Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Categories - deleted or redirected?[edit]

A new user (User:Owain) has moved Conwy (county) to Conwy (county borough), and has thoughtfully changed the category at the same time, by changing the {{Is part of|xxx}} field in each of the affected articles to the new category.

However, the old category page (Category:Conwy (county)) is now blank, and I can't remember what we do with them. Do they just get deleted, or is there some attribution reason that they need to be kept and/or redirected to the new category? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd just go ahead and delete. Attribution is something we worry about for copyright purposes, and category pages which are merely lists of articles that fall into a certain geographical grouping (and, technically, are "edited" automatically by the MediaWiki software rather than by any particular human editor) do not qualify as copyrightable material. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Great, thank you. To confirm what you said, one of the drop down options of the deletion reasons is 'category renamed'.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"List one article, file or template per entry"[edit]

Should this instruction be deprecated? We've had a few bulk nominations lately, and the preference has been to nominate them all under a single entry. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Ground Zero (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The line is a good idea in theory, not in practice.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I didn't even realize we theoretically had that guideline. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Stupid crap rule. SHB2000 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    This looks like a consensus. Should I remove the line, and should it be replaced with anything? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
That sentence should just be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Redlinks, blue links or black links[edit]

Regarding the Finland Proper (Vkem) outlines:

I wonder how we want real places to be handled in the case they should have articles. Redirecting a village that might be a common search term to the article where it is handled is an obvious solution, but in this case we have real places that are in fact not described anywhere. Previously they were redlinked in the region article to show that we want those articles. If the articles are created and redirected back, we will have blue links that just lead back, to the annoyance of readers. If we unlink the places, creating the article gets more difficult (and there is no hint we want those articles created, while there are several places mentioned about which we don't need articles.

Is finding the region article more difficult if the places are just mentioned in the region article, without a redirect? Search engine-wise, a redirect might get us some more traffic, but just to annoy readers coming here and finding anything specifics about the place.

Or should we make it a priority to create those articles, to avoid voids in our hierarchy? Then we shouldn't redirect real places that need articles, but create the outlines, as Vkem did. Then the only problem is that we need the content also, which then should be given priority every time a region is created.

The situation is probably different for regions that are weak outlines. For Finland Proper there is a thought-out complete structure. Some of the outlines may be hard to get featureable, but at least there should be some eat, sleep and do for each.

LPfi (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This would be confusing. Since I'm well aware of this, I don't know how to respond to this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that a blue link that directs the reader back to the same article is a bad option.
I don't agree with giving priority to creating articles just because some passerby has created a link. We have thousands of articles that need more content. Allowing our priorities to be determined by a well-intentioned editor like Vkem who isn't really involved in Wikivoyage would be a mistake. And not all of these places really warrants an article. I don't think that we can say that we want an article just because there is a redlink.
I recently redirected an article for a bedroom community in the U.S. in which the only information that the article's creator provided was that there is a McDonalds in the community. They didn't provide an address for it though, or any other useful information.
With a black link, a reader who arrives at the region article via a search can at least find the place in the article and on the map, so I think this is the best result. Ground Zero (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The redlinks in the region article were carefully planned, but the intention was to create them when somebody takes the time to write them. I think changing redlinks to black links is not an improvement. Is having the redirects an improvement that weights more than the drawback of having to turn the redlinks black? Read: I am challenging the policy of not deleting redirects from real places. –LPfi (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
What's a "black link"? Doesn't that just mean unlinked text? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, that would be another way of putting it, since it isn't a link at all. Ground Zero (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protect all[edit]

I think we should semi-protect all pages listed here, in case of edit warring or vandalism. --Crocusfleur (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Which pages? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Have there been cases of edit warring or vandalism of pages nominated for deletion? Ground Zero (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
GZ has a good point here. If there's no history of vandalism (hopefully we don't jinx it) there's no need to semi-protect a page. The main page and some other critical pages, such as some template pages, are exceptional because vandals could do more damage by changing those, but in this case, without previous vandalism there is no need to semi-protect. A worthwhile thought though. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Replace the vfd archive header?[edit]

Moved from the pub
I will start out by saying that I'm not a huge fan of Template:Deletion archive, which doesn't look centred, and just doesn't look right for a header. Which is probably why it was never used much, and I'm guessing half of you didn't even know this template existed.

I did some experimenting and thought a header like the header you see below might look better, with a more cleaner, neater and organised format. This can be changed anytime, so this doesn't have to be the fixed one.


April 2021 Votes for deletion archives for May 2021 June 2021


The code is pretty simple to work out as well, and the month= variable is automatic. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


Given the lack of opposition, I'm going ahead. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

One-year rule on itineraries[edit]

Based on votes on this page, are we going to abolish this rule, or are there differences about its interpretation? For the purpose of discussion the rule is at Wikivoyage:Itineraries#"One year" deletion rule, and here it is in full:

Since just about any topic can be an itinerary, itineraries must either be actively worked on or achieve some level of completion to be kept. (Sufficiently famous, marked routes such as Alaska Highway or Annapurna Circuit are exempt from this rule.) As such, itineraries that have been at outline status or less for one year without being substantially edited are subject to deletion via the votes for deletion process.

My feeling is, if we are keeping the rule, "not a personal itinerary" shouldn't be a sufficient argument for keeping an article with no specific route that is therefore not in any sense usable; just because an itinerary isn't personal doesn't mean it's "sufficiently famous". But let's talk about that.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose abolishing this rule. Otherwise, we'd end up with a bunch of itineraries which don't give much information and give no incentive to the creator to make it usable. But I don't think this rule was really enforced that much, until I just checked some random itineraries. The last major mass deletions looks like it was in 2011, more than 10 years ago. But I think we should take these on a case by case basis.
There's more that I have, but given the already mass overload here, I don't think we can handle that much at once. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I should also mention, that based on this reasoning "real itinerary" is not a valid reason to keep, and I'm particularly looking at the one for Nidaros Path and Mountains to Sound Greenway. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
In 2011, we were overzealous in my opinion and, in the guise of deleting "personal itineraries", deleted usable articles because they weren't guide-level. I believe in being a bit liberal, in that a coherent, well-defined route can be OK, even if it's "personal". Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
But tbh, these are routes which per the deletion rules, can be deleted. I'm still confused on some of the keep votes on that were added yesterday (writing this 00:05 AEST). But deleting usable routes because it wasn't guide? (please tell me if I'm missing something there. Need to get some sleep). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
If you're missing something, it's that the usable itinerary articles that were deleted then were deemed "personal", and exceptions to the deletion policy for "personal" itineraries were given only to articles that were at guide level or higher (I don't think any were stars). Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I see. I guess I'm too sleepy to think. But these ones that I nominated aren't personal, but just outlines that aren't famously marked. Maybe that policy needs copyediting. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
"As such, itineraries that have been at outline status or less for one year without being substantially edited are subject to deletion via the votes for deletion process." That doesn't mean articles at outline status for a year or more should be deleted; it means they are "subject" via the "deletion process," which indicates that a community consensus to keep any of these itineraries doesn't run contrary to policy. I think there are some itineraries nominated that indeed should be deleted, but they are many that while indeed have been made subject to deletion via this policy, ought not be deleted due to other policies in place, such as Wikivoyage:The traveler comes first. I certainly don't support deleting any itineraries without consensus. Consensus will develop naturally to delete the useless itineraries, but many others are developing votes to keep, and this is line with current policies that require consensus to delete travel articles (excepting copyvio, of course). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Although perhaps read the header of Category:Outline itineraries. It says

This page is for listing itineraries that have outline status. They will be deleted if not modified for one year.

SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Categories are intended to list articles with some feature in common, and not to establish policy, so I would support removing that text from the category page. That text appears to come from before English Wikivoyage was formed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I commented "not personal itinerary on some. I don't feel we need to set the "sufficiently" threshold particularly high. My reading has been that a famous route will have readers looking for it, and with some luck people continuing where the article creator left, and even if it takes a few years, that's really not a problem (unless the itinerary is really bad). Personal itineraries, on the other hand, need to be well described to allow anyone to continue the work (and to bother). If no one caught on while it was being worked on, or soon after, it is unlikely to attract attention later.

One reason not to keep the threshold high is that what is famous for some, is unknown to others. I didn't know about Alaska Highway or Annapurna Circuit before starting to write here. Nidaros Path, deemed non-famous by the nominator, was the prime pilgrimage route in the Nordic countries in medieval times, and is regaining popularity – but how could somebody not from Europe know that, unless into pilgrimages? I'd think many Americans wouldn't know about Way of St. James, although it is a huge thing. If some route is sufficiently famous that you'd expect there to be guidebooks about it, that should suffice. I think any Eurovelo or ERA route should qualify.

LPfi (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I think usable status should have been sufficient to keep "personal" itineraries if they had reasonable, coherent routes. In terms of the text SHB2000 quotes above, I'd propose changing it to This page is for listing itineraries that have outline status. They may be deleted if not modified for one year. May, rather than will be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, but add "may be deleted [via the VFD process]" because we don't want people unilaterally deleting articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I reworded it to what Ikan wrote with a little bit of copyedits: They may be deleted if not modified or actively maintained for one year.. I'll write that it may be nominated through RfD in just a sec. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that addressing itinerary articles through VfD after a year is a good approach. It forces us to improve the articles if we can, or delete them if we can't. SHB2000's edits to the policy work. Ground Zero (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes there may be other solutions. Back in 200x when our coverage of China was quite spotty, I wrote "One week near Hong Kong" which was pretty much a personal itinerary. Later it became a region article, Pearl River Delta, and by now that is a decent article.
For real routes like Tanami Track, I do not think deletion should even be considered. Either keep it or merge it into a region article & redirect there. Pashley (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
For an example of an itinerary that was prematurely deleted (by me) but later restored & made into a decent article, see Talk:Tiger Leaping Gorge. Pashley (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
SHB2000, thanks for editing that language, but there's no such thing as "RfD" on this Wiki (and you initially confused me by using those initials on talk page threads). I will edit to Votes for deletion with a link. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Oops. RfD is something on meta and simple, not here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Pashley, the "don't delete real places" is only for destination articles, not itineraries or topics. Oh and re Tanami Track... erm, it's not a notable track at all, but rather known as Australia's James Dalton Highway. Couldn't find any photos of this track on commons, but if Google Street Trekker does a good job in visualising that route, this is apparently the best part of the route. There's no way that's notable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)