Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2015

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← October 2015 Votes for deletion archives for November 2015 (current) December 2015 →

redirects

Some may say does not cause a problem but redirects do effect what is proposed as destinations when someone types in text in the search field. Also if this trend continues the number of pages that bots need to check will increase exponentially. Also can be change to non redirect latter and are not spotted so easily as pages needing attention. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Country Club Mall, when someone types country in search field, a shopping mall in La Vale, Maryland is proposed. Will never be a destination page and if by chance someone comes to this site to look for this place a search will show it as content of a couple of pages.
  • Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. Not even sure the public can visit, but if so should be a listing.
  • Washington Street Library, many visitor to this site will type in Washington but this result would just be a distraction.
I'm inclined to agree that these redirects, and probably some others, should be deleted, but I would ask for Nicole Sharp to make her case for them, and I'd also refer you to discussion at User talk:Nicole Sharp. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just my two cents, but exponential growth is always good for Wikimedia in my opinion. It should be the norm, not the exception. Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Working my way up to four cents here maybe, but I think the marvel of all the Wikimedia projects is that they are written primarily by human volunteers for human readers. If humans start pandering to robots instead of making the robots pander to humans, it is a slippery slope to any number of dystopic-science-fiction futures :-/. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Country Club Mall
See discussion at "user talk:Nicole Sharp#Redirects." The Country Club Mall is the only mall within about 75 miles in any direction, serving the states of Maryland, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. It is of particular importance to travelers on the USA National Road (one of the primary gateways to the West through the Appalachian Mountains), and also is the nearest Walmart location for camping supplies for a number of nearby state parks. Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
Like many government facilities in the USA, much of the TJNAF is accessible to the public during their annual open house. See "science tourism." Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Washington Street Library
Washington Street Library is the same namespace as on Wikipedia for this location. If another Washington Street Library exists, it not disambiguated on Wikipedia. The Washington Street Library is on the USA National Register of Historic Places, and is a site of several public events of tourism interest throughout the year. Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see discussion and arguments for/against at "user talk:Nicole Sharp#Redirects." Searching e.g. "Country" or "Washington" and finding perhaps-less-than-obvious results is only due to the newness of WikiVoyage and the sparcity of entries. As WikiVoyage expands and the number of volunteers increases, this phenomenon will disappear. Increasing the number of pages, even if they are just redirects, increases search-engine optimization, and thus attracts new volunteers to the Wikimedia project from all over the internet. If each new volunteer creates 10 entries about their hometown, and gets 2 of their friends to volunteer as well, the usefulness and scope of WikiVoyage will exponentiate. Such progress shouldn't be stopped at such an early stage in wikidevelopment. Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect pages for deletion

  • However, for the entry Frostburg State University, the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility doesn't allow the public to sleep there, so shouldn't be included, but what is the ruling on university campuses? University campuses are usually very large with multiple buildings and complex rules of access (parking, public transit, etc.), and particularly in the case of state universities in the USA, are usually accessible to the general public for a variety of events and other purposes. Many university campuses even have their own police departments and are often like mini-cities. However, non-students generally cannot sleep on the campuses. Should universities be included? Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, universities would probably be covered in "See" if they are notable sights, "Do" if they have interesting performances, lecture series or sporting events open to the public, or "Learn" if they give courses for non-matriculated students lasting about 2 weeks or less. I can't think of any example of a university that actually has its own article, though of course there are articles about college towns. But my feeling is that it could make sense to have a redirect for a university whose name is different from the name of the city it's in, especially where that's potentially confusing. A case in point would be William Paterson College, which instead of being in Paterson, New Jersey is actually in Wayne, New Jersey. Other people might have a different view on this, though, and we might do best to discuss this in Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?, in a dedicated section on redirects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to favour having lots of redirects, see Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition#Index_articles and User_talk:Pashley/Archive#Test_old_names. I'd say the likely search terms -- accelerator, university & airport names -- should be kept, for much the same reason we have Taj Mahal, British Museum and Smithsonian. The ones here are vastly less important, but the principle applies. The mall and libraries can & should go. Pashley (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour of having redirects where they are direct to some information on the subject. However some of these don't: Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility redirects to Newport News where there is no mention of the accelerator. (We do have a redirect for CERN, which might be a similar facility, but the page does mention it, although it is otherwise almost empty.) There is also not much point in a redirect for an airport which starts with the city name, as somebody typing the city name into the search box is going to see both the city and the airport and think that there are two articles. Libraries and malls should only get redirects when they are world famous like Mall of America, or maybe Bodleian Library. AlasdairW (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of redlinks to streets in the USA. Not sure we want to go down this path, could get seriously out of hand. Can leave this sort of listings for Wikipedia. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are more than mere streets, but historic districts. I initially had a similar reaction to yours, but I'm not sure it's a mistake to have redirects for historic districts, as they are places to visit that people could be searching for. I don't think they're essential, but I mildly oppose deleting the redirects at this point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree to keep for nationally-recognized historic districts (there are also subnationally-recognized and locally-recognized historic districts). Many travelers specifically want the experience of staying in the historic district(s) within a town or city, which may be separate from more-popular nonhistorical lodgings or tourist areas. In the USA, National Historic Districts are maintained by the National Park Service, and they often have extra funding for tourist events (art, culture, and history). USA National Historic Districts also tend to be more pedestrian-friendly than other areas of a city, for tourists who prefer to walk around. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        "In the USA, National Historic Districts are maintained by the National Park Service" - not exactly. Generally speaking, National Historic Districts are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which means nothing more than owners of properties located in the district are eligible for historic preservation tax credits for renovation and building maintenance. (An NRHP listing doesn't even safeguard against demolition or nonhistoric alteration of buildings, unless they're co-listed on a state or local historic register that does provide such protection, as in Buffalo.) The National Park Service is responsible for deciding which properties are added to the list, but does not administer the districts themselves, and in almost all cases there are no specific amenities for tourists. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Ikan. They are possible search terms & redirects are cheap, so I do not see a problem. If they are kept, though, then Cumberland (Maryland) needs some text added about the street and the redirect should probably be to the See section rather than the article as a whole. Pashley (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects may be cheap, but disambiguation pages aren't. Especially when we're talking about potentially thousands of listings. Look how many there are just for this one name! It's unmaintainable -- nor would we want to. The vast, vast majority of these districts comprise private homes with some commercial properties, not tourist attractions. If a town has an historic district (generic, as opposed to an Historic District) with traveler amenities, it can and should be described in the destination article -- and if it has a common name, a redirect may be in order. But any correspondence between these names and official National Historic District designations doesn't make the latter worthy of note in a travel guide. Powers (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @LtPowers: That is a good point. I am only familiar with USA National Historic Districts located in Western Maryland, many of which are also part of the Main Street Maryland tourism initiative. National Historic Districts in towns and cities from this region are clean, well-preserved, have interesting architecture, are often the locations for libraries and other civic structures, and typically have free concerts, art shows, historical reenactments, and other events throughout the year (many of the Historic Districts in Western Maryland are also the locations for various Civil-War events). If what you say is true about Historic Districts in the rest of the country, then yes, it might be a bad idea to have them all listed on WikiVoyage if they are not as tourist-friendly as Western Maryland. Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AndreCarrotflower: The USA NPS only maintains the list yes and as far as I know doesn't fund any of its National Historic Districts directly, but from my local experience, the Historic Districts (in Western Maryland) do receive a significantly larger amount of funding for upkeep and tourist events than other parts of the city, though that funding is likely coming from City and State taxes (not the NPS). Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historic districts should be added to the appropriate city articles. This site has a function call search that will help readers find them. Leave the listicles for Wikipedia. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the disambiguation page Washington Street Historic District, which only has one link to an existing page. I don't think that we will ever have complete articles on any of these districts. The same page on WP only has blue links for 8 of the 18 districts. I can't think of any other disambiguation page purely for redirects. I am also inclined to delete the other page, unless a large subsection of Cumberland (Maryland) gives all the details of the district, for example as here. AlasdairW (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Far more trouble than it's worth, and as someone mentioned, we do not create disambig for lists of redirects. This makes no more sense than having disambiguations for "Main Street Shopping District" or "Central Post Office". Anyone searching for such things should be perfectly capable of realizing they'll have better luck by starting with the city name. Texugo (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this is for, but I don't think we need this? Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ftt Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, memories. This is how we used to do featured articles back in the days of Main Page 1.0. Now that we have Template:Banner, I don't know what further use this would be to us. I vote to delete (and will nominate its counterparts Template:Dotm and Template:Otbp also, on the same basis) unless any other editor can come up with a good reason why we should continue to "retain this page for historical reference", as the infobox on the template page suggests. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems sensible to delete this and the related templates mentioned below. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to agree, but checking "what links here" I see each of them is linked from at least 10 places. I wonder what cleanup would be needed if they are deleted & whether it would be worth the trouble. Probably not in my view, but if someone wants them gone badly enough to do the cleanup, then I have no objection. Pashley (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Created 2015-10-01 as a redirect to San Francisco. Why? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* I think it does do harm since every article could have endless redirect combinations of misspellings. If we delete this redirect then the result should look like this, which I think is more than fine. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue to keep this particular mis-spelling (San Franisco), as I don't think that it a common mis-spelling, and thanks for the search example. AlasdairW (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except a search for "San Franisco" doesn't show "Did you mean:". Powers (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because, as of now, the redirect exists? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A search for 'san franisco' on Wikipedia shows the correct spelling under "Did you mean:". We can probably assume that the Wikivoyage and Wikipedia search mechanisms will be similar, if not the same. James A ▪ talk 12:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not a common misspelling. It's not actually a "misspelling" at all -- nobody would put that in thinking it's correct, because it doesn't even phonetically represent how it's pronounced. It just a case of a typo that skips a letter, and while I think redirects for common, reasonable-guess misspellings are good, I don't think we need to be in the business of anticipating randomly skipped letters. Texugo (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with Texugo. If the misspelled name is quite common and sounds the same as the real name, then it may be an appropriate redirect. Examples I'd include are San Fransisco, New Dehli, Sao Paolo, etc. Indeed, it seems that neither New Dehli nor Dehli are redirects, which I'd strongly question, as I often have to second-guess myself when typing the name! James A ▪ talk 12:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You created the Dehli redirect. User:Pashley deleted them both in March 2014. Powers (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at about that time I deleted dozens of redirects from mispelt names to get rid of the WT links then at the bottom of those pages. I recreated any that had incoming links, but not those without. I've no objection if someone wants to recreate some. Pashley (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense! =) James A ▪ talk 02:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree on that one. Search will always find the article, regardless of capitalisation, and any links in articles should always be capitalising proper nouns. I'll go ahead and delete it now. James A ▪ talk 02:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of deleting harmless redirects. Powers (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to address those saying misspellings are allowed, I recall a massive discussion last year (I can't find link, sorry) where we ultimately agreed not to use redirects in different scripts ( 北京 for Beijing, for example). I don't see why these misspellings should be allowable, yet correctly spelled redirects in non-latin scripts are not.
The search engine works well. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One discussion of other scripts is here. Pashley (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Latin redirects are of concern because they are not readable by most editors on the English Wikivoyage. Misspellings, on the other hand, are quite common to English editors. Powers (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • no useful content. If someone does want to write something then it can be recreated at that point. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was only created last month, by a user who's been on a bit of a tear lately developing new travel topic articles. Perhaps before deleting we should contact its creator and ask if s/he intends to further develop the article at some later time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creation of the article was more or less an experient, in the spirit of other entries of fiction tourism. I don't have extensive knowledge of the topic myself, but hoped that someone else had. The time might not be ready for this topic yet; in that case, make sure that it can be written in the future. /Yvwv (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm definitely for experiments, but I think we need to encourage the author to at least provide some useful content. The scope of travel articles has been expanding recently, which is not a bad thing in itself but I don't like the idea of placeholder articles being created on a whim which will in turn create more work for others later to clean up. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fan convention listings should be listed within travel topics/itinteraries that they directly relate to. A large, annual Star Wars convention would be a good addition to an article about visiting Star Wars locations/museums/etc but this article is intended to simply list all conventions, so that Star Wars convention would be listed with a Pacman convention, My Little Ponies convention, etc. It seems like it will be too random, and it definitely doesn't need to exist as an empty article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


An almost empty region article within Southern Chile. Appears to be a administrative division rather than a travel relevant one. Should it be deleted or merged and redirected? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The title could be redirected to another article, but it shouldn't be simply deleted along with its history, such as it is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Pashley (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a residential suburb of the larger Port Hedland location on the north coast of Western Australia.

I have been out of the loop for most of this year, and as a consequence do not want to delete (or a merge), being so close to getting back into the swing of things, but would rather quick conversation on this, as means of ascertaining correct process. South Hedland is not a tourist destination by any means. Trust fellow eds understand my need to check this first, even though I thought Icould have possibly deleted without discussion. JarrahTree (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The info can be merged into the Port Hedland article easily. JarrahTree (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be the right thing to do. Policy is to not delete real places, but a merge & redirect seems in order here. Indeed merging or redirecting can be discussed on the article talk page rather than here, but there's no harm in some extra discussion ;-) Welcome back! JuliasTravels (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as fellow eds dont feel otherwise put out, I suspect that Australian locations have relatively low watch numbers, and would rather even do a merge here, for the sake of process. JarrahTree (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


That article isn't very interesting. I certainly trust your judgment to merge and redirect it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JarrahTree I'm trying to watch the Australian articles, and have had some success in merging districts back up into the small towns that really don't require districtification. Agree with merging this one. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged with Port Hedland as it is a suburb of a small town. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Thanks JarrahTree (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: redirected Pashley (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2015&oldid=4924602"