Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2013

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← September 2013 Votes for deletion archives for October 2013 (current) November 2013 →
Good point! :) --Nick talk 23:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is already a redirect to Bolton, which seems fine to me. Texugo (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Bolton. --Saqib (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Udo Island is a very small island off the coast of Jeju island in South Korea. The article has almost no content, and all description can be found in the larger Jeju island article. Can we please delete? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is to redirect real places. Redirect this one to Jeju. Pashley (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually redirected this originally, only to have that reversed (without discussion) by W. Frank. I have moved his copy edit updates to the main Jeju article and reinstated the redirect. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not this "article" actually had more content than many of our Google-juice sapping stub articles. Technically, it would conform to our current developed policy to delete it (losing the WT attribution in the process) and then re-create it as a re-direct to the relevant sub-section not the whole Jeju article. --W. Frankemailtalk 02:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure about 'google juice', however more than happy to point to a subsection in Jeju. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this actually needs to go through the vfd process. Can we archive this already? Texugo (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a place for 'votes for redirect' on WV? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry for the confusion around this everyone. We have had a discussion on the discussion page for Udo_Island, and I understand that W. Frank would like it deleted in order that it may be resurrected as a pure WikiVoyage article.

If Frank agrees with this, then please delete. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for SEO reasons and then re-create as the specific sub-section re-direct pending development of new non-skeletal content. (The original stub was just a bad plagiarism of WP that critically changed "3.5 km offshore" to "35 km offshore" and as the author of any subsequent copyrightable content, I give my full assent to the loss of any attribution to me for non-robotic and non-copyright free content!) --W. Frankemailtalk 07:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pashley, don't you think it was too early to delete and redirect? --Saqib (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. It seems obvious it should either be a redirect per policy or should be developed into a real article. In either case, we do not want the silly link to a WT stub. I therefore deleted it and recreated as a redirect. If someone later wants to expand it into a full article, they can. Pashley (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Udo_Island#Other_destinations by Pashley. --Saqib (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mangochi exists only for one accommodation listing. No other content. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article exist since 2008, and no content added till yet so I would still say its better to redirect. --Saqib (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this a couple of times before, Saqib. In fact, we had a cull of empty articles a few months ago, but it was made clear (see the consensus box added by Torty3 with a datestamp of 04:31, 18 September 2013) that it was purely for SEO purposes, it would be a one-time-only occurrence, and that all deleted articles would be recreated in their original form without the WT attribution. Beyond that, our previous policy (no content or very little content is not a valid reason to delete) was reaffirmed by the consensus that emerged. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy kept. --Saqib (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No real content except for photo. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy kept. --Saqib (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No content except for local alcohol laws --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article exist since 2007, and only one sleep listing has been added until now so I would still say its better to redirect. --Saqib (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this a couple of times before, Saqib. In fact, we had a cull of empty articles a few months ago, but it was made clear (see the consensus box added by Torty3 with a datestamp of 04:31, 18 September 2013) that it was purely for SEO purposes, it would be a one-time-only occurrence, and that all deleted articles would be recreated in their original form without the WT attribution. Beyond that, our previous policy (no content or very little content is not a valid reason to delete) was reaffirmed by the consensus that emerged. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy kept. --Saqib (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No real content --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article exist since 2006, and no content added till yet so I would still say its better to redirect. --Saqib (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this a couple of times before, Saqib. In fact, we had a cull of empty articles a few months ago, but it was made clear (see the consensus box added by Torty3 with a datestamp of 04:31, 18 September 2013) that it was purely for SEO purposes, it would be a one-time-only occurrence, and that all deleted articles would be recreated in their original form without the WT attribution. Beyond that, our previous policy (no content or very little content is not a valid reason to delete) was reaffirmed by the consensus that emerged. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy kept. --Saqib (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No real content --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy kept. --Saqib (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This redirects to Manhattan, but Manhattan is New York County; if there is a Manhattan County, it is somewhere else. Besides, in the search bar, someone would get a result already upon typing "Manhattan." Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abstain. According to Wikipedia, there is no "Manhattan County " in the U.S. or anywhere else for that matter. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Abstain. Redirects like this are real cheap. I assume this one is for people who think Manhattan may be a county of NYC, instead of a borough, or whatever it actually is. --Inas (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a county — New York County. Why would someone search for "Manhattan County" and get confused? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't know that. Are you disagreeing with me? I'm confused! --Inas (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm disagreeing with you that there should be a redirect from "Manhattan County" to Manhattan, as the Borough of Manhattan is New York County, and the chances that someone will erroneously look for "Manhattan County," be confused not to find a result, and give up instead of looking for "Manhattan" are vanishingly low, but the chances of confusing people by keeping the redirect up are a bit higher. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you're considering the auto-complete functionality in the search bar. Is that right? I don't think we've ever considered that before in deciding whether to delete a redirect. In my opinion redirects shouldn't really auto-complete, and we have some really weird ones. So, perhaps this is something to consider in our deletion policy. I would point out that I think the New York County thing is quite obscure to non-New Yorkers. I had no idea it had the same boundaries as Manhattan Borough until I read WP a few moments ago. --Inas (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Correct. The point is that "Manhattan" would get typed before "Manhattan +x, y, z." I don't think anyone is going to be looking for "Manhattan County," nor, really, for New York County, either. We New Yorkers (and maybe not even all of us) know that the counties of New York City are Bronx, Queens, Kings (=Brooklyn), New York (=Manhattan), and Richmond (=Staten Island), but the only thing out-of-towners need to know are the names of the boroughs, not their county equivalents, which are used much more rarely, and perhaps how to write addresses, which is not the same as knowing the names of the boroughs or the counties, because while mail to Manhattan is addressed to "New York, NY," mail to Brooklyn gets "Brooklyn, NY," not "Kings, NY," and mail to Queens should specify the village in Queens, such as "Flushing, NY," etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects are cheap, but in this case (as Ikan points out) there is no such thing as "Manhattan County" and thus no plausible reason why anyone should expect that to redirect to Manhattan. The point of a redirect is to reduce confusion, and this one creates confusion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is called "Manhattan County" unofficially, even by the government (see this Google page, and this page which just shows government websites). I presume the reason for this is that it's a county, but it's much more comically known as "Manhattan" then "New York". Manhattan is a county of NYC, "borough" is just the NYC term for "county" (each borough is a county). I don't live in the area, but I personally would never call it "New York", but I also wouldn't usually leave off the "County" (I'm a bit of a purist).
People use methods the search bar to search, end even those that do use the bar aren't always going to see the "Manhattan" result. They won't see it if they copy and paste, or if they just focus on typing and ignore the drop-down box. Redirects are cheap anyway. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, as I expressed on your talk page, I really appreciate your edits, so please don't take what I'm about to write personally, but I'm going to argue rather sharply, anyway. The fact is, I do live in Manhattan. I'm a native Manhattanite and have lived here or in the area for all but 2 years and some summers of my life so far, and I have never heard anyone call this borough "Manhattan County." The phrase "Manhattan County Clerk" should be parsed as "Manhattan — County Clerk", not "Manhattan County: Clerk." And "NEW YORK COUNTY COURTS (MANHATTAN)" proves the point that this is New York County, more commonly known as Manhattan, not "Manhattan County." To my shock, some of the Google results a little further down the page do refer incorrectly to a "Manhattan County," but really, who is going to be searching for that? It would be better to have a redirect for the correct county name, New York County, if it's really necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I see this as nothing more then a minor disagreement. The reason you've never herd it called "Manhattan County" is that NYC is vary quirky when it comes to counties. As you probably know, NYC calls it counties "boroughs", and some of the counties are even given two diffident names (in this case the "borough name" is "Manhattan" and the "county name" is "New York"). The rest of the US doesn't use the term "borough" for counties, let alone have "borough name" "county name" distinction. Outside of NYC a county would have only one name and be called "[name] County". NYC is pmonit enough that basic NYC conventions are usually followed outside of NYC, when referring to NYC's counties. Despite this, the rest of the US can't be expected to be that familiar with, or care about NYC county conventions. Someone could know that Manhattan is a county and look up "Manhattan County". Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "borough name" "county name" distinction isn't meaningful except in some legal or technical contexts; those contexts aside no one would call Manhattan "New York" (with or without the "County"), Station Island "Richmond", etc. The so-called "county name" simply isn't used. It's a county, it's named "Manhattan", so legalities aside, it's very plausible that someone would call it "Manhattan County" (as the state education department does. This county map of the state for example uses the term "Manhattan" not "New York" to refer to the county. I really don't see the problem here; redirects are very cheap, and no one's arguing that we shouldn't have a New York County redirect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Manhattan is quite commonly called "New York" or "The City." You should spend more time here; then, you'd know. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean people call Manhattan specifically (rather then NYC as a whole) "New York" or "The City"? What about the other counties with two names; do people commonly call Staten Island "Richmond" and Brooklyn "Kings"?. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Manhattan is commonly called "New York" and "The City" in this area (e.g., people say they're going to New York or The City when they go from Long Island to Manhattan, not to Brooklyn or Jamaica). No, no-one calls Staten Island "Richmond" or Brooklyn "Kings" in conversation. Manhattan used to be the City of New York by itself until the 1880s, and I think that and the fact that it's more of a central city than any other borough, plus the separate identity of the former City of Brooklyn - the only other borough with a major downtown - have more to do with Manhattan being commonly called "New York" and "The City" than the coterminousness of the Borough of Manhattan and New York County. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not a likely search term & Ikan knows the area. Pashley (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abstain - I see no reason to start keeping redirects for things that don't actually exist and may cause someone to think that they do. Texugo (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My response to Ikan was rather long, so I'll summarize my arguments here. The county has two names, "Manhattan" and "New York", but "Manhattan" is by far the more generally used name. It is true that in a strictly legal scene "New York" is the county name and the "borough name" is "Manhattan", but this is a legal technicality, of pretty much no relevance for the traveler; one that the state education department website, the state government's county mapand other county maps are happy to ignore. There's a county, it's named "Manhattan" so to say that there isn't a such thing as "Manhattan County" isn't correct except in a strict technical scene, that's sort of like saying that the isn't a such thing as South County (Rhode Island). The state government's website recognizes "Manhattan County" (as shown by my links), so it's a very plausible search term, and we shroud have it as a redirect.


The "Delete" votes were ether made in ignorance of the state website recognition, or amount to little more then "legally/vary technically it's not Manhattan County". The only other significant Delete argument (unless I'm missing something) is Ikan's search bar augment, but I addressed that in my response to him. Deleting this would set a dangerous precedent, as Manhattan is not a unique case. The NYC counties of Staten Island and Brooklyn aside, there are a number of quirky counties like this. I've already pointed out South County (Rhode Island), its legal name is "Washington County". Should we rename that article then delete the "South County" redirect, since "South County" technically doesn't exist. The Census Bureau calls Trousdale County, Tennessee "Hartsville/Trousdale County". Once we have a Trousdale County article, should we not have a "Hartsville/Trousdale County" redirect sense Hartsville/Trousdale County "doesn't exist". There are lots of quirky counties like this, and we should not expect the traveler to be familiar with the legal name of every quirky county (let alone NYC's legal distinction between "borough names" and "county names"). This precedent would damage TTCF, and I think this is a case where the quality of the arguments (plus the violation of TTCF) should take presence over the shear number of votes. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who is it that you think will search for "Manhattan County," get no results, and give up, rather than searching for "Manhattan"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(You've stumbled on two "passions" of mine, counties and redirects). As for the search part, someone who sees the New York State county map that lists "Manhattan" as one of the counties, for example. As for the get no results and give up part, that's the seems like wrong question to me. The question should be "why shouldn't we simply present the traveler with the article he's looking for" (that's the whole purpose of a redirect); we shouldn't make the traveler jump through needless hoops to get to the article he's looking for.
Do you in principal oppose redirects from unofficial and semi-official names of counties (such as South Co. and Hartsville/Trousdale Co.) that are legally known by some other name (Washington Co. and Trousdale Co.). My only major concern here is really the precedent that would force the traveler to be familiar with the legal name of a quirky county to look it up. I do think we should keep the redirect, it is a semi-official if uncommon name for Manhattan, and our deletion policy on redirects encourages redirects from alternative names, but my real concern is that precedent. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emmette Hernandez Coleman's arguments are persuasive. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I in principle oppose a redirect from Manhattan County, an odd search term, to Manhattan, which along with "New York" and "The City" is how everyone knows the borough in question. Is there any person anywhere who knows of a place they informally call "Manhattan County" and doesn't know the place is called Manhattan or New York? You may win on this, but I don't think you'll convince me, and I hope you don't create redirects for "Brooklyn County" and "Staten Island County." Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It stands to reason that someone in search of travel information regarding NYC would not be a native of the area. And, like EHC, they may not initially have any idea what the colloquial term(s) for Manhattan are. If they happen to know that the five boroughs also qualify as counties, it stands to reason that they might mistakenly believe that "Manhattan County" is a valid name.
If this discussion were a proposal for the creation of a Manhattan County redirect article based on that rationale, I'd most likely oppose it as too farfetched. However, at Wikivoyage we apply higher standards for deletion of articles than we do for creation of articles. Given that, I think there's a stronger argument to keep this article than to delete it. I don't have particularly strong feelings either way, though.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion exemplifies why we usually just let these redirects be. I think the chance of confusion is pretty small, and it's almost certainly not worth arguing over. LtPowers (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, I see your point on this, finally. I still don't like the redirect much, but I'll drop my nomination for deletion. But please, let's not create redirects for "Brooklyn County" or "Staten Island County." Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I missed your confusion argument. I think I see you're point, you're not arguing that the redirect should be deleted because "Manhattan" isn't the county's legal "county name" in and of it self. You're argument is that because the county is extremely famous there would probably be very few instances of a reader not finding the article without the redirect. I guess this probably shouldn't be used for deleting less famous counties, where the reader might not be ale to find the article, which mostly addresses my precedent concern.
Your confusion argument touches on a larger issue. All the borough articles (except Brooklyn) only show the bough name, so a reader who arrives by the county name, or a nickname, could easily be confused. I've seen some slimlir problems elsewhere, such as the island of "Oahu" also being "Honolulu County". "The articles don't even seem to state that "borough" means "county", so there could easily be some confusion. I'll plunge found and implement a possible solution on the Manhattan article; look good to you? There are some websites that use terms like "New York (Manhattan) County" or "New York/Manhattan County" (and of course "Manhattan County"), but I think with the "Manhattan (also known as New York County" the reader would easily realize that that's those terms reefer to Manhattan. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the Honolulu County redirect was excellent. I also like your solution, which I edited slightly. Thanks, Emmette. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Created about a month ago, with no indication of what the criteria for a "global city" is, or what the point of the article was going to be. Constitutes a list article, which we usually try to avoid, and duplicates much of Wikivoyage:World cities or Wikivoyage:World cities/Large.

I like the basic notion of having some sort of list of major world cities, though. If there is a way either to clarify criteria and save this article or to clean up Wikivoyage:World cities/Large a bit so it would fit in main article space, I'd support that. Would moving data between those two give a solution? Pashley (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a hopelessly out-of-date page that suggests three completely random tools for spell checking and CVS editing. If there is a centralized page on mediawiki.org or somewhere similar that provides an up-to-date list of Mediawiki tools (like Project:AWB and similar utilities) then let's create a soft redirect, otherwise let's get rid of this since even in a best-case scenario it's going to be a spammy and arbitrary list of everyone's favorite browser add-on. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ryan's rationale. --W. Frankemailtalk 07:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Long out-of-date. As a side note, I actually was thinking of creating something like this, comparable to Wikidata:Wikidata:Tools, but less complicated with a few CSS/JS scripts to change italics of listings and map preferences. -- torty3 (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be a worthwhile page that could be created like this, but the content on this page is not really worth saving. --Rschen7754 09:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a page on meta or somewhere similar with information about scripts and tools, similar to what Torty linked to for wikidata? The idea of a centralized page of tools isn't a bad one, and it would be worth having a soft redirect, but as this page proves it's probably not something that should live in Wikivoyage. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to my knowledge, unfortunately, though I could be mistaken. --Rschen7754 18:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

String manipulation templates

The only place that these 3 string templates were used was within "Template:BASICPAGENAME" and it didn't even work properly for the 2nd example on the documentation page for BASICPAGENAME. I've update BASICPAGENAME to use a lua module called Module:BASICPAGENAME so there is now no need for these templates as they are now unused. WOSlinker (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


"Template:Wts"

This template was used temporarily in the process of removing wts links and should no longer be needed.

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Orphan" and "Template:Orphan/doc"

Apparently imported in January from WP, complete with WP puzzle logo. Tagged as experimental but never used.

Paraphrase of my comment there just now: I don't see any point. We currently have zero orphaned pages that need fixing and we typically keep it pretty close to that. As mentioned, unlike WP, the places our articles should be linked from are systematic and obvious. If you have time to check WhatLinksHere and then go back to the article to tag it with this template, you almost certainly have time to click instead to the parent region and add a link there. I don't understand who would use this template in the first place. Texugo (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Shared-icon"

Unused template which apparently had something to do with WTS.

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Featured photo"

Unused template created in December of last year. Not sure what it was supposed to be for.

Yes was creating a mockup for a featured travel photo for the main page. Feel free to delete. Ran out of energy. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Boleto turistico"

Apparently created to reproduce a block of text, similar to "Template:Schengen" but on a much smaller scale. Currently unused, though the same text appears in the Cuzco article.

Wow, I missed that. Vfd'd back in 2006 and kept all this time without use? Texugo (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it was used or not but anyway, thanks for spotting it. --Saqib (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Geographic Location"

2nd vfd nomination. The outcome of the first discussion back in January, archived at "Template talk:Geographic Location", was to "add an experimental tag, and delete the template later if it fails to gain consensus for its use". And here we are 10 months later.

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Ignored media"

Another experimental template created to help with the move from WT. Its point is now moot.

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikivoyage:Orphan" and "Category:Orphaned articles"

  • Delete. These are related to "Template:Orphan", which is nominated above. We don't have special handling for orphaned pages, and usually handle them using breadcrumb trails, so the concept is not particularly relevant here (as Texugo noted in the template VFD). If we delete one we should delete them all, and if we keep one we should keep them all, so I've put these two pages into a single nomination. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the template & category should go; neither looks useful to me. However, we do have Special:LonelyPages so I suggest Wikivoyage:Orphan be redirected there. Pashley (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pashley, do you only suggest or actually recommend to redirect Wikivoyage:Orphan to Special:LonelyPages? In-case of just a suggestion, I'm going to delete this page tomorrow but if you recommend, it can be redirected. --Saqib (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an issue I feel really strongly about, but a redirect seems the Right Thing, Cheap, easy, internal links help SEO and redirecting where possible is policy. Pashley (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Category:Orphaned articles Deleted, Wikivoyage:Orphan Redirected to Special:LonelyPages. --Saqib (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Stateguide" and "Template:Continentalsectionguide"

These templates don't do anything now as their RDF contents are commented out and all the other guide templates such as "Template:Countryguide" were deleted in March 2013. See "Place type templates" in Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2013. So these two should go as well. WOSlinker (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the templates be substituted on the pages using them? --Saqib (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is nothing to substitute because they don't actually do anything at all. The only thing they did before was to insert some rdf stuff, which we no longer use. Texugo (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This small park is really is worth an hour or two visit at most, with no nearby accommodation or restaurants. It is most commonly referred to as Bimmah Sinkhole, which confusingly also has its own page, now redirected to Northern Oman. Is a redirect more appropriate here? —The preceding comment was added by StellarD (talk • contribs)

Result: Redirected to Northern Oman by User:StellarD. --Saqib (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has had only two revisions, both in 2009 on WT. An anon user created it, then an admin made it a redirect. According to w:South Tibet, it is a politically loaded term. The redirect is not to any part of Tibet, but to an Indian province, parts of which China claims.

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a {{CompletedEvent}} which ended six years ago and therefore too badly outdated to be of further use. An outline travel topic, this is abandoned but the one-year limit never is reached because of 'bot edits such as {{pagebanner}}s. K7L (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless someone wants to take on the task of doing a general Rugby World Cup article and needs this left up long enough to get material from it. Pashley (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but make inactive - Of the 10 pages which use {{CompletedEvent}}, 5 are at outline status, but I think we should remove the status tags from them and have {{CompletedEvent}} add all its pages to Category:Inactive article pages, since that's what they are (including the ones at usable status, etc.). There aren't that many precedents for this type of article that one can refer to when creating a new event article, so I think it is useful to archive them down in the bottom file cabinet drawer but remove them from the active status ranking system. Texugo (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "inactive", would that push WV:Completed_Events/...whatever... out of mainspace in the same format as WV:BJAODN/...whatever... or the April 1 destinations? I can't imagine these outlines ever being completed if the corresponding events are over and done. K7L (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, they would just be frozen for posterity's sake, like the other pages in that category. Of course they won't ever be completed, and shouldn't be. I mean, technically there would be not reader-related reason to keep even star articles for past events, but keeping these 10 articles will be useful for editors creating event pages in the future, to get ideas, see how it has been done, see what worked, what didnt, etc. Texugo (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they're just info for editors or a description of the project's history, they don't belong in mainspace. A trip to Rugby World Cup 2007 (or Travel news/2004) is no more possible to a wikivoyager in 2013 than a manned trip to Mars. The main space is a travel guide. K7L (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind moving past events and archiving them somewhere else. Following the pattern you suggested of WV:BJAODN would make sense, though I don't know what root page would be appropriate, so if you have a suggestion... If we do that, I would suggest moving the travel news somewhere too, since they aren't currently relevant travel guides either. Texugo (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Wikipedian"

Since nobody noticed my earlier concerns on the template's talk page, I'm brining it here now.

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/October_2013&oldid=4924260"