Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2020

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← October 2020 Votes for deletion archives for November 2020 (current) December 2020 →

Migrated to commons, here. Brycehughes (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be speedily deleted without discussion, as it is purely an administrative deletion which won't affect the appearance of the pages that use the image. Does anyone object? —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object, but it might be worth noting these deletions, at least if they are done long after the file was locally uploaded, as files not acceptable on Commons (usually for copyright reasons) can be deleted there after the move. Good to have a few pairs of eyes checking. –LPfi (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It might be good practice for the deleting admin to add the file on Commons to their watchlist just in case. I'll do that now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A mostly-incomplete personal itinerary created by a user who worked on the page for a few minutes back in July and disappeared from Wikivoyage on the same day. I don't think it has any value, though there may be a sentence or two worth saving for the appropriate district articles.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I remember making some copyedits on this, and reckoning it really useless. Ibaman (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't try to save anything as we would then need a redirect which would just confuse a reader. AlasdairW (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not a bad idea, but it's not a great idea either. There are so many museums in London covering every topic under the sun that without some kind of theme to narrow things down (e.g. 'Tour of military museums in London'), it could only ever aspire be a long list of museums in a semi-arbitrary order spread across a vast web of railway lines and bus routes. That stuff is best handled in the district articles, where at least you know everything listed is within a reasonable distance from everything else.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with you. Before my only trip to London so far, my father talked to me about the most important art museums and got to 6, and that was only art museums and didn't count art in churches, etc. There are probably a few things most visitors might consider must-sees in London, and for museum-goers, the British Museum and the National Gallery would be among them, but it would probably be difficult to get a consensus on the top 10 must-sees, let alone a coherent itinerary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I suppose we could redirect this search term to London#Museums and galleries, but since there's no content to move, why bother? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pashley (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unauthorized camping outside of a campground is not illegal, but it is a gray area activity. In some areas it is prohibited by ordinance. Let's assume that you are not welcomed by the locals. You may be questioned by the police or reported to them. This is not a recommended practice. Please go with that in mind.

The first two lines of italicized text in the article, quoted above, make a pretty eloquent case for why its existence is a violation of our illegal activities policy. We're talking about an activity that, even in the absolute best-case scenario, is of dubious legality, is likely to lead to harassment from law enforcement, and is explicitly advised against by the article's own author.

An additional bad taste in the mouth is left by the fact that, according to a subsequent section of the article, urban camping in Japan is considered a nuisance or at best only grudgingly tolerated by locals, and is really only feasible thanks to a "foreigner factor" whereby locals assume unfamiliarity with Japanese custom on the part of foreign tourists and therefore let faux-pas slide. It seems to me like knowingly taking advantage of such a thing is a rather bad-faith way for a tourist to conduct him- or herself, and not something we at Wikivoyage should be seen as endorsing.

At best, this information might be condensed and merged into Japan#Sleep; it certainly shouldn't stand alone as its own article.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait per comments below, but still maybe delete. Delete - bit of a shame, because it's quite a well-written and detailed article, but the above quote and the following speak for themselves: "First and foremost, keep in mind that if given freedom of choice, the Japanese would prefer to have their parks unoccupied by itinerant sleepers and sightseers who cannot afford a decent hotel room." But yeah, you go ahead and camp in the park anyway, and screw what them funny locals think...--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC), and modified 14:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it would be a more acceptable article if it focussed on camping in small towns and villages rather than cities. I have met people walking the 88 Temple Pilgrimage who have done it on nights when they couldn't stay at a temple - camping in or near a small non-tourist town is more likely to be accepted (as it might be elsewhere). The first two lines of italicized text were only added a couple of days ago, so it would be worth waiting. AlasdairW (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait This article has been online for a decade and the paragraph under discussion has only been added in the last few weeks. If the article has the potential to do harm to our reputation,it has already had plenty of opportunity to do it and waiting a bit has a good potential of maybe getting an article that is more workable... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait The above article was written by me. I was going to suggest deleting it at first, too, but I've reconsidered. Misinformation may have been spread based on this article. It's easy to remove, but hard to correct the spread of incorrect information. Instead of deleting it, I think it would be better to state the correct information and let people know that there was an error in the information so far. A carbon copy of this page on the site Wikitravel, other articles in the magazine that quote wikivoyage. To teach you that those information is wrong, we think this page should be addressed in the edit, not deleted. However, it would be a page of cautions and warnings, with most of the current text removed, though. --コイコイ (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this article supposed to be the same as nojuku (sleeping outdoors)? If so, I would probably have to vote against deleting it, because legal or not, nojuku is a long-established practice in Japan, and we've been trying to move long-winded details out of Japan and into child articles. If this is about something other than nojuku, then I'm unclear what this article is about, and it would be hasty to take action without first understanding what the topic in question really is. --Bigpeteb (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2020&oldid=4290542"