Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2007

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in September 2007. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/August 2007 or Project:Votes for deletion/October 2007 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

per Project:What is an article? ~ 203.144.143.5 01:12, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

per Project:Image policy#People in photos ~ 203.144.143.5 16:50, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm guessing this is a copyvio, on the presumption that whoever created the actual map (i.e. whoever painted the "original work" that this is a photograph of) has not licensed it. ~ 203.144.143.5 17:14, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Mistakenly created here instead of on Shared. Should all categories be added to the "shoot on sight" list for speedy deletion? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:55, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Great information and well written, but in the wrong place. I think this should be merged into Hong Kong#What to eat and then deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:06, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Neutral. It's an awkward cross between an itinerary and listings as it stands, but it might still be salvageable... (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:35, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Hmmm. Typically, I would be hostile toward this type of itinerary, but as I've never been to HK and if and when I do make I'd want to jump-in and try to get a full dose of culture shock. Thus, I think there could possibly be a venue for this type of information. I'll make an official vote after a couple more days as I see the article progress. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 00:32, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Im the original author. This was just a first draft, with the idea to add more places later, and some more details on each type of food (typical ingredients, level of spiciness, recommended dishes etc.). The idea was to give more than just a list of restaurants - actually a reason to try each one over a period of time. I'm out of town for the next couple of weeks though, so I wont be able to work on it further til then. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 219.79.208.116 (talk • contribs)
  • Seems less like an itinerary than a private 'Eat' section. It's capably written, but if the author has a vision for it beyond what's there - but doesn't intend to do anything on it for a few weeks - well, that's what a (WT-en) sandbox is for. Don't premiere itineraries until they're ready. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:52, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
If this is to become a full-fledged tour, e.g., "eat Japanese for lunch at one of these 3-4 places on Tuesday and Cantonese for dinner at this place, then on Wednesday...", I would have no objections to keeping the itinerary. I myself have plans for a one-day culinary tour itinerary of the US Northeast. As it stands, however, all this content could easily fit in the "What to eat" section of the main city article and the restaurants belong in district "eat" sections. I also agree with Gorilla that Itineraries really should be usable before they are published, as stub and outline itineraries almost never get filled out later. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:53, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

I've updated this now to a proper itinerary (at least for day 1). Please update your comments if you still want to delete it. If it stays, I'll carry on in the same format for itineraries for day 2 & 3.--219.79.208.116 10:57, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

It's looking very good! Keep. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
Yes. Keep (WT-en) Pashley 22:28, 2 September 2007 (EDT)


Delete. I'm the uploader of this image and would like it to be deleted because the quality of it is very blurry and I have another one on Wikivoyage share which is much more clear. Thanks!--(WT-en) Creative 16:10, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Delete. I'm the uploader of this image and would like it to be deleted because it is a duplicate of Image:Kabul InterContinental Hotel in 2005.jpg on Wikivoyage Share. Thanks!--(WT-en) Creative 16:21, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Delete. I'm the uploader of this image and would like it to be deleted because it is a duplicate of Image:Kabul InterContinental Hotel in 2005.jpg on Wikivoyage Share. Thanks!--(WT-en) Creative 16:27, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Unlikely to qualify as an exception to "What is an article?" rules. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:26, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Especially since there are, explicitly, "no pLans to expand." (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:48, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Beaches don't usually qualify as destinations. If there are places to stay on the beach that qualify it as a village, then maybe keep, but a delete or redirect to Krabi seems indicated. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:22, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome - Redirected to Krabi --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:52, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

How strange that this pops up just as we were discussing Making a difference. Anyway, we don't allow articles for businesses, only places, but it could be spoken about at the Making a difference page. I listed it here instead of speedy deleting it so that the contributor might see this and understand why we can't keep it. See Project:What is an article? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:40, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome - 'Speedy deleted
  • ,Delete. The only relevant part of this conversation is from 2004, and totally outdated. It (obviously) is only serving as a breeding ground for accounts of racism in Germany and random comments, which continue to be added despite the warning at the top of the page that advises to only discuss the improvement of the Germany article. I know we don't generally delete discussions, but I don't think this one is serving us well. If we don't delete the entire page, I propose at least deleting everything beyond the 2004 conversation that has nothing to do with updating the Germany article or Wikivoyage. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:21, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete for all the reasons given by Cacahuate -- (WT-en) WindHorse 09:45, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:56, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep the original discussion, but nothing else. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:41, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I am less comfortable with selectively deleting comments than just getting rid of the whole page. If someone tries to recreate this page, let's agree to speedy delete it as it is a slippery slope and not an article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:12, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Pashley 04:40, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 10:53, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Ha!:) (WT-en) OldPine 13:33, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. Let's just keep everything from the original discussion and then protect the page against further edits. Typically talk page discussions are never deleted, and while I agree this one is a special case I don't think we should delete it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:40, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree with Ryan and Sapphire after some more thought... let's keep the original discussion and protect the page – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:11, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I can go with that, and add my support to keep with protect. (WT-en) WindHorse 00:23, 24 July 2007 (EDT) Another idea: as the page is quite full, how about archiving it. Hopefully, placing it out of sight will bring the debate to close. However, if it does start up again on the new page, then we still have the option of protect. Personally, I prefer not to protect articles unless absolutely essential, and in this way it would be a final option, rather than a first.
  • I still think this "discussion" (I actually didn't see any discussion about the topic: whether Germany/Racism is a valid or useful travel topic) is a special case and should be deleted. Protecting might actually call more attention to the page, and also alert readers that administrators have noticed the page and didn't delete it. But if I am in the minority on this, I will gladly bow to the general opinion. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:33, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
What about protecting, with a banner note at the top saying something like "This is an archive of a past discussion. If you've got something to say about improving the Germany article, say it at Talk:Germany"  ?? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Peter, we're not discussing it as a travel topic... it definitely isn't a valid travel topic... the page was created in the first place to discuss updating the Germany article... and whatever they were originally discussing I think was changed long ago. So the only reason for this discussion to come up again is if someone has a problem with something that is currently in the Germany article, or wants to add something to the current article. And if any new changes to Germany need discussion, it should just happen at Talk:Germany. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:26, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
I see I did not quite understand the intended point of the page. Still, I'm not a huge fan of permanently protecting pages. Right now the only "extreme case" for which we are doing this is the main page (see Special:Protectedpages)—I'm not sure that this particular case qualifies. I prefer to delete because I don't think the page is serving a purpose and its largely irrelevant and borderline inflammatory content reflects poorly on Wikivoyage IMHO. But I understand the aversion to deleting discussions, so if we keep, I would prefer to use our everyday tools (reverts) to prevent the page from being further used as a group therapy board for victims of "German racism." This will be easy to do now that we are all aware of the page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
A lot of talk pages don't have a point, but keeping the discussions around provides a glimpse into how decisions were reached and policies developed. We likely have hundreds or even thousands of talk page conversations that may not be 100% relevant to Wikivoyage as it exists today, but those pages are all preserved and allow someone who is interested in the evolution of the site to follow the process. For a similar example to the current one see Talk:United States of America#Revert of the day; that thread contains a long discussion of red state/blue state politics in the US that has as much bearing on travel as discussions of racism in Germany.
Just as user pages are special, conversations between users are also something that we only modify or delete in extreme cases (hate speech, trolling), and this article isn't an extreme case. Protect it if people feel strongly that something needs to be done, but definitely don't delete it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Delete this since it serves little useful purpose and attracts irrelevant posts. Summarise the content as a section of Talk:Germany. Maybe three lines. (WT-en) Pashley 23:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
I wrote a summary; it turned out much longer than three lines. It is at User talk:Pashley/TGR. I'd say make that a section of Talk:Germany and delete the original. (WT-en) Pashley 01:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
If we decide to keep the page, use my summary for that. (WT-en) Pashley 03:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
I understand where you were coming from in making that, but I think paraphrasing other people's comments isn't really so great, and also I think editing it down to a bullet list like that makes it look even more like a breeding ground for comments about Germany's racism. I still think we should keep the original 2004 debate that was really centered around edits to the article, and delete everything after that that just gets into storytelling. I would say everything below Nils March 19, 2004 comment should be axed. And maybe let's not protect for a while unless it still continues to be a problem ? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
There was no paraphrase in that summary. Everything was a direct quote, just shortened to what I thought were the main points. (WT-en) Pashley 09:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
  • This is an extremely rare case where I believe that protecting the page may be the right course. Aggravating or not, the discussions did occur, and as Ryan says, we generally try to keep discussions around, if for no other reason than that they will continue to recur. At the same time, the topic is so incendiary that just leaving it open for business doesn't seem to meet our goals either. See also the item I'm putting into the pub regarding the protection of archival pages; if that's adopted as a policy, then archiving this discussion and protecting it may be best. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
Yet another storytelling comment was added today. As long as we leave comments on there of that nature, it's going to breed more. I think there's agreement to keep the original discussion, and possibly protect it... but what about the latter comments, which aren't part of any conversation related to the improvement of the Germany article? Can we delete those and archive/protect the original discussion? I can't see protecting the page without removing those comments, as that isn't really justifiable... a few people are allowed to leave non-WT related accounts of racism but nobody else can? At least if we revert the page back to the original discussion that was about the Germany article and then protect it we're doing something that should make sense to later contributors. The original contributors came to somewhat of an agreement on the text that they were discussing, and any new discussions on the topic can be started on Talk:Germany. What newer people aren't getting at the moment is that that conversation was about coming to agreement on some text in the article... they see the "I was given a funny look in Germany" comments later on and then think the page is a place to reminisce about racist Germans, which it definitely is not. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 15:27, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
It really is time this page to be deleted, even keeping the original discussion is a very slippery slope as it might give people the incentive to create similar pages for other countries. I'd really hate to see a Talk:South Africa/Racism page pop up; it would distract completely from the topic of travel --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I just reverted all of the crap and kept the original discussion. We should not delete this discussion because that's un-wiki, and as we all know, this is a wiki. Anyhow, I'll support protecting the page because people keep adding stories. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 05:37, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
I think that Sapphire's revert was the right thing to do. I still don't see any need to protect the page, for the reasons I gave above and because the disclaimer at the top of the page makes it clear that this is not the place for group therapy. Moreover, I think protection might be a bad precedent, as it is an overly strict way of dealing with problems easily solved by reverts. This page certainly sees fewer unwelcome contributions than, say, Mandarmani, and we dealt with that just fine without resorting to hard measures. If anyone's worried that more story-telling will crop up unnoticed, don't be—I've now got this on my watch list and have my revert trigger-finger ready. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:02, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
That all sounds great to me... I've watchlisted it too... and I suspect it won't draw as many new comments now that we've removed the bait. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 19:54, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept, with a disclaimer and the option of protecting in the future. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Uploader saw that Sun Valley Co. allows users to use some of their images as desktop wallpaper . Uploader thought this meant it was public domain. For a work to be Public Domain, a copyright holder must explicitly release it into the public domain. Since they don't, it isn't. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:51, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Image is labeled as PD-Creator, but clearly the creator did not upload it. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:51, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Not listed by Getty or Wikipedia ~ 203.147.0.48 03:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Google reveals a village named Chaolong . It is in the heavily-touristed area around Yangshuo and has a guesthouse so "you can sleep there (TM)". Should this become a redirect? (WT-en) Pashley 01:29, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for finding that - I've now redirected it. Keep as a redirect. ~ 203.147.0.48 05:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Yangshuo. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:55, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Copyvio. See this edit summary ~ 203.147.0.48 05:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Not clear if the owner understood what they were authorizing. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:59, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Per Project:What is an article?; it is not a nationally (in the United States) known park a la New York (city)/Central Park and Yosemite National Park, et. al. (WT-en) THE evil fluffyface 18:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

What city/town/county article should contain it? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
Miami. I've done the redirect, but am leaving this open for discussion a little longer. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:44, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Miami. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:07, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

per Project:What is an article? ~ 203.147.0.48 11:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:40, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't really get the original intent of this policy, and despite its being around for 2 years, it has no content whatsoever. I think we should delete it and remove the reference to it in Project:Copyleft. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:43, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

See http://www.cruiseasia.net/index.cfm?menuid=129 and copyright notices at the foot of that page. ~ 203.147.0.48 05:58, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Good catch. And even if there's any doubt, the picture isn't worth the risk. Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Per Project:What is an article? - content is "san jeronimo tunnel" ~ 203.147.0.48 06:38, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:00, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Empty, not an article.

Outcome: Speedy deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 06:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Not an article.

Outcome: Speedy deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 06:53, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Not an article.

Outcome: Speedy deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:09, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Essentially created in error, would be better to delete it now (and get rid of the confusing history which serves no purpose and has no value) while it still has no content and start again from scratch. ~ 61.7.175.20 14:19, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep. It's the (empty) talk page for what appears to be an entirely normal article. WTP? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)


Apparent copyvio from (WT-en) a contributor who may be regularly copying content from other sites. The original content is located here. I have left him a notice on his talk page. I'm also not sure that this island meets our "can you sleep there?" test. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:20, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

  • For destinations, it's preferable to remove the copyvio material and turn the article into something that meets our needs (contrast images, where we just have to delete the copyvio'd image). It doesn't look like this one will meet the can-you-sleep-there test, so it's reasonable to delete it, but I'd prefer to wait until someone has done some research to figure out where the content might be put, after de-copyvio-ing. I can imagine finding stuff in the course of that research that might justify a keep or redirect. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:06, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
    • On doing that research, it appears that this island is part of Galičica National Park, so I would recommend a redirect to that article for now. However, the national parks of the Republic of Macedonia ("FYROM") need more attention than we've given them (as does much about that country). I have no idea whether this park qualifies as a destination, or whether it should be treated as an attraction in the article for Resen or even the top level FYROM article. Anyway, for right now, a redirect seems right. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:53, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Galičica National Park --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:56, 25 September 2007 (EDT)


Borderline deletion candidate. Most of the current content is certainly inappropriate, and it's a naval base not accessible to civilians, but if we've got an article for Wake Island then this just might squeak by... and yes, you really can fly "Air Sunshine" to Gitmo! (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:28, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep. It is a possible destination for some travellers. It does need a rewrite, tone down the political comment without completely trashing it. (WT-en) Pashley 06:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. It is not a possible destination for most travellers. Because of that, we can afford a joke. It's funny, I hope someone expands it. --- (WT-en) Fridday 11:34, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Sorry -- but we really don't do joke articles. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:25, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Since it's not accessible to civilians and it's just going to be a magnet for political commentary, toss it. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:25, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. This is a possible destination for some travelers (I'm certain there are business travelers there) and it meets our standard criteria of Can You Sleep There. This article needs some constructive attention, though, and a disambiguation. The US controls only the southern half of the bay and its surrounding territory; the northern half of the bay is uncontested Cuban territory and is very much possible to visit. The fact that this article might attract vandalism is IMO a good reason to add it to our watchlists, not to delete it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:37, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. There is precedent for keeping articles on incredibly out-of-the-way military bases, e.g. Wake Island and British Indian Ocean Territory, containing (and largely being comprised of) the notorious Diego Garcia Island base. The fact that this particular base is, ahem, controversial doesn't make it any different from those places in terms of our coverage. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:17, 22 September 2007 (EDT)


Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

A single parking meter does not constitute an article. (WT-en) Texugo 05:04, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Laugh - Delete This one got me a grin for today. It needs to be archived in our funny section. I am not around much anymore, so I don't know if it is policy to blank a VFD page now, but I wish we could leave the content on this one while we discuss it. Sadly, delete, but I hope the author will stick around. We can use people with a good sense of humor. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 05:58, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Speedy delete, but move the content into an infobox in the appropriate bit of SF first -- it's not your average parking meter! (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:16, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Seems redundant, info for this location belongs in Sydney/Cronulla --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:54, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Sydney/Cronulla


Copyright issues. Marked as PD, but with comments that it is GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Origional at [] is GFDL only. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:22, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:08, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

A temple. Might be a village, but I have no knowledge about the area so can't decide if it should be deleted or templated --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:17, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Should that be speedy since the content is an obvious copyvio? (WT-en) Pashley 09:45, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

A venue for a festival? --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:57, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:12, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Duplicate of Tamarindo, created by spammer after his edit to Tamarindo was repeatedly reverted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:07, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:13, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Copyright violations --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:35, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Non travel related advert (though one might be tempted to use her services to find out where your luggage has gone). --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:48, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

  • I've speedy-deleted the first one (model release, etc.), and the second should obviously go as well, but I can't find a justification for a speedy delete. If you can, go ahead. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:26, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:20, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Requires model release --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:03, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:21, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Requires model release --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:07, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Copy violation (http://www.taroko.gov.tw/TarokoPortalEng/4_1_0/06.asp) --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:21, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:26, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Requires model release --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:23, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:44, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Some new pages in Nepal

[edit]
    • A recently renovated stone hut does not a grand old hotel make. Is Chobhar a sensible place to merge all this to? (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:12, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Chalkidiki/Greece anon edits

[edit]

Everything by and seems to be a copyvio, and the articles they've created veer wildly from actual destinations to random Greek kings and philosophies. I've nuked the obvious crap, but this still needs a lot of sorting... (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:23, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

  • I removed one or two more that don't appear to include pointers to modern towns, but it looks to me as if the others at least point to valid destinations. Keep, but with some careful scrubbing for copyvio, as Nick and others have started to do. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:41, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
  • List them so we can make some sense of what is going on here in order to clean it up:

Outcome: Kept after cleanup and some redirects --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Pointless and unmaintainable. The information should be moved into the appropriate destination articles. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:15, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Seeing this huge amount of work pop up, and knowing that it would soon show up here, gave me a headache. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:44, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Archive. I am travelling over the Mediterranean by ferry (Montenegro to Portugal :) and find wikivoyages information really scarce. Id like to make a page Ferries in the Mediterranean, and link to it from every Mediterranean port. Then this page might come in handy. 88.44.122.242 15:23, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
    • Creating Ferries in the Mediterranean and linking to it from every port in the Mediterranean is no more useful than List of ferries. Ferries should be listed in the city and country articles they serve, but why would somebody in Barcelona need to know about Albanian ferries? (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:55, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
    • My plan for making this page has nothing to do with the list of ferries, it was just the first place where I mentioned it. And of course if you want to go from Egypt to Greece, you dont need to know about Albania, so thats why the page is ordered by sea. I was travelling over the Mediterranean, and noticed that the information on ferries was very limited. And for example, the ferry port of Rome is another city. You'd need inside information already if you want to go to Civitavecchia, whereas a page dedicated to ferries of the Med would lead you there automatically. Also some general info about ferries and companies can be gathered there instead of scattered between port towns. -- 86.209.87.197
  • Delete It's pointless but I'd like to see something created like the above user suggested. Ferry lists for specific areas would be more useful than one giant list. (WT-en) Xania 14:36, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree that this isn't an "article" in our usual sense, but somebody did a great deal of work to assemble this information. Delete, but not until it is verified that the information has been moved to the destination articles; there's no rush. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:13, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I want to say keep here, though I think there'll be real problems organising the info well. If I'm in, say, Marseilles and want to visit the Greek islands next, what can Wikivoyage tell me about my options? I dimly recall that there's a ferry to (let me think a minute ... Piraeus) from (thinking ... came up blank ... somewhere in Adriatic Italy, anyway), but where is it exactly and are there other choices? I'm not about to search 397 Mediterranean ports to find all the options. An overview page would be great. (WT-en) Pashley 02:47, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
    • And how will you find routes from (any Italian port) to (any Greek port) at Ferries in the Mediterranean if you don't even know what countries Bar, Bari and Bastia are in? If you want to visit Greece, you should head over to Greece:Get in:By boat, which should list all major routes into the country. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:41, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
    • Right now I cannot find what I want in Ferries in the Mediterranean or List of ferries and, yes, it is in the Greece article. But as I said, I want to say "keep" here. I have a feeling that this could be useful as another way of seeing the available connections, if only it were organised better. Not sure how that could be done, though. (WT-en) Pashley 05:06, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
      • The Ferries in the Mediterranean doesnt pretend to be complete yet. If you know a interesting link which is missing, please add it. The reason why I started it, is because I wanted to go by boat from Montenegro to Portugal, and couldnt find a decent way of wikivoyage to provide me with the necesarry info. Boats are one of the most sustainable forms of travel, so I think they deserve some extra attention. -- 137.120.3.252 11:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Just to clarify my delete vote, I actually would have speedy deleted this if there wasn't so much work that had gone into it. A "List of Ferries" is as pointless and unmaintainable as a "List of Buses" and we have determined in the past that we should not try to maintain such lists. Moreover, having lists like this creates serious content overlap between whatever type of article this is trying to be and our actual travel guides. I see no additional value of some enormous list of ferries, nor do I see any potential value.

The only way I would support Ferries in the Mediterranean would be if there was something distinctive and useful worth writing about Ferries in the Mediterranean (i.e., if it were a valid travel topic). I don't think that there is and anyway right now it's just another pointless transport list. International ferry routes should be listed, as Jani said, in the Get in section of country pages. If anything, it would be helpful to merge any content in this list to the destination guides before deleting. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:20, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

please Peter, vote only once. Thank you for your clarification. -- 137.120.3.252 11:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
Here's more clarification. There's no such thing as "voting once" or "twice" because this is not an electoral process, articles are presumed guilty until proven innocent and a majority is not necessary for deletion. Nothing is decided on Wikivoyage by majority vote, because that kills debate and consensus building. I strongly encourage you to first make your case here, rather than continuing to put work into an article that is up for deletion, as that work may well be for nothing. I also encourage you not to edit my posts, as that is bad form. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:00, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Keep, merge the two. As per Project:Bodies_of_water#Travel topics Ferrying the med is a travel topic. Needs work though. -- —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 217.64.242.138 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Agree that we don't need lists that are impossible to maintain. Especially when this info already has a place, in the destination articles themselves. Anything that you want to possibly say on this page can and should be said already in those. If Rome's port is in another city, then there should be a line in the Rome article that notes that and links to that city. I definitely appreciate the work that has gone into this, it should be too much more work to move this info to the appropriate places... but it shouldn't be done pretty soon, articles are usually deleted 14 days after nomination, we're well over that now :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:09, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted - Guilty until proven innocent and no consensus was reached to keep even after being on the vfd discussion for two months. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

As per List of ferries discussion above

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:51, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Hotel Grand Contiental.jpg

Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Budva6.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Stones.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Sitara house front.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:39, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Knueppelski on Snake.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:33, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Kirche ganz.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:41, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Kuching international airport 01.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:41, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Mataking3.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:41, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Bimini-museum-wiki.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:53, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy delete - rantal agency logo --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:53, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:14, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/September_2007&oldid=4920837"