Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2018

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← August 2018 Votes for deletion archives for September 2018 (current) October 2018 →

K7L created and redirected this page, but it's redirecting to a joke article, so I think it's quite obvious that we should delete it. Selfie City (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of our 1 April pieces have the name (in mainspace) redirect to the archived joke (in project space). The restriction is that individual destination articles for real places normally don't link to jokes, ie: Go next: Hell (Hades) as the next stop after Hell (Michigan). The "earth" article is an exception as Earth redirects to destinations - a main index which is not a joke. This was mostly done by design when the April jokes were moved out of mainspace (where they existed pre-WT split) into project space. I'd only created this one upon seeing that a user on Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles had proposed creating the article... and we already have it. K7L (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no harm in directing readers to one of our better joke articles. Anything that gets people interested in contributing to the next one (and therefore to Wikivoyage) is a good thing. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is that even? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

w:Reinhardswald has quite a bit of material. I suppose it might make an article here if someone wanted to do the work, but does anyone? I've no idea if it might be a regular region, extra region, travel topic or itinerary.Pashley (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a "de-wv doesn't care about subdividing stuff into exhaustive non-overlapping geographical units" kind of thing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If no-one's interested in expanding this, or it's an overlap with any other bottom-level destination article's coverage, I'd suggest a redirect because I'm sure there are places nearby. It shouldn't stay in its current state. Selfie City (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect where and why? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time we don't normally delete real places. Selfie City (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have previously deleted pointless redirects even if they in theory describe what could be construed as a real place... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Then let's wait a while and see what others think. Selfie City (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Hann. Münden. --Traveler100 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How far from Reinhardswald is Hann.Munden, Traveler100? Selfie City (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The region goes right up to the town boundary but the castle and other listings in the article are about 24 km (15 mi) away. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem with this article? Other than its length I mean, which is a reason for expanding, not merging or deleting. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expand - Keep name or could be moved to the title Sababurg and most definitely expanded to other attractions, hotels and restaurants in the area. An incomplete article is not an argument for delete. Also this is not the only rural location article on this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page as it is, is clear as mud about the borders of the area, which makes it nigh impossible to expand unless somebody already knows more about this region than this article tells anybody... It's a bit like having an article about "the South" (unspecific country) without saying where the boundary to any given area is... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate for Libertarianmoderate, who wanted to see this become a travel topic, but this article is clearly not going to work well. I wasn't quite right with my original viewpoint that political bias would make it problematic, but close — it became a history debate instead, of issues extremely trivial like "what caused Harrison to die" and "Eisenhower's stance on civil rights". As the situation with ArticCynda has shown, it's best when Wikivoyage stays away from political issues, especially those that are sensitive with the current political climate. Despite saying that, I'm not strongly in support of deleting this article, but I want to propose deleting this article to the community to see what others think. Selfie City (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion for now. I was a staunch supporter of this article when it first came out, and I still support it now but not quite so staunchly. The issue is that for all the bickering, there's also quite a lot of high-quality and travel-relevant information in the article. I'd prefer to hold off and see if people cool their jets a little bit with the historical and political debates before doing anything rash. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure whether this is the room where it happens, but I would say wait for it and don't delete it yet. I think there is a place for retracing important spots in the life of a nation or its important leaders. Certainly a similar thing could be said about the life and times of Willy Brandt (who got around quite a bit for the out-of-wedlock-born working class kid he was). I'd say the wiki is wide enough for this article and others. We can still decide to have it taken to Weehawken at dawn in a month or so. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is certainly a worthy travel topic, or at least I think so. On the article's talk page one user was worried about the large scope of the article. We have other articles with huge scopes too, and I can't remember that alone igniting discussions to delete them. Actually, other than articles about very small places, our articles will probably never be so complete that it's impossible to find something to add. So we shouldn't worry too much about getting them complete.
When it comes to "it's hard or impossible to write travel topics related to politics", well, Wikipedia is also a collaborative project that can be edited by anybody, and most certainly their article are edited by contributors holding each and every political opinion there is (they probably have a hundred times more contributors than we do) and they have managed to create extensive articles about each American president and thousands of even more "controversial" topics. I mean, how hard could it be for us to write a couple of sentences about each president? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - viable travel topic; the bickering is not a reason for deletion, people just need to act like adults and work out problems respectfully. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with User:WOSlinker that the list of presidents should go - this is not Wikipedia. Otherwise, it is a useful list of president-elect travel destinations. Ground Zero (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid travel topic with plenty of sights that are on topic for it. For those who aren't patient with the debate that inevitably occurs on how best to summarize all the presidents' terms in office, there are plenty of other things you can do on or off the site while that discussion takes place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with WOSlinker about the deletion of the list of presidents at the beginning. It's important that we don't tip over into overwhelming the reader with too much information, but in the end, why should the reader care about visiting Grant's Tomb, for example, or the McKinley Monument, if s/he doesn't know who Grant or McKinley are? The list of presidents is essential background information for the topic, and the fact that it's not immediately traveller-relevant is of no more import than the fact that any destination article's "History" section is not immediately traveller-relevant. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion so far

What's clear is that people want to keep the article, which is fine with me. But what has become clearer is the real deletion subject is whether to keep the list or not, which we can vote on below so we can keep these two different discussions separate.

Essentially, there are four options:

  1. Keep the list and description as they are now.
  2. Limit the descriptions to one line.
  3. Delete/remove the descriptions but otherwise keep the list.
  4. Delete/remove the list altogether.

For now, I'm not going to vote, but everyone else feel free to do so. It seems at the moment that AndreCarrotflower supports #1, WOSlinker and Ground Zero support #4. Others haven't directly voiced an opinion here, but of course can still voice their opinions below or elsewhere. Selfie City (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to do anything other than keep the list and descriptions as they are now, then we may as well just delete the entire article. Wikivoyage articles are supposed to be more than just groups of listings. There has to be some sort of informational framework tying them together. That's especially true in the case of articles that aren't bottom-level destinations, where the common thread uniting the POIs may not be as obvious as a shared geographical location. Eliminate the background information, or reduce it down to just a dry, boring list of names and dates, and the uninformed reader will be left wondering where each individual POI fits into the context of the topic. And if that's the case, then we haven't covered the topic well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment brought to my mind another possibility: the list could be turned into paragraph form, with a sentence or so about each President. Selfie City (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, not to get personal with it, but I wrote or substantially rewrote about 20-25 of those blurbs myself, and I put a lot of time and thought into them, and I'll be damned if it turns out to be all for naught. I understand this is a wiki and things get changed, tinkered with, added to and subtracted from, and that's fine, but don't just straight-up delete it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, definitely I wouldn't just delete; a lot of work has been put into the list. For example, notice how a list of songs was moved from the article because it was not considered relevant. Despite the work done on that list (including by me), still it was put in the article's talk page. I didn't write too much of that, and didn't bother me too much, but definitely the amount of work put into U.S. Presidents list is a consideration. Selfie City (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another option which is to remove the list from the top of the article and add those short descriptions of each president into the see section for each president before the list of places to see. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still prefer Option #1 but could live with Option #5. #s 2, 3 and 4 are all unacceptable. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep the list as is or put the descriptions in the subheadings. Also remove the other subheadings ("Sleep", "Drink") and place those with their respective president subheadings. The point of the article is to create specialized trips related to a specific president so they should be consolidated, not to just visit random "presidential" places (or at least that makes the most sense to me). I think honestly, this article should only house presidents that don't have enough sites to warrant articles and maybe also recent presidents. George Washington would make a good stand-alone article and I think other presidents would as well. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What if we did an itinerary called On the trail of George Washington or something of that nature? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by a user who doesn't yet understand what defines a Wikivoyage article. I tried to turn this into an itinerary but that is just not possible. Since we don't delete real places normally, we could of course make this a redirect, but where would the redirect lead? Selfie City (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but do those options really make sense for a Sava River redirect? What they really be useful to the traveler? Selfie City (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but yet redirects like that exist. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure those were redirected because our old policy is to not delete real places — that's a good policy most of the time, but with a river like the Sava River, if it was a redirect, would not serve any purpose to the traveler, so I vote delete. However, I'm not strongly opposed to a redirect. Selfie City (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could be an itinerary or travel topic. But it would have to be rewritten. Are there cruises along the Sava River? Gizza (roam) 23:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there are cruises along the Sava River, but as I said in the first place, I tried to turn it into an itinerary but that just didn't seem to make sense. Why write an itinerary for this river when the Nile doesn't have one? We should either expand our coverage of river itineraries or not do this one, in my opinion. Since this isn't an extremely significant river, my opinion is that deletion makes the most sense. Selfie City (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone wants to turn it into an itinerary, it should probably be deleted, but I disagree that it's not a significant river. See w:Sava. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, I didn't realize the importance of this river. I agree with Ikan Kekek: it should probably be deleted. Selfie City (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected

User:Libertarianmoderate irregularly plunged forward while discussion was ongoing and redirected the article to Western Balkans (while leaving an "outlineitinerary" tag that would have to be cleaned up). Is this a useful redirect, or should the article be deleted, as a small though emerging consensus seemed to be heading? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just now saw @SelfieCity:'s notice not to edit it. My mistake. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the best option seems to be to restore the article to its original state and wait out the usual fourteen days in case anyone else comes along. I'll undo Libertarianmoderate's edit, then. Selfie City (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Libertarianmoderate beat me to it. Thanks. Selfie City (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

It’s been over 3 weeks since I nominated this. Should it be kept, deleted, or changed? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it until a year from its creation date, per the Wikivoyage:Itineraries#"One year" deletion rule. Then if it's still similar to its present state, delete it. Nurg (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a whole year? Seriously? Why not just delete it now? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What part of '"One year" deletion rule' do you not understand? Nurg (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. But why wait a whole year with this? We may as well just delete now, since the creator of the article did not understand wiaa. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't understand the rule. "Since just about any topic can be an itinerary, itineraries must either be actively worked on or achieve some level of completion to be kept. (Sufficiently famous, marked routes such as Alaska Highway or Annapurna Circuit are exempt from this rule.) As such, itineraries that have been at outline status or less for one year without being substantially edited are subject to deletion via the votes for deletion process." suggests that such articles can be deleted as long as we approve it here. There's nothing in the rule which says we have to wait a year after making a decision. If the rule is as you say, then it needs to be rewritten to be clearer. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say to make a decision and then wait a year. It means to allow a year for editors to develop the article into something useful. If, after a year, it is still no better than just an outline, then it can be nominated for deletion. However, I don't think it's the kind of rule we need to be rigid over. If there's a good argument that it is very unlikely to ever come up to standard no matter how much time it is given, that would be reason to treat it as an exception to the rule. Nurg (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it hasn't existed for long enough then. Your explanation makes sense, but maybe the wording in the actual text could be clearer? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The point is this: the Sava River never was, and never will be, an article. Let's not have articles about rivers, with the exception of greatly significant rivers, like the Amazon and the Nile. We may as well just delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It will never be a destination article. It's an itinerary article. But if the creator intended it to be a destination article and SelfieCity turned it into an itinerary by mistake, that would be a different story. Nurg (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I tried to turn it into an itinerary, but basically gave up. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was never supposed to be an itinerary, and was only made one to see if it would work, I don't think the one year rule should apply here. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not really an itinerary and is effectively mislabeled as such, then the itinerary rule doesn't really apply. I have no attachment to the article and don't care if it is deleted. Nurg (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So do we have consensus to delete? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Nurg (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could an admin delete, then? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nurg (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Wikivoyage:Listings#Rental_listings. There is also a town in France called Apt, which may well need an article in the future, and is already mentioned in several articles of the region. My thinking is it is better to redlink (and possibly be created) than to bump a traveller from planning a trip in France to reading about Wikivoyage policy! Furthermore, the redirect is unnecessary, as we already have the WV:Apt shortcut, and redirects at Apartment listings and Apartment rentals. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of South Sudan

I really don't think that the regions of South Sudan should have their own pages. Let's redirect the regions, but keep the regionlist on the page. 1: There's no real difference between them, other than location. 2: The pages hardly have anything in them. 3: South Sudan is one of the most dangerous countries on Earth. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually going to say what I think should be done with this because I'm not quite sure what is the best option. But what I'd say is that this title appears to be that of an Atlanta district, but it actually redirects to a nearby city, Hapeville. It doesn't direct to the airport either, which I considered doing and tried but decided not to publish in the end. Then, of course, there's the question of whether or not "Aerotropolis" would be considered a real place or not, which is another story. By the way, Atlanta is also the COTM at the moment, so this preferably should be resolved by the end of the month, if possible. Selfie City (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hapeville/Aerotropolis should either be regarded as an adjacent city to Atlanta or a district of the wider metropolitan area. Not both. The boundaries have to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise this will create a precedent where towns on the edges of big cities will have these kinds of redirects. Gizza (roam) 22:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, policy states that if no consensus is reached after 14 days, there are 7 more days for discussion (making a total of 21 days). Well, 20 of those 21 days have passed, but you're the only person who has voted here. So what should we do if no-one else votes after about 24 hours? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, referring to your above comment, I agree that we should delete. I also don’t think Hapeville should be considered part of Atlanta on this website, since if we took that view it would require us to update the static map and the districts list. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any actual remnants of the German colonial period that remain in this part of Africa and are open to tourists? If the answer to that question is no, then I would posit that this is not a valid travel topic. Wikivoyage is not a historical reference. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Pashley's a she) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I know :-) Pashley (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, perhaps you want to check again? Seriously though, egg on my face, and sorry to SelfieCity. I was convinced, for some reason. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, still I wonder if it would make sense to expand the scope of the article to cover at least other parts of Africa that were under German control, perhaps also the German islands in Oceania (Papua New Guinea, Nauru, something else?), Qingdao and what more is there? --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps another options would be to move the German East Africa article to “German Empire”. Is there a pre war Germany article yet? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not. So that would be another option. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created it as an extra region to fix a red link in MV Liemba. I think it should remain as an extra region, see no reason to expand it & do not know of any tourist sites that might be mentioned. I don't think it works as a travel topic because there are no monuments or ruins to visit. If someone wants to write a German Empire article & turn this into a redirect to a section of that, fine. Otherwise, leave it. Pashley (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just saw the article was short and assumed that it should be expanded. I can undo back to its extraregion days if you like. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, extraregions can just sit as empty shells if they serve another purpose, so maybe we should leave it alone. The (pre World War I) German Empire could still work as a travel topic, though, and should, I think, include remnants of German influence in places such as Danzig, Königsberg, Breslau, Kattowitz, Strasburg etc... ethno-culturally they may have been mostly 'cleansed', but that fine Prussian architecture still stands (four out of five of those cities bluelink too, impressive). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept

A nothingness one of the two listings is the post office. What is this even? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Argue for a redirect on the article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lecompte and Pineville (Louisiana) should both be deleted or redirected to Alexandria (Louisiana). Pineville is a pop-15000 suburb of Alexandria, located directly across a river; there's not enough there worth seeing to justify a second article. Lecompte is a pop-1366 speck on the map about 20 mi (32 km) out of town; there's a bank and a restaurant, but not enough content to justify anything more than a subheading in a very brief ==Nearby== section in the closest city with enough content for an article. We don't create an entire page here to list one business. K7L (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not redirect. The restaurant in Lecompte is of considerable regional renown, as is the Lecompte Pie Festival which takes place every year in April. It may not be anything earth-shattering, but it's enough to put Lecompte on the right side of the wiaa line. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: kept. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from Wikivoyage talk:Cooperating with Citizendium

I agree with marking this page as historical or deleting it outright. Citizendium doesn't have any special relationship with Wikivoyage. It is neither a travel guide nor part of the same foundation. Just one of thousands of wikis. Gizza (roam) 22:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and would vote delete. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never even heard of it before. Delete, since there's nothing about Citizendium that's unique. If we ever need to copy and paste from another Wiki we use Wikipedia anyway. Selfie City (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is our policy regarding historic stuff? I'd imagine the page could be useful for understanding some actions taken when the policy was new and well-known. --LPfi (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look to me like that website, which I've never heard of, had any relationship with pre-fork Wikitravel, either. I would support deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think more-or-less the only WV-CZ link is that several years back I was an active editor on both, so I added this page. At the time I was in China & WP was generally blocked, so I contributed on CZ instead.
w:Citizendium was an attempt to build a "better" WP with tighter controls on edits, in particular no anonymous edits allowed. Arguably a good idea in some ways, but it seems to have failed. The site is pretty much moribund with only a few editors still active. Most of the good stuff there has long since been copied to WP. See for example w:Cypherpunk#References. I copied the WP article to CZ & extensively rewrote, then WP copied my version back. Since then it has been improved & today's WP version is far better than CZ's.
I'd say CZ is effectively dead, so this should be either archived or deleted. Pashley (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, Pashley. I wouldn't say CZ is dead but at the same time it is not even comparable to WP as it currently stands. Having recently read some of CZ's policies, I like them but I think we may as well delete the article about them. Selfie City (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I see no reason for archiving; we may as well delete. If anyone wants to know our policy about copying from other articles, you can read Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Wikipedia. Selfie City (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was active, we've never had a relationship with them. There are so many popular free online encyclopedias other than WP which are more popular than Citizendium (and many free online travel guides) for which we don't have a "cooperating" page. This page just states the obvious (don't copy large amounts of content, follow our usual external links policy) and it isn't really tailored to Citizendium. I now say delete. To be brutally honest, I don't think this page was ever useful. Gizza (roam) 01:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Selfie City (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So currently, 4 say to delete and 2 say to archive, with no keep votes. But that is not a consensus yet. Selfie City (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When there's no consensus to keep an article, unless someone wants to have it moved to their userspace, it is deleted per policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Archiving it would be ok if we had a proper archive, but tagging it as "currently inactive and ... retained for historical reference" seems a bit weak. The historical value is minor, so just delete. Nurg (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my previous remark; that was the old policy. A consensus is needed for deletion. Right now, it looks like the votes are 5-2 in favor of deletion, but I fail to understand the reasoning behind archiving this article. Can the opponents of deletion please show any time when there was active cooperation between Wikivoyage/Wikitravel and Citizendium? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By my count there are 6 votes for delete. Gizza (roam) 11:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said archive above & still think that is the best solution, but I'll go along with a consensus to delete. If it would make anyone feel better to put it on a user page, I'll take it since I was the original author, but don't expect me to do anything with it. Pashley (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we've got 6 to 2, with one of the 2 OK with a deletion. I think we've got consensus. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 04:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pashley, if you would prefer to have this moved to your userspace rather than deleted, let us know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Moved to User:Pashley/Citizendium without leaving a redirect. Pashley (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get out of the 90s and move Mobile telephones to Mobile phones. However, K7L insists that we delete the Mobile phones redirect before moving Mobile telephones to Mobile phones, rather than just copying text from one to the other and turning the original page into a redirect. Therefore, I request that we delete the mobile phones redirect so we can do a page move from Mobile telephones to Mobile phones. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You attempted a cut-and-paste move, by which you blanked an entire existing article and pasted its entire content somewhere else. That's not desirable, as it breaks the article's history - part of the history is stranded at the old title, part of it ends up at the new title. I reverted this as otherwise the mess this leaves would require administrator intervention to delete the new page, move the old page over top of it, then undelete the affected revisions just to put the history back together. That's a process I'd prefer to see avoided as any errors in merging page histories cannot be easily reverted. K7L (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but anyway you can see the reason I did it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this needs a Vfd. Just ask an administrator to move the page over the redirect. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
K7L is right about the process. And as this is really a page move - which requires a technical deletion due to a Mediawiki technical shortcoming (IMO) - I have made the move as Granger suggested. Nurg (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion addresses this issue directly, see "Uncontroversial deletions of pages created in error, or redirects with no (or trivial) history which are blocking a page move" as the relevant criterion. K7L (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above, but with the page "Telephone service" rather than "Mobile telephones" for the move. For both of these we can always discuss the page move at the talk pages, but this is purely about deleting the redirects. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K7L, I gather that you didn't revert this page move that I did, so the current state of things is fine and there's no need to delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free screenshot. —The preceding comment was added by WOSlinker (talk • contribs)

See Wikivoyage:WikiSherpa. Maybe the image should be added to this article, mainly for the benefit of anybody doing future development of WV apps. AlasdairW (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If WikiSherpa is abandonware, then should we archive the page, with or without the photo? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the photo, put it on the Wikisherpa page. If someone wants start a discussion of archiving that page, do so. I do not think that is necessary; the infobox at the top of the page is enough. Pashley (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my comment: Delete since it is not CC licensed & not needed anywhere near badly enough for an exception. Pashley (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted.

I appreciate new users who come in with a sense of dedication, and I also appreciate that place names in languages that use non-Roman alphabets might be transliterated in any number of different ways. But do we really need all these redirects to Jaynagar Majilpur? It seems like serious overkill to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say to cut in half at least but I don't know which ones to delete and which to keep. Maybe the user(s) who created these redirects could explain. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In general, redirects for alternate spellings are not needed. If an alternate spelling is reasonably important, mention it on the destination page; that is enough that search will find it. e.g. Quanzhou mentions several. See User_talk:Pashley/Archive#Test_old_names for what I think are exceptions; well-known names like Bombay should get redirects. Pashley (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sourav Bapuli, what is your view on the matter? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the redirects which start with Jaynag - once someone has typed this much in the "right spelling" will be clear in the search box. On a similar basis keep Joynagar, but delete everything else starting with Joy. I would only keep Jaynagar, Joynagar and Majilpur. I just wish more effort had been spent on adding content to the article rather than redirects. AlasdairW (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, assuming they're real alternate spellings. Why not? They don't do any harm, and they can plausibly help with searching and linking. (If there are any that aren't valid alternate spellings, though, then I think those can be deleted—for instance, if there are any that use one transliteration system for the first word and a different transliteration system for the second word.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure. This isn't greatly important so let's cut down on the redirects and be done with it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I don't understand the rationale for deleting these. How would deleting them help any travellers? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm undecided at the moment. But I do believe that these are all legitimate transliterations of the town's name. J and z tend to be interchangeable in Northern India depending on the person's accent while words that use a in a classical Sanskrit or Hindi pronunciation often use o in Bengali. Another pair of sounds which are interchangeable in Bengali are v and b (doesn't apply here). Gizza (roam) 02:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm also dismayed at the lack of attention being paid to the specific merits of AlasdairW's argument. Simply typing "Jaynag" into the search bar will display a place name that's close enough to the one the user intended to type that it should be easily recognizable as a variant spelling. For the same reason, only one of the redirects beginning with "Joynag" is necessary. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreCarrotflower, AlasdairW: I don't think this would work on many mobile platforms. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] You mean until 13 of them, right? And besides, the ones beginning with "M" won't suggest the ones beginning with "J" that quickly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @SelfieCity, Ikan Kekek: I don't understand what you mean. When I try to search for these redirects, the search suggestions only give me one of them, certainly not fifty and not 13 either. What are you typing into the search bar that makes more than one of the redirects appear at the same time? —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ask SelfieCity. I haven't been searching for these terms, but I count only 13 on this page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but they don't all show up in the search suggestions at the same time. The search suggestions only show one of the redirects at a time, as far as I can tell. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Alasdair's theory is quite complicated, but I think I’ve got the idea. It’s about how many redirects we need for travelers to find the page, and having just a few redirects will accomplish that purpose. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Granger, I was more saying what could happen that wouldn’t be too ttcf rather than a realistic example of the situation. The point is that we don’t need large numbers of really similar redirects that all go to the same place. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so in other words it's something that doesn't actually happen, so not a reason to delete the redirects. To respond to AlasdairW's suggestion, I don't think that's a good solution. If, for instance, "Jaynagar Mojilpur" is a valid alternative spelling, then a user who types or copy+pastes the text "Jaynagar Mojilpur" into the search box and presses "enter" should reach the desired article.
Just keep the redirects. There's no reason to delete them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments put forward for deleting (including AlasdairW's) seem to be arguments for not creating the redirects. But we are not discussing whether or not to create the redirects - we are discussing whether to delete them. It may have been a waste of someone's time creating them, but now that they exist, what is the harm of doing nothing further and keeping them? When I type "Jaynag" into the search bar I get NONE of the redirects. WHAT IS THE HARM? Convince me there is some real harm and I will support deleting them. Nurg (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe. I don't see much harm in deleting them or keeping them — it's not too important a city to debate over it and have edit conflicts like we had in the above comments. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jaynagar and some others per AndreCarrotflower. There is a city Jainagar in Bihar that is just as likely to be misspelled as "Jaynagar", so it should be deleted. I also think AndreCarrotflower's suggestion of limiting redirects to one per misspelling makes sense. The Search will take care of it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: kept; no consensus for deleting any of these. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a really broad topic that doesn't have a very clear meaning, nor can be described or defined very easily. It's under the transportation category but doesn't really seem to quite fit anywhere. Any other thoughts on this? I don't particularly want to see it get deleted but at the same time I don't really see any direction for it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is WikiVoyage. Having no page on navigation doesn't feel right at all. I vote to keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it is certainly a valid travel topic, though the article seems weak so far. Pashley (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: kept. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Even as a redirect? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the harm? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the bonus in keeping it? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to spend time improving the travel guide rather than nominating harmless redirects for deletion? I think deletion discussions for redirects that are not particularly useful but still entirely harmless are basically a waste of the community's time. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, deletion nomination discussions are part of improving Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For some deletion discussions that's certainly true. What I said is that deletion discussions for redirects that are not particularly useful but still entirely harmless are a waste of time. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And what pray is the benefit of meta level discussions such as this one? Or indeed my going onto the second meta level? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mx. Granger. SelfieCity, your enthusiasm is wonderful, but please don't look for problems that aren't there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it because:
  1. Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Redirects says "As a general rule redirection pages should not be deleted."
  2. It's harmless.
  3. Waste of community time discussing it, as said by Granger. Nurg (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pashley (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result, kept--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it has been deleted already. I’d say a listing in “see” in some article about the battle location, or a paragraph in the understand section of a destination article, would be appropriate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Result, deleted--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/September_2018&oldid=4924047"