting, in case it shows up on a user page. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:01, 9 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete unless it shows up on a user page. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:42, 23 November 2006 (EST)

  • Speedy Delete. I would say speedy for this one. Appears to be a mistake by a user wanting to create their user page. The users page User:(WT-en) Ekeralla has the same information.

Outcome: speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:03, 25 November 2006 (EST)

An attraction rather than a destination. I have copied the text here to the nearest town, Lijiang, which was the only page linking to this. (WT-en) Pashley 09:59, 9 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: redirected to Lijiang. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:08, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 16:56, 11 November 2006 (EST)

  • Delete. The image size & border suggests that this image came from another web site, so delete unless source is provided indicating it is CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan 07:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:20, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 16:56, 11 November 2006 (EST)

  • Delete. The image size suggests that this image came from another web site, so delete unless source is provided indicating it is CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan 07:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:20, 25 November 2006 (EST)


  • Requesting speedy delete as I uploaded this myself accidentally (I meant to upload to shared). --(WT-en) Paul. 17:07, 26 November 2006 (EST)
Deleted per uploader request. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:57, 26 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. Clearly these don't meet Project:What is an article?, and I would have speedy deleted them but I'm not at all sure what they are, so listing them here in case the author actually meant them as something useful for travelers. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:11, 28 November 2006 (EST)
Speedy deleted by me -- it's a line of toys from Lego involving a SciFi storyline. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:37, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Peraltita 23:49, 12 November 2006 (EST)

  • Delete unless source is provided indicating it is CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan 07:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:54, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Username, not a destination name. ~ 61.91.191.10 03:35, 19 November 2006 (EST)

Currently the image only licensed under the non commercial CC-by-SA 2.0 license. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 23:32, 12 November 2006 (EST)

  • Delete unless image is re-licensed CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan 07:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)
  • Outcome: Deleted.

Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Peraltita 23:49, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Peraltita 03:28, 13 November 2006 (EST)

Gorgeous pic, but you can't take it unless you get permission to climb on the Mandarin Oriental's roof and are armed with a good camera and a better tripod. I'm pretty sure this doesn't describe the anonymous uploader. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:52, 13 November 2006 (EST)

  • Delete. Jani's comments suggest this may have come from another web site, so delete unless source is provided indicating it is CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan 07:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 17:55, 28 November 2006 (EST)
  • Outcome: Deleted.

Pointless and author and source not specified. --24.42.112.190 18:09, 13 November 2006 (EST)

  • Gah, I did it again. Uploaded here when I meant to upload to shared. Speedy delete requested. --(WT-en) Paul. 18:52, 30 November 2006 (EST)
  • Outcome: Deleted at uploaders request.

Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Peraltita 13:04, 15 November 2006 (EST) Outcome: deleted. (Link appeared to be busted, anyway.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:12, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2006&oldid=4924701"