Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2012

From Wikivoyage
← September 2012 Votes for deletion archives for October 2012 (current) November 2012 →

  • Delete - this should be on shared, so it should be copied there and deleted. –sumone10154(talk) 02:08, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

Outcome: speedy deleted & transfered to shared. --Peter Talk 04:29, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

If it is vandalism I'd suggest you nominate it also for deletion. MY HOUSE is all caps, pure vandalism. It isn't a joke. It should go. If an non comes along, creates an article "Pete's Place", says it has a pool out the back, etc, we move it to jokes? Really? --Inas (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete - Not funny and just vandalism. If we were to allow anything, it would just turn into a mess and where do we draw the line? Also delete any others that don't belong, some of which Sumone has mentioned. JamesA >talk 13:23, 13 September 2012 (CEST)
    Changed to Neutral - It does have some merit in terms of highlighting the use of our standardised headers. I'm mainly changing just to avoid a no consensus outcome. JamesA >talk 16:20, 26 September 2012 (CEST)
  • CommentKeep. I don't know. It's a relic of a bygone era when we were friendlier and more welcoming to goofs, and maybe a nice reminder that you can run a wiki that way (I most certainly got my start on WP as a vandal, before realizing that yes, I could actually alter an encyclopedia myself). I like some of it too: MANY INTRESTING DOCUMENTRIES AND DRAMA SHOWS ARE SCREENED DAILY and GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!, as a good illustration of the possible misunderstandings that that heading on the verge of extinction provides. The all-caps kind of adds to the experience. --Peter Talk 18:52, 13 September 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep We might be moving to Wikimedia, but we should most certainly not become as humourless as Wikipedia has become. —Ravikiran r (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep. Love the Get out one, in a way it shows how we should still get rid of "Get out" :-) If we're deleting, then we should start a full discussion about keeping these kind of jokes. --Globe-trotter (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete Keep now it's in an appropriately secluded corner - still spectacularly unfunny --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:27, 22 September 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep - Its in the right place now. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:32, 29 September 2012 (CEST)

Somebody has removed the template so please archive this (now) redundant nomination to prevent confusion! --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:58, 30 September 2012 (CEST)

What template? And why redundant? --Peter Talk 02:40, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
The {{vfd}} template on the article now it has already been moved I assume the consensus is clear. I suppose formally we might want to ask Inas if he wishes to change his position. --W. Franke-mailtalk 02:41, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
If we were making the decision today, I'd certainly keep it, but there has been enough disagreement over this one where I'm OK with letting it stew a little longer (unanimity isn't needed, though). I don't know what happened with the vfd template, but I've restored it. --Peter Talk 02:50, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

Result: Kept –sumone10154(talk) 19:56, 16 October 2012 (CEST)

  • Delete - We don't use RDF on Wikivoyage anymore. –sumone10154(talk) 04:20, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Archive/Keep - RDF isn't relevant here anymore, and in the longrun, we'll probably be using Wikidata RDF. JamesA >talk 04:49, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Archive/Keep per JamesA. --W. Franke-mailtalk 05:00, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep. There is a fair history there. Just replace the text with the current status of not in use. I'm happy to do the update. --Inas (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep per Inas. Archiving would be messier. --Peter Talk 04:31, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't archiving just a matter of putting a template/notice at the top, and taking it off the main Expeditions page? JamesA >talk 04:35, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
    If that is what you mean by archive, then really you are in favour of keeping. --Inas (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
    Thanks, amended. JamesA >talk 11:42, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Deprecate. I never quite saw the point of RDF anyway. I suppose it could have been useful, but was it ever really? LtPowers (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2012 (CEST)
I tried to use it when as part of my copyediting regime, to glean information to alter the processing. However, it never worked properly. Especially people removing RDF from subpages so the breadcrumbs would work properly, meant that you couldn't count on RDF being on every article page. Therefore it was, from my perspective, completely useless in context. --Inas (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2012 (CEST)

Result: Kept and Archived –sumone10154(talk) 20:56, 18 October 2012 (CEST)

  • Delete. A contentious (and constantly changing) administrative division in the Philippines and NOT a useful article or division from the travellers point of view. -- (WV-en) Alice✉ 14:00, 29 September 2012 (CEST)
  • Comment - It does seem to be a mix and match of a region that makes no sense from a traveller's perspective. How would you propose we divide the regions then? Would Palawan and some surrounding islands become a new region, Western Islands or something? JamesA >talk 14:34, 29 September 2012 (CEST)
From a traveller's perspective and because of their relatively pristine eco-systems, Palawan warrants its own region - along with perhaps a new region of "Muslim lands" incorporating the autonomous region of Muslim Mindanao and the Badjao islands. But, simplest and to avoid edit wars and newbie mistakes, would be to leave the tourist regions more or less as the current map shows: http://wts.wikivoyage.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Philippines.png with just 3 tourist regions-- (WV-en) Alice✉ 14:59, 29 September 2012 (CEST)
The map can be easily edited if necessary. JamesA >talk 15:03, 29 September 2012 (CEST)
  • It is a likely search term, so shouldn't be nominated for deletion. If anything, it should be redirected to Philippines. That discussion can take place on the article's Talk page. --Globe-trotter (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
Yes, definitely redirect. I do not know the area well enough to be sure where to; Philippines seems a reasonable initial choice. Pashley (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2012 (CEST)

Result: Redirected to Philippines.

A neighborhood in Karachi East district. I don't think we need to create neighborhoods pages and then redirect those pages to their particular cities. As well MoS of article title is not correct either. --Saqib (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2012 (CEST)

  • Redirect - it is actually useful to create neighbourhood pages and redirect them. People won't be inclined to recreate the neighbourhood page, and will instead include the info in the right place. --Inas (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Redirect - Inas' remarks are well taken. I can't see a good reason not to redirect, offhand, but I stand to be corrected. (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

Result: Redirected to Karachi/East. --Globe-trotter (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2012 (CEST)

  • Delete. This is a lower resolution version of an existing image at Commons and English WP. It's no longer needed with Instant Commons (and one less image we'd have to migrate to WMF). -Shaund (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete; I have changed the article over so this image is now orphaned. LtPowers (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Speedy Delete. Agree. Articles on en:WV that exist on Commons should be deleted on sight. --Inas (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2012 (CEST)

Result: Deleted. --Globe-trotter (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2012 (CEST)

Delete - has a blank city template and is a beach locate in Bodrum should be described in the Bodrum article. Xltel (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2012 (CEST)

  • Keep. It seems this is a small town 10 km away from Bodrum (with its own town council/municapility seperate from that of Bodrum —couldn't find the English version), and has a fair number of accommodation and dining choices. I think this is sufficient to pass the "what is an article?" criteria. (On another note, by the way, I'd be in favour of creating a subregion article for Bodrum Peninsula and listing Bitez and other towns and villages lining the peninsula—of which Bodrum, Gumusluk, and Yalikavak we currently have articles for—in that article.) Vidimian (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2012 (CEST)
    • What you say is correct. I found this article on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitez Is is appropriate for me to withdraw the VFD? If so, I withdraw the VFD. Thanks! Xltel (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2012 (CEST)

Result: Kept. --Globe-trotter (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2012 (CEST)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/October_2012&oldid=4920824"