Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2017

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← October 2017 Votes for deletion archives for November 2017 (current) December 2017 →

A pointless extra-hierarchical region with no good place to merge to and nothing to merge. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand and would support the suggested redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the consensus is? drumroll --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since consensus hasn't been established, I have redirected to Normandy. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was created here as an (unintentional) copyright violation and now contains no content besides the lede. What good does keeping yet another stubby outline around do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support deleting and recreating it. The copyright violation about attractions (a waterfall IIRC) is unacceptable, but surely, a listing could be created without directly quoting from somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when we delete the article, can we keep the talk page? It refers to but doesn't contain copyright violation, and I just copied the lede there to facilitate restoring it when we re-create the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the article will likely remain without content for a while, right? Is that something we want to encourage? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to. By the way, is this a possible solution? Do admins have the authority to remove the initial creation of an article from its history? I'm thinking that would look too strange. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate if you feel it's necessary, but I'd find it hard to believe that a city of 30,000 would have absolutely nothing worthwhile to See or Do and thus not merit an article per wiaa. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But why not delete it and wait until it is "organically" recreated? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you would mean by that, other than having no article for some indeterminate period of time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes. It would be not an article until someone who is from there and stumbles upon our site or has recently been there or otherwise actually knows a thing about the place creates an article. This empty stub is worse than nothing, as it implies there being something where there's nothing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder—is it possible that having an empty outline encourages contributions more than having no article at all? Rock Hill had no article at all for years until I created it as a pretty barebones outline this February. Within four months, a new editor came along and expanded it into a really useful article with lots of content. The same person has added to lots of other articles about nearby cities as well. I don't know, maybe that editor would have created the Rock Hill article anyway even if I hadn't—but maybe the existence of the outline begging for information encouraged them to start contributing to Wikivoyage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could always ask. But no, I wouldn't support merely deleting this article and not recreating it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having an empty outline does not encourage contributions any more than having no article at all – it just deceptively displays a blue link, to give the false impression we already have the destination when we do not. If a page was created as a result of user error, much as if it were created as spam or vandalism, there should be no requirement that it be kept. It can be recreated once we have original content for this destination. K7L (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can claim that about empty outlines without evidence. It's just as likely that it does encourage contributions, as it's easier for a newbie to add a single listing to an existing article than to figure out how to create one from scratch. Powers (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, admins can hide the first version as well. I can't give you an example here since I'm not an admin on English Wiktionary, but see the history for this test page. Anyway, I suggest we don't spend too much time debating which solution to take to get rid of it (deletion and recreation or hiding), they're probably equally good. (: /Julle (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is not to delete articles about real places, so this should either be redirected or kept. There has been a lot of previous discussion of what to do with almost empty articles; see Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Deleting_NEW_empty_articles. Pashley (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pashley, what's the policy on articles that were started with plagiarism that has since been deleted but is still in the edit history? That's the issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any of delete & recreate, or keep & hide the copyvio in history, or redirect appropriately would be fine with me & I think in accordance with policy. Just deleting would not be either. Ignoring the problem & just leaving it as it is also seems tolerable to me, but since there are better choices we might as well pick one of them. Pashley (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the one who unwittingly moved the copyvio from Wikipedia and over here I'd prefer to remove it from the history of the article one way or another, if that counts for something. (: /Julle (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to what, and why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest Bilaspur as the nearest major city, or just to the state article, Chhattisgarh. Ground Zero (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't see why we'd want to redirect to the state article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you think it should be redirected? Let's settle this constructively so that the discussion doesn't drag on for another three weeks. We have better things to do than fuss over this one useless article. Ground Zero (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is to redirect, the redirect term should be the nearest place for which there is an article, so if that's Bilaspur, redirect (again, if there's a consensus) to Bilaspur. A redirect to the article for the state seems useless to me; you don't agree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate This accomplishes the purpose of getting the violation out of the history. I don't see where the redirect suggestion comes from and that seems a better discussion outside of the copyright issue for people who know the city. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted and redirected to Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was marked for speedy delete and the reasons I tend to agree with, but as the article has existed for some time and other articles link to it, maybe should be discussed. Think redirect should be considered. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I marked the article for a speedy delete, allow me to tell me my reasons to have it deleted: 1) The page is a region article that, when marking it for a speedy delete, did not follow the MoS, and 2) was not a part of the hierarchy, making it equal in hierarchical level to the locations within. 3) The page hasn't been edited for quite some time (excluding automated edits that time would be some four years). I wasn't sure a redirect would be in place here, but I guess we can always redirect it to the page one up the hierarchical ladder. I however remain in favour of a deletion.
Wauteurz (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we need a disambiguation page, is there another Ha? And why is a disambig best avoided? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why a disambig is needed, but that's no good reason not to redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two letters are likely to stand for something. Plus if we keep the redirect, it will clutter up the autocomplete function Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha is likely. Is Hå? For the clutter: you will not see the page you want to see after entering just "Ha", there are too many matches regardless of Hå (which does not show up for me even now when it is an article). --LPfi (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a disambig is needed, so be it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: - Redirected to Rogaland. If someone else wants to create a disambiguation article (viz. find something to disambiguate this with), by all means. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Created over two months ago as a "trial". Has not significantly grown since then; I deem it at least partially a failed trial. There are no logical targets for merger and a redirect to Europe is decidedly not what I'd want with this, so deletion or keeping and heavily expanding it are the outcomes I'd be happy with. Everything else would be a foul compromise that helps nobody. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't such a redirect be useful to the traveler? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but what about Europe#By plane 2, a subsection of "Get around"? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the what links here, I cannot find a single instance where that redirect would make sense. I was hoping that either myself or others would have the time and inspiration to develop this article to something comparable to air travel in the United States or better, but it seems nobody thus far is disagreeing with my assessment that the first two months of existence of this article have not made this hope grow, exactly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how, or whether anyone with the knowledge will find the time & energy to do it, but it seems clear to me there is potential for a worthwhile article here. As a Canadian who has passed through Europe several times, & used trains and a car within it, but never taken a flight within Europe, I would be interested in reading it. Pashley (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We once had an article with a lot of material in it that got redirected. I have no idea why. The last version I can find is here.
Could some of that be resurrected & put into this article? Pashley (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That article was pretty bad and had a lot of outdated stuff in it, but I might have a look... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no, upon further review, the "low cost airlines in x" articles had nothing salvageable in them whatsoever. Do look in the older revisions if you disagree. If nobody intends to develop the air travel in Europe article further, we should delete it or move it to somebody's userspace. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody willing to take it to their userspace? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the main author, so why don't you take it, unless you just want to delete it and be done? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Europe#By plane 2. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such place as "St. Louis, Illinois", nor is this a likely search term for those looking for East St. Louis, to which the link currently redirects. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, St. Louis is part of the St. Louis metropolitan area. In a metropolitan area: There's no clear point where one city ends and another begins (unless you go by city limits). I suppose you can make the case that East St. Louis only counts as a twin city on a technicality, having (almost) the same name as St. Louis. That the name aside: It's really just another city in the metropolitan area, and not a true case of a twin city. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"There's no clear point where one city ends and another begins" if you ignore the entire Mississippi River... but why? K7L (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A river doesn't automatically mean the end of one city, and the beginning of another. The Times River flows through London, and the Strait of Bosphorus flows through Istanbul. But my point is: Where one city ends and another begins is murky in a metropolitan area. When there's a single city sounded by farmland (or wilderness), it's clear where the city ends. But a metropolitan area is a bunch of cities mashed together, with no rural areas separating them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's something of an apples and oranges comparison: West New York, despite its name, doesn't even connect to New York City (if I'm reading the map right). The real "West New York" would probably be Hudson County itself. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the analogy is perfect. In both cases, the two cities (one much bigger than the other) are separated by a river (Mississippi, Hudson). And you're reading the map incorrectly. Have a look at w:Hudson County, New Jersey for a list of municipalities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that West New York is separated by a river from Manhattan (and that West New York is part of Hudson County). What I meant is that there doesn't seem to be a bridge or tunnel connecting West New York to Manhattan.
Anyway, you said "There is no Illinois portion of St. Louis". If there were no metropolitan area, if St. Louis and East St. Louis were surrounded by farmland, then I'd disagree with you. I'd say that they were basically one city, or at least, twin cities. But the metropolitan area changes things: East St. Louis doesn't seem to be as significant as I thought it was when I created the redirect. How would you feel about pointing the redirect at St. Louis Metro East? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're splitting hairs about the Lincoln Tunnel not going directly to West New York. The analogy is quite accurate, as I said above. My answer is no, on the same basis that I oppose a "New York (New Jersey" redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've looked at the map some more, and I think you guys might be selling East St. Louis short. It's immediately east of downtown St. Louis (if I'm reading the map right), and downtowns are generally considered the center of town, not the edge of town (or of a city). That lends credence to he idea that East St. Louis is part of St. Louis (albeit, outside the city limits). And in terms of city limits: St. Louis and East St. Louis are the about same size from east to west, at their widest point (7 miles).
Plus Nurg has a point: It's a redirect, and it's harmless. I still say we keep this: Either in it's current form, or as a redirect to St. Louis Metro East (the Illinois side of Metro St. Louis). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever been to St. Louis? The two are physically separated by a very wide river, and conceptually separated by the Gateway Arch. Crossing the Mississippi from Illinois into St. Louis is like entering a totally different city. Powers (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't whether the St. Louis metro area carries over the state line into Illinois, how close downtown East St. Louis is to downtown St. Louis, whether they qualify as "twin cities", etc. etc. etc. THE one and only relevant question is "is St. Louis, Illinois a likely search term", and the answer is no. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether it's a good use of time and effort to have a vfd discussion over a redirect, that leads to our current policy which is if the redirect makes any kind of sense it should be left alone. Likely search term is not a criteria. Inas (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you would be fine with a New York (New Jersey) redirect too, I take it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What harm would it do? Nurg (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we have the policy of only deleting redirects that can make no sense, is to divert effort away from these discussions. I'm happy if someone wants to argue that this redirect should be deleted because it can never make any sense to redirect it, that's fine. But above, I only see arguments of the form 'The place does not exist', and 'This is not a likely search term'. Neither of those are reasons to delete a redirect, and if we believe they should be, we should argue that on the policy page. Inas (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice. I'm inclined to think that this page title is ambiguous and confusing and thus not a suitable redirect. It could mean St. Louis Metro East as much as it could East St. Louis. Powers (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could mean either, I would think. But I don't think it'd be too difficult for someone on one guide to find the other. Actuality, I'm starting to think that the East St. Louis guide could use a hatnote for St. Louis Metro East: Even "East St. Louis" seems a little ambiguous and confusing, now that you mention it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pashley (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to Nurg's question on what harm a redirect can do: It can be confusing. Do you think someone looking for "St. Louis, Illinois" is more likely to be looking for East St. Louis, or simply looking for St. Louis and having forgotten which state it's in? Ditto for "New York, New Jersey". Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The target starts off by saying "East St. Louis, commonly abbreviated as "ESL", is a city in Southern Illinois located directly across the Mississippi River from St. Louis". That should take care of people who are looking for St. Louis. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm convinced by and Powers (and Ikan Kekek) arguments that this is a redirect that make no sense and is confusing. I'm very much looking forward to the updates to the region article that explains the geography of the area to a visitor, together with the naming. We could cut and paste from some of the above into the article?? Inas (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be okay to cut and paste from some of the above into an article, so long at you give proper attribution in the edit summery to the editor who made the text you're copping (see w:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). But bear in mind that something an editor said off-hand on a talk page, might not be suitable for an article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: no consensus, deleted due to"guilty until proven innocent" rule. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2017&oldid=4924767"