Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2016

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← October 2016 Votes for deletion archives for November 2016 (current) December 2016 →
  • Delete. This article was created by User:203.25.141.5 as a redirect to Singapore/Bugis, but I believe such a redirect is more unhelpful than useful, for the following reason: The Bugis are a famous people in Southeast Asia, and their homeland is in Southern Sulawesi, centered around the city of Makassar. Anyone who knows who the Bugis people are would most likely be looking for Makassar, not Singapore. I doubt a disambig is needed, because that would be kind of like a disambig for Italy, including every neighborhood in the world that's called "Little Italy". The Bugis Land is in Sulawesi. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. That IP address has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism on Wikipedia (w:User talk:203.25.141.5), so I think it's safe to assume that edits from this IP can be treated as suspicious and deleted if there are any concerns. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this article seems unclear to me. It is also a list-stub. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for being too hasty to delete. That said, I know that under the British, Northern Rhodesia was what's now Zambia and Southern Rhodesia was what's now Zimbabwe. But you really don't understand that people who remember Zimbabwe as "Rhodesia", with no "Southern" in the name would be confused by the redirect? If you want to reinstate the redirect, I think it would really be necessary to create a disambig page in which that whole history is briefly explained. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the lieutenant; the historical term Northern Rhodesia should be kept as a redirect to the current name, Zambia. Pashley (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if you restore the redirect, it's important to have a disambig page that explains the history. I thought that would really be beyond Wikivoyage's purview, but if you guys insist, I think the explanation is essential. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need for a dab page unless people are likely to use the term "Northern Rhodesia" to look for a region of Zimbabwe. Since "Northern Zimbabwe" isn't a region in our hierarchy, this seems unlikely. Has any area of Zimbabwe ever been commonly referred to as "Northern Rhodesia", even during the period when the country was just "Rhodesia"? Powers (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether there is a specific WV region of "Northern Rhodesia" or "Southern Rhodesia"; people who remember the white-minority government of "Rhodesia" but don't remember the British names for their Southern African colonies will think of "Northern Rhodesia" and "Southern Rhodesia" as both being within what's now Zimbabwe. I insist that a disambiguation is necessary if you guys want to use colonial-era redirects (though I don't think they're necessary). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is precendence to redirect. Abyssinia redirects to Ethiopia, Siam to Thailand, Ceylon to Sri Lanka. I don't know well, but the minimal research I did showed only Zambia as Northern Rhodesia and Zimbabwe as Southern Rhodesia. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, I personally know two people who thought that both terms referred to parts of what's now Zimbabwe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I think that's a separate issue than what we're discussing. The question is not "what do people think of when they hear 'Northern Rhodesia'?"; it's "what place are people who refer to 'Northern Rhodesia' looking for?" I think it's pretty undeniable that no one will look for Zimbabwean destinations by searching for "Northern Rhodesia". Powers (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. I still think, though, that the different uses of "Rhodesia", "Northern Rhodesia" and "Southern Rhodesia" would be worth a disambig, but OK, go ahead and restore this redirect, and sorry again for being overly hasty to delete it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Powers again. The redirect is not necessary, but it may be slightly useful and if not it is harmless, so keep. I do not think a disambig would be useful, let alone required. Pashley (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a whole lot of redirects from historical to current names. A partial list is at User_talk:Pashley/Archive#Test_old_names. Pashley (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I like the unsavory aspects of redirecting for names that are today only ever used by (ahem) people of a certain political bent. That is true for former colonial names, German names for cities in what is now Poland, the Czech Republic and a half dozen other states and possibly for a bunch of other names. But maybe that's just me being oversensitive... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly understand it. I think it's a bit weird, at least, to have redirects from all these colonial names that haven't been used in 50 years or more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Speedy delete. Article was speedy deleted during the discussion, which then continued (without a clear outcome) to determine if it should be recreated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are easily replaced with ← (←) and → (→). The template calls, which can appear several times on a page, add rendering time to no real benefit in brevity and only a slight benefit to clarity. Powers (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears you can use the symbols → ← from the Special characters option in the edit toolbar. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're missing the point. This is a "do something within 14 days or else these articles will be deleted". I oppose any deviation from normal policies, giving such articles a year before being deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was the guideline is for outline itineraries that have not been edited for a year can be deleted, here we are talking about a stub. Also I did ask on 15 October 2016 on user page about the article and there was no response. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They should be at outline status, as they have the necessary section headers. Powers (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
what they have "introductory paragraph (this can be as short as a single sentence describing the region)" --Traveler100 (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my mistake. They are properly stubs and so the one-year rule doesn't apply. Powers (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ikan, keep at least long enough to find out what the user intends & whether these can be expanded into reasonable itineraries. My guess is that the routes would be better described within the Azerbaijan article or two of its regions, but I do not know the country.
I also agree with Alasdair; if they are kept long-term, then they need better titles. Perhaps "Baku to Ghaza" or some such? Pashley (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] Please read User talk:Ismail Khatai#Vfd thread: "I planned to developed them but been busy as bee ... think that first information will be implemented within 3 days". Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Moved content to Azerbaijan and Deleted. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a strange one. Not sure what it is, but the only Wiki contribution by User:2602:306:379D:1AA0:38F4:FAF2:A792:86BC. I have left a message on their talk page.

I think fairly safe to delete, but not vandalism as such so at least give a chance to respond. (it may be someone from a sister project trying something out) Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedily undone the above VFD changes since adding a {{vfd}} to this MediaWiki message page causes every protected page on the site to show the VFD notice. See mw:Manual:Interface/Protectedpagetext for further details. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the MediaWiki guidance, so duly noted. However is it also correct that this page should not have been created under Wikivoyage? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No local copy of the page existed on Wikivoyage until it was created with the content {{vfd}}, at which time that local version overrode the default Mediawiki version. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only users who can create or modify anything in MediaWiki: space are administrators. That's pretty much hard-coded into the software. (The talk page, OTOH, may be edited by anyone.) Are you saying that anon-IP's are changing the MediaWiki: interface? K7L (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was my (100%) mistake. The user changed the talk page for that and somehow I thought they had changed the main page instead (and applied a VFD). --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Speedy keep -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Do I need to put the "vfd" template at the tops of all these redirects? I sure the hell hope not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well somebody should. That's one way we notify interested users of the discussion. If it helps, the titles should be removed from the section heading on this page and placed in a bulleted list within the section; that will make it easier to link the section from the VfD templates. Powers (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say delete all but if the non-Latin is the name of the location in the language of the country it is in, then the non-latin text should be added to the article so that search will find it. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The local name for every place, when different from the Roman-lettered name, should always be provided at the top of the article. Isn't this standard practice? It should be so noted somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Pashley (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is useful to have redirects from the local name, whatever the script. It is easy to check against the name as it appears in the article, so the maintenance burden is minimal, and this would make it turn up without a search. It might have some SEO advantage, but foremost it is very useful for those who know the local script but not the English name: the title is (isn't it?) auto-completed in the search box, while the search may return nothing if I make a typing mistake – and typing in a foreign script may be awkward. I for one use the search only as a last resort. --LPfi (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. Per Ikan "I... would rather rescind the Vfd if the only two alternatives are to do more work on this or to rescind" -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page already survived a VfD nomination in January 2013. However, it looks like perhaps we should have deleted the article at that time since there was no clear consensus either way in that earlier nomination, in which case policy has us default to the "guilty until proven innocent" proviso. What say you, all? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think in any case, we should apply the same rule for all the Ryanairs and American Airlines out there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It's not clear that it "violates policy" since redirects are permitted for major transportation companies. We used to have standalone articles for the major airlines, and those were later changed to redirects, so at a minimum we should leave the redirects in place if for no other reason than to prevent users from creating new articles in the future. Additionally, the redirect contains article history for content that was merged elsewhere, and thus may be required for attribution purposes. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the arguments listed above at #American Airlines apply here. I wish we wouldn't fragment these discussions like this. Also, in the AA discussion, Hobbitschuster was repeatedly told why redirects do not violate the policy against articles about airlines. Is there some other policy this redirect violates? Powers (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We never did agree on whether policy should allow such redirects. The way I understand it (and User:Ikan Kekek seems to agree with me on that) is that we do not have articles on private companies and no redirects with one exception (Amtrak). Quite frankly, I could live with the Amtrak redirect going if it confuses people, but I think its much more useful because it points to where it should, whereas there is no point to point redirects like Lufthansa to (if we have one for American Airlines why not for them?). Where would we redirect them to? And what exactly (besides "stuff exists") is the benefit in having redirects for airlines in the first place? Also, I would doubt the need to keep redirects for attributing anything. Where was any of this stuff ever merged and if so is any of it still there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement "I would doubt the need to keep redirects for attributing anything" concerns me greatly. WV:Deletion policy explicitly calls out attribution as a reason for NOT deleting redirects as that attribution is required by the terms of the CC-SA license - without providing attribution we have no legal right to keep content on this site. The fact that this redirect has article history indicating that content was merged elsewhere means that it absolutely should not be deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You probably misunderstood me because I was not clear in my wording. What I wanted to say is that whereever the content was merged, it's not there any more, so it also does not need to be attributed. If you can show me where the content went and it's still there, this becomes of course a different discussion. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So which airlines should get a redirect? All of them? Only those in the US? Only those operating international flights? And where should the redirects point? Or is this just an argument along the lines of: Let's keep them, they do no harm but do not create new ones. I think we should have a clear cut logic for airline redirects and enforce it, no matter what that policy looks like. And deleting those superfluous redirects (if it is possible vis a vis attribution issues) seems to me easier and more logical than creating Air France, Lufthansa or Emirates (airline) as redirects to flying. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I really do understand the desire to keep things clean, but airlines are major aspects of travel that happen to be companies. Probably better a redirect if someone searches American Airlines than the search page, although still it is relatively minor issue either way. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really do not understand your argument. We do not link to or even mention aggregators, yet airlines (some of them, with no discernible logic, given that several major airlines redlink) should be redirects? I am sorry, but I do not quite see your point. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logic behind the Amtrak redirect is that Amtrak is basically synonymous with rail travel in the United States. If you can think of any airline for which a similar thing can be said, we might make an exception there. But The PanAm Clippers (which were the closest anything ever came to being synonymous to Air travel in the United States or at least United States#Get in#By plane) have stopped flying a long time ago. We can decide to eliminate the redirect Amtrak for the reason that no redirect exists for Deutsche Bahn (for which a similar argument as the one for Amtrak could be made). I would not like that, but it would perhaps stop the use of this particular argument. We could also reconsider whether we should have articles about airlines after all, but what exactly is the use of a redirect that points to flying? Could anything more obvious than that an airline has to do with flying? And what exactly would you say to some hypothetical page creation vandal who makes a bunch of Copa Airlines redirects? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yay, I've flown Copa! :) Anyway I'd suggest that someone creating a redirect out of Copa Airlines for Flying is not a vandal. It is fairly synonymous for air travel inside Panama.
  • Perhaps in your mind a line has been crossed in creating these redirects. I'm just not such where the criterion for this line has been defined explicitly? If it is implicit then it may be worth to define explicitly. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We went through an exercise to define when keeping or deleting a redirect was appropriate recently, and that resulted in the guidance now present at Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting. Bullets #3 and #6 clearly argue for keeping this redirect, while if I'm understanding correctly the sole argument being put forward for deletion is that the world's fourth largest airline doesn't meet the exception outlined in #3 as a "large and/or important business and service". -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have air travel in Australia, though. Look, I am the last to oppose a ttcf argument, and maybe one could even made for having articles on individual airlines (I don't think they are a good idea and there were probably good reasons to get rid of them way back when), but what possible benefit is there in redirecting any given airline name to flying? Apparently some of those redirects are the product of some former article being merged somewhere. Where were they merged? And is the merged content still there? Or was redirect just a weak compromise because we could not agree on getting rid of them? I mean really, if we have redirects for any given airline, why don't we have them for any other given airline? And what benefit would a redirect for any given airline be over not having it? We went by fine without a redirect from Air Berlin to Flying, so why is some other redirect so earth-shatteringly important that we have to keep it. Attribution issue may be an argument, but I have actually looked at the way the United Airlines article looked before being redirected and I fail to find the "merged" content anywhere on this site. We could of course allow airline articles and "feature" a different airline any given month that FTT is empty, but I don't think anybody wants that. So what point is there in having these redirects? How many people will put any given airline name into the WV search bar instead of a)doing a google search for the airline b) searching the airline on Wikipedia or c) going to the website of the airline itself. And how would any of those hypothetical people possibly benefit if some weird entirely random assortment of those airlines then redirects to flying? I can see how someone would look for Amtrak (I did way back when) and find the redirect to rail travel in the US handy, because that's what they searched for, but a redirect from Major Airline X to Flying? What's that supposed to accomplish? Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, having redirects from likely search targets such as this one helps guide users to placing content in the correct place. If a user wants to contribute information on a minor airline, and she searches for a major airline to find out what an airline article should look like, she will be redirected to an article where that content would be welcome. Having redirects in place also discourages potential contributors from trying to write new articles with those titles. And it reserves those titles and histories in the case that articles like Air travel in the United States get too long and need to be split into individual airline articles. Powers (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the content from this article and the other American airline articles was merged to Airlines in the United States (now a redirect) in this edit by User:Nicholasjf21. User:PrinceGloria "merged" it to Flying but claimed at the time that no actual text would be merged. Air travel in the United States now contains some of the same information, but its initial text was copied (by User:Hobbitschuster) from United States of America, not from the Airlines article. I would be wary of deleting the article histories behind these redirects nonetheless, as it's useful to be able to track the history even if it's not clear how much of the verbatim text survives. Powers (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2016&oldid=3095717"