Wikivoyage:Votes for undeletion/Archives

Shortcut:
Vfu

It may occur from time to time that we delete an article by mistake -- that is, that the article doesn't actually meet the standards for deleting articles listed on the VFD page. In this case, a Wikivoyager should link to the page on this page, with an explanation of why the deletion wasn't in accordance with our deletion policy. Articles and images are still considered guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a nomination is uncontested or a consensus arises that the page was deleted unnecessarily, then an administrator should reinstate the page. Otherwise, the page will stay deleted.

See also: votes for deletion and Votes for undeletion

Image:Nativity Monk.JPG

• So. I do not accept the deletion of this image, and I would like anybody who is still in favor of deleting it — currently only Nils? — to a) explain exactly what they find objectionable, and b) suggest how to fix it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:46, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)
  • Firstly, there wasn't consensus to keep the picture, which is the standard we have for v.f.d. I count 3 people (myself, Colin, Nils) who said to delete it, and 3 (you, Hans, and Pierre) who said to keep it. (I archived the v.f.d. discussion at Image talk:Nativity Monk.JPG.) The main problem is that it is a picture of a person, which is contrary to our image use policy. In addition, the photographer doesn't have a verbal or written model release, which violates the privacy rights of the model. You've put forward the argument that the person is not recognizable, but I think that's not the case (it's a caucasian male, early 30s, about 5'8" or so, dark brown hair, full beard, average complexion). It's beside the point, in any event, since there's nothing in our policy that says it's OK to have people if they're not recognizable. The monk is very clearly the subject of the picture -- he didn't accidentally walk in the way as the photographer was shooting those two loudspeakers, a short stairway, and 1/8th of an arch. Needless to say, the image name suggests that the monk is the subject. Another point is that he's engaged in an extremely private activity -- prayer -- and was not part of any group (a concert, a protest). Finally, I don't think the photo has particular travel relevance -- travellers aren't going to be able to go to that church and find that same monk praying, anyways. It's a really great photograph, but it's just not appropriate for an Open Content travel guide. The photographer may be able to avoid a privacy rights lawsuit if his lawyer makes a good argument before a judge, but this isn't a court of law. This is a collaborative project, and the entire group has to agree that publishing this picture is worth the risk, however small. I, for one, think it's not. To fix it, I'd suggest using an actual photo of the church in question, without people in it, or if needed a crowd scene which doesn't focus on a particular person. [On a personal note, I want you to know that the deletion of this picture does not in any way signal a lack of appreciation for your excellent work on Wikivoyage. You are one of the best and most dedicated people here, and your very generous donation of high-quality photographs has raised the visual standard of Wikivoyage several notches. I hope you understand that making exceptions in the rules based on who makes the contribution is a very slippery slope.] --(WT-en) Evan 13:37, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)
  • I prefer this stay deleted. First, it has some hypothetical legal risk (as I mentioned in vfd). Second, it's helpful to be consistent with policy. Third, I don't see this as a "must have" image since people don't go to Bethlehem because it has a pretty chapel — so I don't feel willing to accept risks to keep it. It's nice, but the article will be fine without it (unlike, for example, Image:Okayama Castle Hilltop.JPG which is extremely illustrative of the location and jaw-dropping gorgeous to boot). -- (WT-en) Colin 14:50, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

I think all the controversy and back and forth over the ethical/legal aspects of showing the person should just be gently pushed aside by the practical issues, just to get out of deadlock. This photo is currently not used in any article, it doesn't recognizably depict any specific travel destination, nor do I think it even shows a unique "slice of life" of the culture/destination it depicts. I don't think anyone could, just by looking at the photo, even place the continent it's from. There is certainly nothing objectionable to it. It's an excellent photo, with good composition and interesting matter, but it's just not a travel photo. Delete. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 21:26, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Um, it is used by Bethlehem and (IMHO) represents a pretty darn good summary of what the town is about. Some strange bug (probably due to reuploading the file under the same name) prevents it from being listed as a link though. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:18, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Anyway, while I still disagree with the reasoning above, at least there's some consensus against now and I'll bow to it gracefully. But before I shut up, y'all will have to pick a new image to replace Mr. Monk from here:

http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/

My favorites are this and this but somehow I doubt those will pass privacy police scrutiny either. This is postcard-y but gives the wrong impression (nobody goes to Bethlehem for the mosques). This is a nice picture but doesn't really say very much... this and this are uglier but give some idea (and hey, the church is ugly too). Or maybe just this or that for that warm and fuzzy "Welcome to Bethlehem!" feeling. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:18, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)

OK, I think we can easily agree on this one: Elvis Sheik!! Seriously, I think some of the Old Town or Manger Square scenes would be good if you have some that aren't as politically charged. --(WT-en) Paul Richter 04:06, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Unfortunately the King was spotted not in Bethlehem, but in the legendary Elvis Diner on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway... a destination in itself, I might add. But "not politically charged" is a pretty tough call for an occupied war zone in these days of intifada, the last time I visited (Apr 2003) I traveled by armored car. And the pics in the link above are all I have. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:19, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)

St.Joakim Osogovski Monastery

• Undelete. We reached the consensus that monastery can be an exemption for what constitutes an article. Windhorse (I believe) was working on this article. - Sapphire.
• I deleted this one - there was one vote in favor of keeping it on the Project:Votes for deletion and several against. The article itself had no content other than a vfd notice, despite it having been on the site for a few weeks. Also, I don't see anything on Project:What is an article? saying that this particular monastery should be kept or should not be listed as an attraction. If we need an article for this monastery in the future it can be re-created, but until then I think it was properly deleted and should stay that way. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:52, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
• Yeah, this kind of looks like a fair deletion. Monasteries can be articles sometimes, but it wasn't clear that this one was. --(WT-en) Evan 02:55, 19 April 2006 (EDT)

I've never actually seen this article, so I don't know how great it was, but I came across a conversation on this article with someone asking us to keep it. I figured I'd throw it up here in case an error was made. It's not possible to see what it looked like prior deletion, right? (WT-en) Sapphire 02:58, 19 April 2006 (EDT)

Nevermind. I didn't read Ryan's note. If there was nothing on it then void my asking for the "undeletion." (WT-en) Sapphire 03:00, 19 April 2006 (EDT)

Freiburg i. Br.

Was not VFD'd, yet Google reports "about 1,320,000" hits, and was (and still is) linked to from Baden Württemberg. Valid abbreviation for Freiburg im Breisgau, should be a redirect to Freiburg. ~ 58.8.2.182 15:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Recreated as Redirect to Freiburg --(WT-en) Nick 05:05, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Pereira

This page was not VFD'd. It was deleted @ 01:38, 20 December 2007 and then Pereira (Colombia) was moved to Pereira @ 01:39, 20 December 2007. At the time of deletion it was a disambiguation page. I have no objection to it being undeleted as Pereira (disambiguation). ~ 203.144.143.4 01:30, 20 December 2007 (EST)

• So what goes on here? Looks like it's been re-created via a move. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, that's exactly what the VFU says. First the move needs to be undone, and then the deletion. ~ 61.7.183.208 03:57, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Ferries in the Mediterranean

We need information on ferries around Mediterranean (or at least between the key destinations in Greece), and Ferries in the Mediterranean was the first attempt to gather such info that I can remember at Wikivoyage.

Earlier we have removed an extlink to a third-party source of schedules and routes available for Greece alone (see Talk:Greece#ferry schedule and routes). But if we also don't allow such info to be gathered by Wikivoyageers--and we don't have an official one-stop source for such info, it's quite strange for me.

I did travel around Greek islands, and it was really a nightmare to find any online source of information that give enough information even for my individual route--and yes, finally I turned to Lonely Planet (which helped a bit, but did not allow to complete my task).

It's really pity for me that I couldn't vote to keep it earlier, so I vote for undeletion.

VFD discussion can be found here: Project:Votes_for_deletion/September_2007#List_of_ferries. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:24, 2 February 2008 (EST)

I've gone over the original VFD discussion and still have the same main concern. We do not need a useless list of contacts.

If you are however willing to put in the effort to turn this into a real travel topic then I'll definitely support an Undelete. I do think this can be useful provided that it does not try to be overly detailed, i.e. specifying the departure times of each and every ferry from each and every port is not a good idea since those are subject to frequent changes that will never be updated in WT.

You might also want do consider a rename if this is undeleted. Ferries in the Mediterranean invites people to turn it into an ugly long list, something like Travel the Mediterranean by Ferry suggest that there should be more to the article. --(WT-en) Nick 02:00, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Undeleted --(WT-en) Nick 05:01, 29 February 2008 (EST)

I'm happy to see that the page I started a year ago, which was deleted, is revived again. -- (WT-en) Eiland 13:32, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Trollstigen

I'm still not sure whether this should have been deleted (I nominated it), and I'm not sure exactly what to do with it. But I just noticed it's one of the nine "other destinations" on the country page for Norway. That gives me additional pause. Anyway, I'll just leave this vfu up here and see if anyone has any good ideas. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 02:10, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I'm going to give a firm Undelete. Trollstigen, as I understand it, is a road leading through a fjord of the same name. We have plenty of other pages for fjords, and treat them as regions. I think we could convert this one pretty easily. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 02:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Comment: It looks like there never was a followup on this. If you can turn this into a region article easily, I support you in undeleting this article. Is there an easy way to do that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Several Copyright Violations

• Viernheim
• Lazaro cardenas
• Albacete
• Castellon
• Capelle
• Best
• Trujillo (Spain)

All the above were deleted on or about 26 February 2009 by User:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald with the comment copyvio. While I applaude efforts to rid Wikivoyage of spam, I think these deletions need discussion. The articles are probably valid as names (bar one on the basis of capitalisations) but are merely orphaned pages that are copyright violations. I thought we preferred to fix rather than delete such articles. An attention grabbing template is called Template:Copyvio and articles could be tagged this way rather than being deleted on sight - unless there is a website take down law in effect that now requires us to take down copyright violations pre-emptively before the website needs to be taken down - which I understand is about to happen here in New Zealand.... We could at least replace the bad articles with empty templates. - (WT-en) Huttite 09:09, 25 February 2009 (EST)

No need to go through process on this one; just "speedy undelete," remove the text that was there (it's all copyrighted), and integrate it into our geographical hierarchy. I deleted them in part to save time cleaning up the copyvios (going through each subsection and deleting text takes longer), and as an attention-getter for the user. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 09:33, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Deleting them is an easy way to get rid of the copyright-violating text and excise it from the history. If someone wishes to recreate them with a template, I see no reason not to. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:45, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Albacete and Trujillo (Spain) have both been recreated by the original user, complete with all the copyright violating text, all over again. What policy says we should be deleting the specific edits containing copyright violations? Because if there isn't one, we should be restoring the origial edits too. Though if there is one then we should be deleting those edits consistently - which we are not doing at present. - (WT-en) Huttite 04:49, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I don't understand what you mean by "restoring the [original] edits". (WT-en) LtPowers 13:31, 28 February 2009 (EST)

What's the status of the other proposed undeletions that are currently red-linked? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the verdict on these is that people can re-create them if they want, but that there's no sense in restoring the original copyvios. --Peter ^Talk 19:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Xcaret, Mexico

Maybe Xcaret is a privately-owned park, but it is also a natural area in Mexico's southeast. It has all the facilities to be considered a park. I did this page cause I think many people looks for it. In fact, spanish version doesn't have any problem, but editors of english version of Wikivoyage want to delete it. I would want to know why if Disneyland has its own page, Xcaret can't. Because Disney is also a privately-owned park, and instead, Xcaret has very different purposes, such as nature preservation, and it is in fact an ecopark, a Wikivoyage pages cathegory. The text is mine, photos are mine, so I can't find a reason to delete it. —The preceding comment was added by 187.141.78.194 (talk • contribs) .

Discussion here: Project:Votes for deletion/October 2008#Xcaret (WT-en) LtPowers 19:27, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

^ previous discussion, please don't edit that page.

One of the general rules for parks is that they don't get their own page if you can't sleep there. Xcarat is a day-trip destination with the only lodging offsite. By comparison, DW is a large complex with sleeping on-site; it occupies a strange middle ground between "park" and "small city" rarely found elsewhere. Generally the parks template is for something more like Glacier National Park. As it is, Xcarat hardly seems to merit an entire article of its own even if you could sleep there -- it reads much more like a promo brochure at the moment.

Also, there is no Xcarat page on the Spanish Wikivoyage: . There may be one on Wikipedia, but that is a different site with different goals and has no bearing on this discussion. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 13:36, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

• Redirect (as has already been done). Looking at http://www.xcaret.com/ this place is either a resort or a theme park, and thus doesn't meet the criteria set forth Project:What is an article. We make exceptions occasionally, but given the vast amount of resort spam we end up dealing with for Cancun I think the bar needs to be a bit higher as to why one particular resort there deserves its own article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:50, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Grundy

I was about to move Grundy, Virginia (Buchanan County) to Grundy and noticed it had previously been speedily deleted by (WT-en) OldPine on 31 May 2008. However, I cannot find any deletion discussion, so since the article has been recreated I am undeleting the original article version too. -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:00, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Plainville

Plainville was deleted without discussion. - (WT-en) Huttite 18:10, 11 January 2010 (EST)

I totally agree, Huttite. Thank you! whr2 peetrfitzgerald and sertmann way off. --72.87.62.96 18:16, 11 January 2010 (EST)

There is a long-standing precedent of discouraging page creation vandalism through the use of speedy deletes. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:19, 11 January 2010 (EST)

We all know this by now, Ryan. --72.87.62.96 18:21, 11 January 2010 (EST)

→ User talk:Peterfitzgerald/Archives_2009#pcv.3F --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:22, 11 January 2010 (EST)

There may be precedent that is discussed on the talk page, but the speedy deletion procedure for page creation vandalism that is discussed on the talk page has not been written into the deletion policy. I was following the policy, which asks for at least a simple check that the page could potentially be a destination. I must admit I too was initially suspected that Plainville was merely vandalism, but when I checked Wikipedia, and did a google search, I was most surprised to discover it was not just one real place but several places, in two different countries, on two different continents! The name alone probably makes it a tourist destination. I concluded that the article was a likely destination and created a disambiguation page. To then discover the original page had been deleted from underneath me was most annoying, so I saved my work, restored the original contribution, to be fair to the original contributor, and challenged the deletion here. - (WT-en) Huttite 04:53, 12 January 2010 (EST)

I agree. I think "pages created with no intention of adding actual content to them" may be a valid speedy criterion, but it needs to be written into policy. Having the procedure questioned by every new user who notices it, thus forcing the wise veteran sages who implemented the pseudo-policy have to continually link to pcv, is inefficient and somewhat baffling. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:04, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Nonsense. Reverting trolling is about as straightforward a policy and practice as we have. All that should be needed to coordinate administrative efforts in dealing with trolling is to link to the history of this trolling, the discussions that established how we deal with it. The point of this trolling is to waste our time, and it is as successful as we collectively are stupid. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 11:09, 12 January 2010 (EST)

It's straightforward for those who recognize the trolling. But it's not obvious to the novice and a simple note in the policy document would be a concise way to reflect current consensus. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:35, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Right, but we don't actually want to discourage people from creating new outline articles—it's just this particular user is creating such outlines in bad faith, often with false or misleading content, or for destinations he thinks shouldn't have articles. Hard cases make bad law, as they say. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:45, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Well I don't know how you tell this one user from any other. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:49, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Beyond their own admission ? Much like how we recognize spambots, they have a distinct pattern and some decidedly unusual grammatical habits that add up to a fairly convincing identification, and they've been active under several consecutive new user accounts in just the past five days, at a minimum including Special:Contributions/(WT-en) KillerGhoulSlaya2457, Special:Contributions/(WT-en) FourGreenLights, Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Ola346, Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Cortage, Special:Contributions/(WT-en) DonaldFrederickLandry II, and another one or two that were abandoned so quickly they're not conclusive (see also the deletion log for more of their debris). - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 17:40, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Still, no harm adding to the policy that articles with no travel content identified as page creation vandalism can be speedy deleted. This sets no precedent, and they can be recreated with legitimate travel content at any time subsequently. In the deletion comment, just note that it was speedy deleted as pcv, and then everyone is on the same page. --(WT-en) inas 18:03, 12 January 2010 (EST)

The vast majority of empty page creations are by new users trying to find out if the destination they are looking for can be accessed by that link, or are simply trying out their first steps on contributing to a wiki. Better to just link pcv in the edit summary.

And regarding the undeletion here, I think it's perfectly fine in this type of case for someone to just go right ahead and re-create an article if they think it worthwhile. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 19:08, 12 January 2010 (EST)

UNESCO (and Unesco)

The page was deleted with the reasoning "could also refer to UNESCO creative cities". While that is true, I believe it's one of those circumstances where nearly every time it is used, the intended article is UNESCO World Heritage List. The UNESCO Creative Cities list is linked to in the World Heritage article's intro, and also in the left sidebar. Before reading that article, I was not even aware UNESCO Creative Cities existed, and I live in one! So I propose we undelete the article, and redirect to the Heritage List. At the very least, but unpreferably, it should be recreated as a disambiguation between the two, as the deletion leaves a long list of dead links. JamesA ^>talk 15:05, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

• Strong support. Jjtk (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

• You're right I have been a bit quick on deleting. The reason I deleted these two pages, is because UNESCO is an agency of the United Nations. I thought a redirect could perhaps confuse site visitors, as "UNESCO" itself doesn't give much of a clue on what someone could be looking for. Pages like UNESCO World Heritage Site should obviously be redirected to the UNESCO World Heritage List, but just "UNESCO" could mean many things for someone searching, of which UNESCO Creative Cities is an obvious example. UNESCO does a lot more than just keeping World Heritage Sites. --Globe-trotter (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

• Undelete. I agree with James's reasoning: though UNESCO does do many things, from a travel perspective, I'd expect nearly everyone is looking for the WHL. I was also unaware of the Creative Cities until just now, and I see it's a fairly new program; if it starts becoming more noticed in future years, we can absolutely change the redirect to a disambiguation page, but for now I don't think it's beneficial. Tons of dead links with no page at all are certainly not beneficial. The CC list is also prominently listed in the WHL's intro paragraph, so it should get enough visibility. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

Result: Undeleted --Globe-trotter (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

Template:Busy

This template was deleted given reason that "Only one user is using the template currently,". This template is almost on every wiki of WMF projects and it is only used by users when necessary (when they're busy in real life). The consensus was to keep the template because majority of the votes was to keep. Please support to undelete it. Thank you. --Saqib (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undelete - There was no consensus to delete this. In fact, the majority of the votes were to keep this template. –sumone10154^(talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Undelete - per User:Sumone10154. I would also like a clarification of our deletion policy for templates. I tried to begin a clarification of policy here, but no sooner had I started, my edit was reverted -- Alice^✉ 08:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Wait. Our practices regarding templates are evolving, with some users offering constructive criticism and suggestions. We may decide that people can create any userspace templates they want, but let's work through those discussions first. --Peter ^Talk 08:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• As explained on Template talk:Busy, deletion discussions are emphatically not a majority vote. All pages up for deletion are guilty until proven innocent, and no compelling case for keeping the template was presented in the discussion. There is no purpose to this template that cannot be served just as well by a simple notice at the top of someone's talk page, and no one even attempted to present one in the deletion discussion. Two persons said nothing more than "Keep"; surely you don't expect me to do anything but completely discount such a useless contribution to the discussion? LtPowers (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• • LtPowers: you have been very informative in explaining how you arrived at the decision to delete and I hope I have learned a lot from those explanations.
  • I still don't think that the policy existing at the time of the deletion proposal dealt at all adequately with templates in User namespace so I think that the template should be un-deleted forthwith (and then tagged with "experimental" if thought necessary) — and only if you are minded NOT to undelete, should we wait and hold this discussion open per Peter's suggestion.
  • On a point of information, I am baffled why you wrote "Frank mentioned having a way to keep track of users who are busy, but failed to explain why that would be useful." when he clearly gave this explanation: "...more importantly, of us being able to easily compile a list of editors that may not see site notices for a while so that they could be e-mailed instead..." at the time, with the (unwritten) implication (that at least one editor understood, since they responded that there was no policy to use categories in User namespace) that a category could be added to the template.
  • I still think that the majority of our community do not understand that simple "keeps" or "deletes" are useless and this needs to be spelt out much more clearly in policy pages or should have been made clear at the time you made the decision, by you so that they could then have added a rationale to their vote stated view. -- Alice^✉ 01:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Like Alice, I didn't realize that I always had to give an argument for a suggestion to delete or keep an article. And I'd like to know, when decisions are made in the face of a majority vote, who makes the decisions? I have no axe to grind on this particular deletion, but it would seem to me, if the vote were either a majority to keep or about 50/50, we should err on the side of keeping an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • It's not surprising that, like me, you did not know about the need to express a rationale. This was only recently added to the vfd heading with this revision of 02:39, 26 November 2012 -- Alice^✉ 08:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why else have a deletion policy at all? It seems to me, that it seems reasonable to be familiar with the deletion policy before you come to vfd. Otherwise, our deletion policy would be whatever people happen to think at the time The vfd page isn't the deletion policy. --Inas (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Spot on again, Inas.

That's why I posed this question below (which, at the time of writing this) has not yet been answered:

"Please would someone point me towards the revision of the policy page (extant at the time this template was nominated for deletion) 06:57, 15 October 2012 (CEST) that clearly enunciated that templates were not allowed in User namespace (or, indeed, the deletion policy dealing with templates - and, let's be clear, templates are decidedly neither articles nor images)?"

This policy about template deletion was only parachuted in to Wikivoyage:Deletion policy as recently as this revision of 08:56, 6 December 2012 -- Alice^✉ 08:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undelete: Harmless Purplebackpack89 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  In the discussion, I discounted "harmless" as a reason to keep the template; it is even less suitable as a reason to undelete. LtPowers (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undelete: as the intent of the policy was to avoid a template making changes to the format of the destination guides in mainspace. There is no reason why a userspace page would follow a standardised see-do-buy-eat-drink-sleep format or need to look like every other page on the wiki. K7L (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Undelete as clearly against consensus. --Rschen7754 02:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Consensus and policy needs to be established elsewhere, and followed here. The consensus up until now has clearly been against userspace templates. I don't see this as a big deal, and I'd be open to a discussion to permit them, and I'd love to be convinced. If and when that new policy is clear, then I'll follow that and vote to undelete. --Inas (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That seems logical and straight forward.
  • Please would someone point me towards the revision of the policy page (extant at the time this template was nominated for deletion) that clearly enunciated that templates were not allowed in User namespace (or, indeed, the deletion policy dealing with templates - and, let's be clear, templates are decidedly neither articles nor images)? PS: One can't expect new (or old) editors here to ferret out POLICY from vague and interminable discussions without a stated conclusion on user talk or article discussion pages. If it's not written on a policy page somewhere, then it's not policy. Simple really.
  • It's not surprising if policy/consensus is so opaque that even the most unlikely unwittingly fall foul of it if there really is a policy somewhere not to allow templates in user namespace. Not to worry, though, Philippe can just lose the wicked template, convert his Wikivoyage user page into raw HTML and wikimarkup and that will be hunky dory, eh? -- Alice^✉ 05:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree fully with Inas. Given that we're currently trying to hash out a new consensus on this, trying to runaround that process here seems inappropriate. --Peter ^Talk 08:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Do you also think that we should also not make things clearer in the header of the most proximate page? I would have thought it was in everyone's interest not to continue to see peoples views and time wasted through deliberate obfuscation. -- Alice^✉ 10:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
        • You deleted an important part of the initial message. I also take into account votes that are not explained in detail (especially if a long discussion is above). Not everyone needs to tell the same story again to be counted. If i heard the same story four times, the 5th will not make it better/worse. Don't make discussions here harder. jan (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Really? When?
          • Are you able to produce the diff. that shows that I "deleted an important part of the initial message". What exactly and precisely was the important part that you contend I deleted, please? -- Alice^✉ 10:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
            • The diff you stated above yourself, when i undid your change . The words you deleted Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations. jan (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
              • I think you need new spectacles, Jan. Look again carefully and you will see that far from deleting the emboldened phrase "Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent." I actually made it stand out more by giving it its own separate line! Please revert your unnecessary and uncalled for revert of my helpful text and give me a little apology for reverting too hastily without actually studying the diff. This is just one reason that I always recommend editing rather than reverting. -- Alice^✉ 10:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Alice, i do have a real life, so i can't comment instantly on everything. You falsely suggest that i do slowly response but sometimes other things have priority (e.g. my lunch break). Writing things in big and seperate them doesn't make them better. If you copy things to a talk page, then place them at the bottom (you should know that by now). jan (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete I still can't see any compelling reason why people need this template. We have been slushed with templates we don't need. jan (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to clear up some procedural things.

1) When this template was created, our policy was: Before a new Mediawiki Template is put into general use it needs to be discussed and accepted as good or preferably best practice .

2) Vfd "votes" are not votes in an electoral sense—they must reference policy. Accordingly, votes with comments like "harmless" are going to be disregarded.

3) Consensus is needed for change, not for undoing new changes. That's why the vfd page says at the top: Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. There was no consensus to retain it, so it was deleted.

4) And most importantly, vfd and vfu are not for policy discussion, and should never be used as an attempt to circumvent our processes for determining policies. Every time someone does this, it just causes drama and wasted effort.

Our ages old practice has been to not create templates for userspace. I think that should change, and that we probably should keep this template, but we need to have an actual discussion, rather than warrioring on these pages. --Peter ^Talk 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter, that was very helpful and accurate.

In the meantime, while we decide whether policies need tweeking or not, I think it vital that everyone is clear what the current policies are and I have suggested clearer wording here. I hope you will be able to support the general principle that clarity in policy statements and reminders should be encouraged. -- Alice^✉ 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Rock

Undelete. This page was deleted by User:Ikan Kekek @ 11:37 21 January 2013 on the basis of "no useful content" but should be reinstated. I had created the page only minutes before and had only filled in the Understand section. Having gone away to obtain further information, I returned a few minutes later to add some listings only to find that the page had been deleted without any discussion. Speedy deletion within minutes of an article's creation, where there is no breach of policy, serves no useful purpose other than to annoy people. For my part, I'm not sure that I can be bothered to make any further contributions to Wikivoyage if attempts to create useful articles are deleted within the first few minutes of their life. Tallguyuk (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Undelete. Rock, Cornwall is a real place. One might argue that it is too small to get its own article & should be just a redirect, but there is no reason at all for deletion. Pashley (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've speedy undeleted this. It looks like there was confusion as to whether this was a test edit (common English word, initial edit contained only an empty template), which is probably why it was speedy deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Sleep/BR}} {{S-BR}} {{Eat/BR}} {{E-BR}}

As I not be informed , the argument is not true (see the discussion Wikivoyage_talk:Listings#About_tables.) and the proposal do not receive any kind of support/discussion/... to deleteWikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/January_2013#Template:E-BR.2C_Template:Eat.2FBR.2C_Template:S-BR.2C_Template:Sleep.2FBR, this templates:

• {{Sleep/BR}}
• {{S-BR}}
• {{Eat/BR}}
• {{E-BR}}

Must be recreated, and are experimental presets templates that not reached a consensus. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 15:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is not just natural justice to inform the creator of templates of a proposal for their deletion, it should also be policy. Are you saying that no Vfd templated notice was placed on these experimental templates? (That should be sufficient notice, because you should be "watch"ing them).

If there was no notice, they should be speedy undeleted and a new Vfd started if people feel strongly that these experimental templates should not exist. Perhaps you could re-create them in your user name space to see exactly what we're discussing? -- Alice^✉ 19:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

They were properly VfD'd as far as I can tell. The VfD notice was correctly applied, and two weeks elapsed before they were deleted. At this point, we would need a consensus to use these templates in order to have them restored. LtPowers (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I can't see the utility of these templates myself - even for the restricted use of Eat and Sleep listings in Brazil but that's not the point. -- Alice^✉ 03:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think these should just be moved to the userspace. Any objections if I just proceed to do that? --Inas (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

None from me. Then Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton can have another bash at persuading editors on individual articles as to their utility on an individual basis. -- Alice^✉ 03:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Alexandria (Romania)

It's a county seat. No matter how Really bad it seemed, "These articles should be (left to be) improved rather than deleted." Especially since it already had some section structuring. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If it had no actual content, it was deleted in order to eliminate the notice that it was derived from an article on the Wikitravel site. So the best thing to do in that case is not to undelete the article but to recreate the template and then turn it into a real article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek is right; just plunge forward and re-create it anew with our blessing, Napoleon... --210.246.47.134 08:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who deleted this and now I recreated it. --Saqib (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Archive

I believe that there was in fact a consensus to keep this template. It was deleted under a good faith but mistaken impression that a single editor in favor of deletion requires deletion. See discussion at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2013#Template:Archive. Powers ^(talk) 14:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that the features which differentiate it from Template:Talk archive have been explained, I suppose I don't have any particular remaining objection if it has a use. Could you give some examples of pages where this is needed? Texugo (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

On talk pages with a number of archives (primarily User talk pages), it makes the task of recording and keeping track of archive pages trivial. Powers ^(talk) 01:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I see this was never resolved. I have no opinion on this, but if there's a purpose for the template, sure, why not undelete it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ikan. As the nominator I don't feel comfortable undeleting it myself. Powers ^(talk) 18:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This still hasn't been resolved. I still don't feel comfortable undeleting it myself. Perhaps User:AndreCarrotflower would be willing? Or User:Ikan Kekek? Powers ^(talk) 14:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User:AndreCarrotflower, any objection? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The deletion was based on a long-ago misreading of policy on my part. I don't have any personal opinion on the merits of whether this template should or shouldn't exist, and no particular objection if we want to undelete it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew. Undeleted accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Be Smart When It Comes To Disney World

Text from this old article is still being used in Walt Disney World. It's a violation of our license to remove that attribution-by-redirect. Powers ^(talk) 00:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Which text and where? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't catalogued all of it yet but the very first text I searched for turned up at Walt Disney World#Timing. I thought that'd be enough. Powers ^(talk) 18:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've undeleted it for now - attribution always comes first. If someone has found time to check which sections are affected and rewrite/properly attribute them, this redirect can be speedy re-deleted. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Attribution would be tricky, as it wasn't even done correctly the first time. (A different IP user did the copy+paste without saying where the text had come from.) Powers ^(talk) 15:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is the copied text I've found:

• "Attendance is lowest in November (pre-Thanksgiving), December (pre-Christmas), and January." (October has since been added.)
• "The weeks between Easter and Memorial Day are another slow period"
• "If your vacation dates are flexible" through "it will allow you to relax and enjoy the park on the more crowded days" -- two paragraphs worth with just one or two sentences inserted since the paste.
• "Extra morning and evening [magic] hours at selected parks"
• "Disney Cast Members available to answer your questions"
• "Free parking at the parks"
• "On the other hand, staying off property has its own perks" (slightly modified in the current article)
• "you can book condos or home rentals for large groups which allow you to cook meals making dining costs even cheaper and lodging costs very cheap."
• "Every park has low cost meals in the $3-$4 range for kid meals and $6-$8 for adult meals at the sandwich shops, ethnic specialty nooks, cafeterias, and communal dining halls (like ABC Commissary at MGM). They provide ample food for the money. You can often feed your whole family for little more than the cost of one expensive entrée at the upscale restaurants." (slightly modified in the current article)

-- Powers ^(talk) 15:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible to remove all of this text and replace it with new, original content? The huge amount of stale WT content that hasn't changed in half a decade is already hurting us WV:SEO-wise. K7L (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I second this motion! Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

We could replace it but close paraphrases are usually consider plagiarism just as much as exact quotations. I believe the same applies to copyright. Powers ^(talk) 23:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• It seems that the redirect has been restored. Is it OK now to archive as restored? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems obvious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Result: archive as restored. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Islamic State

A short article titled "Islamic State" was recently speedy deleted and moved to [[Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Islamic State]]. Discussion is archived at Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2014.

I think there is a good argument for bringing it back. Unfortunately, this state is neither a bad joke nor nonsense in the way that other entries at Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense are. It is quite real, the people involved are quite serious, and it currently controls some territory. We do cover other such states such as Transnistria, and should since their existence can seriously affect travel plans and risks.

On the other hand, I think "Islamic State" is a terrible name since it is a generic term and there are plenty of other Islamic states. A search for "Islamic" turns up four whose official names are "Islamic Republic of ...". I'd put it at ISIL with redirects from the full name and "Caliphate". Pashley (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I think our policy is to wait a year or so before deciding that new entities that exist as a result of armed conflict are here to stay, perhaps especially those with unclear and shifting borders. Moreover, the writer of this article himself called it "gallows humor." I oppose moving the article back into mainspace. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)it the year

That is fair enough; let's wait the year. Given that both Iraq and Syria oppose them and other nations may as well, ISIL may not last that long. Pashley (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a year waiting period, but I guess that is fair. It looks like Russia's Crimea jumped to the front of the line, though? The joke was mostly a very grim one about this state being a reality, but it was also poking fun at some of the other articles here that treat unrecognized and failed states equally with normal countries to visit! Also, "Bad jokes and nonsense" is kind of harsh :) Travelwriter1000 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a real place, and we don't delete real places. Restore as, for the time being, a redirect to whatever region of Iraq it corresponds to, then we can reassess after the long-term scenario becomes more clear. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Taking into account Pashley's concerns about the article's title, another option would be to restore it as a disambiguation page, listing the ISIL-held territory with a link to the appropriate region article as well as the "Islamic Republic Of..." articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

To clarify about Crimea: When it's clear that something really is a fait accompli, we should change articles accordingly, but this is a state of flux and not something we can be confident will exist or be in remotely similar borders in a month, let alone 6 months. Similarly, it would have been a mistake to have a travel article about the extremist Islamist group that briefly occupied northern Mali and laid waste to as many cultural monuments as possible. I continue to oppose undeletion of this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm strongly with Ikan. It's not the "not-recognized" part that's a problem. Of course we have articles about de-facto states with more-or-less clear borders and under more-or-less clear control of a non-recognized government. This one is different though, at least at this moment. It's a self-proclaimed caliphate since just weeks in its current form; a still ongoing event. There are no clear boundaries yet, no clear plan, it's a true war zone where an extreme group is working towards a genocide while fighting another extreme group ánd the relevant recognized governments for control. The US is dropping bombs and not even humanitarian aid can be properly delivered except in the form of thousands of food and water air drops today and yesterday. From a travellers' point of view, the question at this point is not where to apply for a visa. It's essentially a no-go zone for which we can give pretty much no other relevant, recent or trustworthy information now except that you should probably stay away. Of course this might change rapidly over time, and I'm fine with adapting the way we handle this then, but a serious travel article about the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant at this point in time seems... misguided at best. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we also have articles for Transdniester, Somaliland and other similar places because our articles should reflect what you will face if you go to these areas. I would however also wait and see what happens in this case. Ikan mentioned Azawad that existed for a short while but is no longer, and currently Donetsk and Luhansk are effectively independent countries that might or might not need country articles at some point, but as of now we should not create them either but wait and see.

Obviously, places like these are more often than not some sort of war zones, ie. unsafe and hard to reach. People who go there do so because someone sends them there (not for tourism), and that employer or whatever will provide them with the information, equipment and transportation they need. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been a year. Just sayin'... Travelwriter1000 (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

True, but the original BJAODN entry was moved to the "bad joke" pages specificly because the original author claimed to be joking (presumably, gallows humour) when this was posted. K7L (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, if someone wanted to write a serious article about the area controlled by these murderers, what would it say other than "stay well clear of the following region"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I say that while we generally claim to take no side in political disputes and only care for the reality on the ground for travelers, the fact of the matter is that the facts on the ground are hard to determine and there are hardly any travelers. Furthermore the "borders" (read: frontlines) of this self proclaimed state (a funny wording as all states are self proclaimed and rely on violence or the threat of it to remain in existence) are in a constant state of flux, so we really cannot very well cover this place. Last but not least while WV has thus far not reached a lot of media recognition having a page with that title is bad press waiting to happen. I know none of these are criteria officially, but imho it would be foolish not to keep them in mind. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that there are few travellers to IS-controlled territory. A lot of Muslims have been indoctrinated into extremism and flock to Turkey with the purpose of going to the Caliphate and either fighting or marrying some extremist man. But what advice would we give them, other than don't!? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Da'esh should be a travel topic, much like dangerous animals is a travel topic. It's not a place, it's a hazard of travel. K7L (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Do not restore because 1) we should not encourage travelers to visit such dangerous regions and 2) per Ikan Kekek's point that "if someone wanted to write a serious article about the area controlled by these murderers, what would it say other than 'stay well clear of the following region'?" --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The other important point is that we should be professional with our articles and titles, rather than writing articles casually about these types of topics. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Result: no consensus to restore the page, so archive as remain deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Traveltopic

Since February 2013, this has been a redirect to Template:PartOfTopic. User:Texugo deleted it because of potential confusion over the deprecation of this one in favor of that one. But here's the thing: I don't think we ever came to a consensus to deprecate this one in the first place. Specifically, I don't think we ever had a strong consensus that breadcrumb navigation is useful for travel topics. The pseudo-hierarchy that our travel topics have been shoehorned into is a mess. I suggest we abandon the PartOfTopic experiment as a failure and revert to using Template:Traveltopic. Powers ^(talk) 23:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, you are proposing not restoring it as a redirect, but in its form prior to Jan 2013 when it was redirected. Correct? Texugo (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically. Powers ^(talk) 00:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Emphatic support. Pashley (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Somewhere down the line we probably should make another stab at a better organization scheme for our travel topics, but the current state of affairs is far inferior to its predecessor. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment what was the approximate content of said travel topic? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  Apologies. It's still available on that other wiki in essentially the same form. It's very simple, as you can see. Powers ^(talk) 23:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

So the proposal is to get rid of breadcrumb organization of travel topics and substitute this template. Shouldn't there be a concurrent discussion someplace like Talk:Travel topics index (which is where Talk:Travel topics redirects to), before we undelete this with no consensus on what to do with it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Some older discussions are at Talk:Travel_topics_index#Change_to_tagging_travel_topics. (as I see it, no consensus but the change was made anyway) and Talk:Travel_topics_index#Problems_with_current_setup. Pashley (talk)

Shouldn't we restart discussion in that thread and come to a consensus before we vote on undeleting this template? The change may have been made improperly, but because it's existed for 2 years, I think discussion outside of Votes for undeletion is appropriate and probably needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

My contention is that we never had a consensus to remove this template in the first place. Powers ^(talk) 14:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think your contention is accurate, but I still think 2 years of practice probably require a consensus to undo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan on both points. Pashley (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Mark me down as undecided - on the one hand we could do with more help for writing travel topics (not necessarily standard headings, but "understand" and "see also" apply almost universally) but I don't know whether this template is the way to go... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This template has nothing to do with {{smallcity skeleton}} and similar "article template" formatting, it's just the one-line '''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a travel topic.. Reinstating it does nothing to standardise anything in the article. K7L (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It was created quite a long time back User_talk:Pashley/Archive#Thanks. I'm almost certain we could & should do something better now, but I'm not sure what & I remain convinced that breadcrumbs for travel topics are a mistake. Pashley (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Result: lack of consensus, so the page will remain deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Singles travel

This was deleted some time ago; see Talk:Singles_travel for archived discussion. I originally suggested the deletion & supported it later. However, it is potentially a valid travel topic & should be resurrected if (& only if!) someone wants to do the work of building a decent article on it. I am not volunteering.

I think it would need at least two sections, one on destinations or tours where people go to meet other singles (e.g. Florida or Queensland on university breaks) and one on countries where male travellers are swamped with women who want a visa or think we are rich. e.g. in the Philippines, a lass working as a store clerk or waitress might make US$125-200 a month & a moderately well off foreign boyfriend could easily spend that much on her. It also needs a link to Common_scams#Dating_scams.

Additional sections are possible, such as one on travel for gay or lesbian singles and perhaps one on places where prostitution is legal and/or cheap & ubiquitous. Pashley (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't get the assumption that prostitution is specifically, let alone only, for single people. I would leave that out of any such article. Prostitution may deserve a separate article, though it's certainly a very delicate subject to cover tastefully in a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it would be hard to cover well & much the easiest course would be to leave it out, but it might be an option for some people (mostly men) who want to get laid while travelling. Pashley (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason I brought this article up for possible resurrection is that it is listed at Special:WantedPages with seven links from other articles. Pashley (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, but do you agree that prostitutes don't cater expressly to single people, and therefore that prostitution is a different topic than singles travel? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Pashley (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

We already have travelling alone, LGBT travel and a Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy but I did oppose a merge of singles travel to solo travel as "single" does not always mean "single and looking". They are two different concepts. I have no intention to write anything, but the topic is valid were someone to write something other than touting or the obvious. K7L (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: no consensus, so remain delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Bengal (India)

"Bengal" is a valid term used to refer to West Bengal in Indian news outlets. Therefore, restore the Bengal (India) redirect. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Question: Is the use of the term that way controversial among Bangladeshis? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also like an answer to this before voting.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• No. Anyone searching for Bengal will find the extraregion article. That should & does cover the Indian usage. Pashley (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Pashley said above. SHB2000 (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pashley. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Mergecredit

This template was deleted in 2015 after two votes for keeping and three for removing: see VfD discussion here. However, it still has (to this day) 24 transclusions which have been sitting redlinked all this time. The only argument given for deletion was that it was "unnecessary", but I'm not clear that any viable alternative was proposed.

To be clear, the point of the template is to link to another page where interested readers can see a page history prior to a merge. We currently have no other standardized way to show that information, as far as I can tell. Ideally it's done in the edit summary at the time of merging, but if that wasn't done then we need some other way to credit the original authors.

As such, I recommend undeleting this template, even if we decide to deprecate it and not use it in the future.

-- Powers ^(talk) 00:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I had forgotten the discussion, but the arguments were that when content is moved from one Wikivoyage article to another, the article histories are clear and that it's pretty obvious that in the case of districted cities, the district articles include a lot of content that was moved from city articles. Another argument was that Template:Mergecredit was created with the assent of two editors - hardly what you would call a consensus - and anyway, the discussion happened seven to eight years before 2015 and involved few editors who are currently active. I also argued in 2015 that if we kept the template, it should be used only on talk pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by "the article histories are clear". The very problem this template intended to solve was knowing which article content was merged from. That information is needed before one can even look at the article's history. Powers ^(talk) 14:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood, though in the examples of district articles, it would usually be obvious that the content was from the article for the city. So how does the template work? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Don’t we use edit summaries, for example “merge from Miami/Downtown” if merging two articles within Miami? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought the same too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 01:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I should say, I'm not necessarily opposed to undeleting this template, but I would like to know how it works. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's just a matter of passing the name of the merged article as a parameter to the template. You can see how it's used on several talk pages where it's still transcluded. Powers ^(talk) 02:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it should be recorded in the edit summary. As I stated: "Ideally it's done in the edit summary at the time of merging, but if that wasn't done then we need some other way to credit the original authors." This is because edit summaries cannot be edited retroactively. Powers ^(talk) 02:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Restore/Undelete based on LtPowers, we have the {{Wikipedia}} template as well, and I forget to include the attribution in my edit summaries at times. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm OK with restoring this template on two conditions: (1) It's used only on talk pages. (2) It's not used on district articles, in which the inclusion of content from the parent city article is obvious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  It may be obvious to experienced users like you and me, but I'm not sure it's obvious as a general case. Powers ^(talk) 21:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• OK, point taken. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Restore though I’m not opposed to using it in district articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Outcome: Restored. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Xt

This is a template used on almost every WMF project, to quote in discussions. It's not supposed to be in articlespace, only in discussions. I don't see anything wrong with this template, so I'm proposing to undelete this template. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Has this template been created before? On mobile it indicates not. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

My bad. This appears to be a mobile issue. I guess I’m voting to undelete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to oppose and suggest for everyone to read through Template talk:Xt. SHB2000, I don't understand why you want to introduce so many seemingly unnecessary templates to this site. Why does it have to be just like every other Wiki site you participate in? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I've well read it before I came to vfu, and those arguments don't really add up to me. It helps highlight quotes from other users like "I don't understand why you want to introduce so many seemingly unnecessary templates to this site.". Not only does this template visually distinct quotes. Perhaps if I showed you a demo, will that help?

Example without template:

Some of the arguments presented in vfd to keep the The Golden Triangle (India) article were "The Golden Triangle is a well known itinerary for foreign tourists in India and often aimed at first time visitors so I feel it is iconic enough to keep despite being unedited for over a year, I’m against it being a region as there is a set start and end point (Delhi) and it is often done by train.", which show that it is a notable itinerary and should not be deleted.

Example with template:

Some of the arguments presented in vfd to keep the The Golden Triangle (India) article were "The Golden Triangle is a well known itinerary for foreign tourists in India and often aimed at first time visitors so I feel it is iconic enough to keep despite being unedited for over a year, I’m against it being a region as there is a set start and end point (Delhi) and it is often done by train.", which show that it is a notable itinerary and should not be deleted.

This is not to be used in mainspace pages, just discussion pages. And to "Why does it have to be just like every other Wiki site you participate in?", that I'll answer on your talk so I don't drive this vfu off topic. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

As in the previous discussion with Frank, probably best to achieve consensus if we discuss whether the function was needed first, so then we can implement. I assumed this was a more routine matter. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It's standard to simply use italics in such situations. I won't oppose this, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I've just used an example naturally rather than creating an example here, which can be seen at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#Cycling in France. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I just would have used quotation marks there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Not as visually distinctive though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Outcome: no consensus to restore. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Esperanto phrasebook

Improper closure, as was agreed at Meta-Wiki. Nominating admin should not be the one who makes the final decision for deletion, for several reasons.--Molandfreak (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no such requirement on this Wiki, and is there any rule that something discussed on another Wiki is binding here? If so, point me to that rule, and we'd have to debate agreement with it on this Wiki. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral – what happens at meta.wikimedia has little to do here and so that is not a reason for undeletion. That being said, there was about an 80 percent majority (I didn't do the counting by based it off Granger's comment here), so maybe it's worth starting a discussion to undelete the phrasebook given it was a controversial deletion. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - just to be clear, "improper closure, as was agreed on MetaWiki" refers to two users agreeing in discussion, one of whom Molandfreak. It doesn't refer to a policy decision that could conceivably apply to Wikivoyage, and is not a valid reason to request undeletion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC), edited 09:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The real point is that when the Esperanto phrasebook was deleted, deletion policy was that unless there was a clear and obviously policy-based consensus not to delete, the article was deleted. In terms of the voting, here's the discussion: 12 keeps, 2 deletes. However, it was more complicated than that, and I'd point you to this post in which I finally came out in reluctant opposition to deleting the phrasebook:

I'm going to reluctantly come out in Weak Opposition to deleting this phrasebook, based on the issue of Pasporta Servo. However, I think that the phrasebook probably should not include more or less unusable phrases, like those one would use in a restaurant or with a police officer, and my weak opposition to outright deletion should not be misunderstood as disapproving of instead folding the phrasebook into an "Esperanto travel" travel topic article. And I'm still confused about what our policy on phrasebooks is. Maybe we should resume discussion at Talk:Phrasebooks#Is there any threshold of usefulness? (which I think was continued elsewhere, and if so, the two threads should be merged) and try to come to some kind of at least general conclusion on the appropriate limits of the languages we should cover at Wikivoyage before nominating another one for deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There's also this comment by Inas:

All the arguments above have convinced me that this article is out of scope. Just because two travellers may find it useful to communicate in a common language is insufficient to put this into scope, because those people are going to have learnt it from another source. Our scope is to give a traveller a phrase-book to allow some basic communication or understanding in an area of which they are travelling. That said, the article is well developed, and doing little harm. And the fact that it is out of scope wasn't apparent to me until I thought about it a fair bit. So, I'd still tend to be a very weak keep, on the basis of the unwritten rule that we give comprehensive and well written articles more leeway than sparse and empty ones. --Inas (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

There was such a guideline that was openly adopted in regard to "personal" itinerary articles during the period when many were overzealously (in my opinion) deleted: If they were of guide level or better, they were kept, but if they were merely usable, they were (unfortunately) deleted. So Inas' vote, though certainly sincere and based on a constructive motivation, was not based on his judgment of what was in scope for this travel guide at the time.

There was also User:Ground Zero's remark:

Keep - because the article is in good shape, I'd be inclined to keep it despite the policy. This is a worthwhile exception to make since Esperanto is the most established and widely-known of the invented languages. The arguments for deletion are valid, but this article is doing no harm. If it were not so well-developed, or for a more obscure language, I'd be voting "delete". Ground Zero (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

So I think it's clear that by the standards of consensus that existed then - it had to be overwhelming and policy-based - there was no overwhelming policy-based consensus.

Quite a bit later, deletion policy was changed to requiring a consensus to delete, rather than to retain. However, the standard for undeletion is quite a bit tougher, as shown at the top of this page: There has to be "an explanation of why the deletion wasn't in accordance with our deletion policy." Not isn't in accordance with our current deletion policy but wasn't in accordance with our deletion policy when it was deleted. Furthermore: "Articles and images are still considered guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a nomination is uncontested or a consensus arises that the page was deleted unnecessarily, then an administrator should reinstate the page. Otherwise, the page will stay deleted."

To sum up: My feeling is that the Esperanto phrasebook, as it was, with totally useless phrases in it that you would never need to use, should not be undeleted. Instead, an Esperanto travel topic including practical information about Pasporta Servo and a phrasebook that is specifically useful for Pasporta Servo should be created. I would support that. I oppose undeletion of the Esperanto phrasebook as a standard phrasebook. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

So just to confirm, when you mean a travel topic, is it something like the Australian slang one? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it would be different because it would focus both on Pasporta Servo and relevant phrases for a traveler using the services of that organization. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Makes sense. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose undeletion. While I was in favour of keeping the article, it was deleted in accordance with policy at that time. It was this deletion that led to the change in policy. There was a separate discussion here about whether it was appropriate to delete the article while the policy change was being discussed. These discussions were very heated: they drained a lot of energy and generated a lot of ill-will. I think it would because a bad idea to revisit and readjudicate these debates. I think that a better way forward would be to create a new article in draft space or user space invite comments before moving it to main space. As Ikan Kekek points out, the original article was written like other phrasebooks, and had phrases like calling for the police, renting a car, taking a taxi, and common sign (closed, open, toilets). There is nowhere where these phrases would be useful for travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

AB

This was deleted for no reason, and is a harmless redirect that people may use when searching up for Alberta, just like we have a BC redirect (though its usage is less than that of BC) and was deleted without a reason given. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm right in saying that if a page was deleted unilaterally, and there wasn't an obviously good reason like copyvio, it can also be restored unilaterally.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to hear the deleter's views before offering an opinion: User:Andrewssi2, would you like to comment? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't actually recall this one, but 'AB' as a redirect seems useless at best and confusing at worst. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It strikes me as utterly useless. BC & PEI are common & NWT is used some; those need redirects. Other Canadian regions can be abbreviated, but rarely are. Pashley (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I landed in BC last night to visit my in-laws. BC is frequently called BC because "British Columbia" is long. BC appears in the names of places, companies and organizations and is used commonly in everyday speech. It is a useful but not necessary redirect.

When I saw the heading "AB", I wondered what it would be about. It didn't occur to me that it would be about Alberta. AB is a postal abbreviation. It does not appear in the names of places companies or organizations. It is not used in everyday speech. I cannot imagine anyone searching on AB to find Alberta. Ground Zero (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reading two Canadian opinions, I would vote to keep deleted.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Thundering, GZ and Pashley. To be honest, the first thing I think of when I see "AB" is a blood type. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• I too now vote for it to be kept deleted --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Cape to Cape Track

It was deleted under per the one year rule, but now I think the content could be forked off into the newly created Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'd support undeletion for that purpose. Also, I think we can relax the 14-day rule and see whether a consensus can be developed. This is not a commonly-viewed page. SHB2000, would you like to publicize this discussion in the pub and Requests for comment? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Although, now that I read the rule more carefully: "After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a nomination is uncontested or a consensus arises that the page was deleted unnecessarily, then an administrator should reinstate the page." So by rights, you could have reinstated the page after 14 days, but I doubt anyone saw this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Outcome: Undeleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Cape Comorin

It was deleted in 2014 for unknown reasons. It should redirect to Kanniyakumari as it is an alternative name of the place. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'd support undeletion, unless Pashley, who deleted the redirect at 23:32, 27 February 2014 has a good reason why it should remain deleted. There is no archived vfd thread to refer to for this, apparently. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• I do not recall why I deleted it & do not object to restoration. Pashley (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• Restore. This was improperly deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• Restored. It's been 14 days, there's consensus to restore. --EvanProdromou (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

East Bengal

I created this as an extraregion a year ago and SHB2000 deleted this as per Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2021. I would like to restore this extraregion so that I can convert it into a redirect to Bangladesh. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments at previous VfD discussion, particularly that it's an unlikely search term on a travel guide.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per tt!. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose exactly per TT's remarks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per tt! We have the extraregion Bengal & a redirect at East Pakistan, which a few decades back was the official name for what is now Bangladesh. Those are all we need. Pashley (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Not undeleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yoga

The article was deleted as per Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2021. However, since it is linked by some WV guides, plus a travel topic on Yoga in Rishikesh, we should redirect it to South Asia#Culture or Hinduism. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the former doesn't even mention yoga, and we shouldn't redirect to a specific destination. The article was never more than a few sentences, so there is nothing to merge. Please write a new section in South Asia#Do (which now just lists three articles) or Meditation#Understand (hm, even Understand is missing from that one) and then we can redirect the page. –LPfi (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The now-deleted article was only two sentences and as LPfi mentions, it doesn't mention "yoga" in passing (it was only mentioned in the first word). I think you should first start a new section on South Asia#Do and if that becomes long and unwieldy, we'll come back to this undeletion discussion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

In principle Yoga would make a fine travel topic. I'd support undeletion if and only if we have a volunteer to write such an article. Or at least the first stage, starting a section it can redirect to as User:LPfi suggests.

We have had difficulties in the past with touting for yoga. See Talk:Yoga_in_Rishikesh and Talk:Isha Yoga Centre. Pashley (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I actually want to undelete this article only to redirect it to somewhere else, since some articles have redlinks to yoga. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There are 7 articles that link to yoga. Maybe we should just remove the links. Ground Zero (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

We could do that, but I think it is fine to have redlinks to such a topic. A redirect is not a redlink and should lead to some meaningful content. Anything less than a section will be frustrating for those who follow the link and will be hard to add to for non-regulars. When the section gets unwieldy, it's time to start the topic article. –LPfi (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added a brief description of yoga at South Asia#Religion and spirituality and removed the redlink. It can be expanded if necessary. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Resolved per above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Visayan languages

This was redirected to Visayas#Talk after a vfd discussion at Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/June_2022#Visayan_languages, despite there being over a dozen links to the page.

The redirect does not really work since these languages are widely spoken outside the Visayas; see w:Bisayan_languages. Most of Mindanao, parts of Palawan & Luzon, Romblon, the Sulu Islands, even a bit of Borneo. Pashley (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: this was a Wikipedia-style article about a family of languages, but without references to reliable sources. As a travel guide, Wikivoyage aims to have phrasebooks, not articles generally describing languages. There was not a single word in a Visayan language in the article. If the redirect doesn't work, you could propose a different redirect. Restoring an article that is not within the scope of Wikivoyage is a worse solution than the current redirect. Ground Zero (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Question: Do we have any similar articles for other families of languages? I would agree that those seem appropriate for Wikipedia, not Wikivoyage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ground Zero. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: An article like this could be needed if there is confusion among travellers about what phrasebooks or dictionaries to bring, and region articles get long similar sections on the languages. I checked but some links, so I cannot tell, but at least soem could have been unlinked or had been better served by a link to Wikipedia (which is against policy, but no reason to copy Wikipedia articles to here). An analysis on what the links might want from the target could help. –LPfi (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• There could be confusion since Cebuano is fairly often called "Bisaya" by Filipinos. In fact, there was confusion here; at one point we had phrasebooks for both Cebuano & Bisaya. For the history leading from there to the creation of this article, see Talk:Visayan languages. Pashley (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Outcome: no consensus to undelete. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Banglore

It was deleted as a redirect to Bangalore on March 2014 by Pashley with no reasons given. "Banglore" is a plausible misspelling of Bangalore, especially for Hindi speakers. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete – I too don't understand why it was deleted. It's a very common misspelling, and such a redirect shouldn't be deleted without any given reason – and not speedily or unilaterally. --10:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• After the migration, there was a rash of deleting empty or near-empty articles (I think the relevant discussion is here) to avoid unnecessary attribution and links to the former site. Soon afterwards, many redirects were deleted along the lines of same reasoning (although I can't find the relevant discussion at the moment). Therefore I think you can freely recreate this redirect; I would do so without even asking for an undeletion. Vidimian (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - If you type "Banglore" into the search bar, the first result is Bangalore. If you go through with the misspelled search, a Google-style Did you mean Bangalore? pops up. On the other hand, reinstating the redirect will allow a misspelling to be bluelinked. A "common misspelling" should be corrected, rather than accommodated for. Other than fair complaints about deletion procedure not being followed, I don't see a good reason to reinstate this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

(Although judging by Vidimian's comment above, the action was at the time at the very least in line with an unofficial procedure.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC))

• I have no problem with undeleting this redirect, if it might be useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Outcome: undeleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:East Central Florida

It was deleted by Mx. Granger without reason. The East Central Florida article exists so there's no need to delete it's corresponding category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

See also: Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Crazy tree symbol. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the category because at the time, the article was an extra-hierarchical region. Earlier this year, an IP user converted it back to a regular region. If the article stays part of our breadcrumb hierarchy, then of course the category should be recreated, but Florida's regionalization needs to be revisited because it's currently inconsistent. East Central Florida is breadcrumbed to Central Florida, which is breadcrumbed to Florida, but Florida#Regions doesn't list "Central Florida" because it uses a different division that separates inland areas from the coast. Pinging User:SelfieCity, who seems to have edited East Central Florida extensively. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikivoyage's traditional divisions of the Florida region were purely geographical: North Florida, Central Florida, and South Florida. Breadcrumbed within Central Florida were two regions: East Central Florida and (you guessed it) West Central Florida. This isn't a bad way to subdivide Florida, but it comes with some significant flaws, particularly regarding Orlando, by far the most important city in Central Florida from a tourist's perspective (not Tampa, thanks to Disney World). The original East/West regional split necessitated Orlando's categorization within a system that did not fit it, as Orlando does not identify with either the Eastern or Western halves of the state, being in the middle of the state.

Hence, I proposed a more nuanced region structure for Florida based upon the main attractions in the state: Daytona Speedway, the beaches, Cape Canaveral, Walt Disney World, St. Augustine, the Gulf Coast, etc. Tourists frequently travel between these places — for instance, a visitor to Central Florida may visit the beaches, Cape Canaveral, and Disney World in one trip — but they pass through non-tourist regions to go between those places. Hence, creating a category and region hierarchy with "East Central Florida" didn't make sense because it lumped together towns like Daytona Beach (a major tourist hub) and Deltona (a larger suburb of Orlando with virtually no tourist appeal).

East Central Florida is and should remain, IMHO, an extraregion. It's a cohesive region on the map, and we should have an article for it, but from a tourist's perspective in a state with an economy dependent upon tourism, it should not be how Wikivoyage by default presents a travel guide to Florida.

One thing I should point out here is that Florida is changing fast. Orlando wasn't historically a large and sprawling city, and towns like Sanford (Florida) and Kissimmee were seen as cities in their own right until the 21st century. Until the last ten years, categorizing these "towns in their own right" with small coastal towns seemed far more logical than it does now, as all the former have been amalgamated into Greater Orlando while forests and swamps still separate Orlando from the coastal towns. While some of these forests have been turned into agricultural regions, many of them are impenetrable swamp and are even labeled as lakes on some older maps. Tiger Bay, a seasonal swamp between Port Orange and DeLand, is an example of this. Obviously, there is no tourism to these places, so they form natural barriers between the Inland, which is largely urban or agricultural depending upon the specific region, and the coast, which has been urbanized along a few-mile-wide strip following the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Coast.

Hence there are two parallel region structures: the current and "real" one, which divides between coastal and Inland Florida (among other regions), and the previous "ghost" structure of Central Florida divided into West and East. East Central Florida should be breadcrumbed to Central Florida, as it is part of Central Florida, and West Central Florida should be breadcrumbed to Central Florida. But within that system, they are still extraregions.

If there's opposition to categorizing extraregions within extraregions, we could merge East and West Central Florida into one Central Florida article.

I should clarify one point: I have lived in Florida for several years and never heard "East Central Florida" or "West Central Florida" used in conversation, but I hear "Central Florida" almost every day. That said, the identity of "Central Florida" has grown to be associated with the University of Central Florida, a university in the suburbs of Orlando and the second largest public university in the United States.

Sorry for writing an essay but there's lot of nuance because Florida has no clear geographical boundaries: few rivers and no mountain ranges to clearly divide it into regions. Hopefully this clarifies the current system somewhat and proposes a possible change (article merge) that could simplify the extraregion hierarchy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: Thanks for this explanation. If East Central Florida and West Central Florida are not locally recognized regions and are not part of the breadcrumb hierarchy, then I don't see much point in keeping them as articles. Is there any good reason not to merge? —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I would support merging them into Central Florida. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Outcome: no clear consensus to undelete. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Asretired

User talk pages are not supposed to be deleted (they can be blanked, however) as it deletes the history behind it, and this one was deleted out of line with Wikivoyage's policy. It should be a speedy undeletion, but I am not doing it myself. 1 month is more than enough for a "cool-down period". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know the policy here and had to look it up. Here is what it says:

Unlike Wikipedia, we generally do not delete talk pages, even for articles that have been deleted. There is no harm in keeping them, and occasionally they preserve something useful that someone said.

So it is possible to delete talk pages, but I think there should be a good reason to deviate from the policy, beyond the contributor retiring in a huff. It should be undeleted. If Asretired wants to come back and make a case for making an exception, they are free to do so. Ground Zero (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Undelete per Ground Zero. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Undelete, then blank. That keeps the history. Users have the right to delete the contents of their talk pages, but not to delete the files. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Given it's been 14 days now, can someone undelete + blank the page? I'd rather avoid doing it myself as the nominator. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

— Done. Ground Zero (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Dilli

I created this redirect more than a year ago and Ikan Kekek deleted this page as it can be a misspelling of Dili. Therefore, I would like to restore this redirect so that I can convert it into a disambiguation page. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Which articles need disambiguating? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Delhi, a city in India and Dili, a city in Timor-Leste. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, seems reasonable. Support.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Speedily undelete with a redirect to Delhi. Redirects don't simply get speedily deleted because they may appear to be confusing (remember that redirects are cheap), and misspellings can be handled in hatnotes. In this specific case, I've rarely seen Timor-Leste's capital misspelled because the "l" is not stressed, so either way, it should redirect to Delhi with a hatnote for Dili. As for why this should be speedily undeleted, it was never formally deleted (and "misleading/confusing redirects" is not in the CSD), nor were anyone else's opinions solicited. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

In a previous wikilife, Sbb1413 had a tendency to create excessive numbers of redirects. Very pleased to note this is no longer an issue, but I think the deletion rationale was sound, see Talk:Dilli. I'll let someone who knows better comment on how likely Dili is to be misspelt "Dilli".--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to read an explanation of why this disambiguation is needed. Sbb1413? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You had already said back in March 2022, "I feel like this is more likely to be a misspelling of Dili. Is this page really essential? [Sbb1413], please comment." This is why I nowadays prefer disambiguation over redirect. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why it's necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Dilli is apparently a local spelling for Delhi, so if Dilli is also a likely misspelling of Dili, then we have a search term that refers to two possible articles.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and undelete if you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Those who don't find Dilli will either correct the spelling to Dili or search for Delhi instead, wouldn't they? Is it common not to know those names? –LPfi (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have ever been resolved, but a consensus was developing for a disambiguation for Dilli. Should we resume discussion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Reviving my remarks from February... Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone still want to discuss this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Really, it would have been simple to just recreate this at any time. For now, a redirect to Delhi seems reasonable unless someone really feels strongly about a possible misspelling of "Dili". Undeleted. Powers ^(talk) 13:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)