Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Past events[edit]

We have a whole category Category:Past events of articles on events that have occurred. As a travel guide, do we need to keep articles on past Olympic Games and world cups? These articles appropriately focus on things like how to get tickets, what is happening when, and transportation during the events. Seems of silly to me. Wikivoyage is not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia had much better articles on past events than we do. Ground Zero (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

For the moment I think that it is worth keeping these. They are useful for reference when creating an article for a new event, and there are not that many of any one type of event - e.g. 3 summer and 2 winter Olympics. I think that we might copy some text from Beijing 2008 to Beijing 2022. As the titles include the date, it is obvious to readers that it is about a past event. AlasdairW (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but they could be moved out of mainspace and put into safekeeping somewhere. Also, maybe it would be an idea to write an Event article template? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with moving them out of mainspace at least. Until time travel is invented, these articles can't be used by a traveller. Gizza (roam) 23:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't object to moving them, but it seems unnecessary work. Although the articles can't be directly used by a traveller, in many cases the venues built for the event remain, and a traveller visiting them may be interested in what happened there. For example, somebody visiting the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London/East might be interested in reading about London 2012. AlasdairW (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with moving them. They are largely written in the future tense, not in the past tense. I don't think it is a good use of time to set about rewriting them for the sake of preserving history. The Olympic site should be covered in London/East with a link to the Wikipedia article, which tells a much better story about the Olympic Games, and which doesn't tell you how to get tickets. 5½ years after the games, the London 2012 article begins:
"The Games of the XXX Olympiad, the Summer Olympic Games of 2012, will based in London, with selected events held throughout the United Kingdom. The official 16 days of the games will be July 27 through August 12, though some events will begin to occur before the official opening ceremonies."
If we want our site to look out of date and irrelevant, we would keep these articles in plain view. I don't think we do. Ground Zero (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The only change I would suggest would be to add "Archive" or "Archived" in the title of such articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
That would help if they otherwise turn up in the search box. I think a {{historical}} or some such at the top would be good for those actually visiting the article, making their status obvious. I think there is no problem keeping such clearly marked articles, and keeping history and examples on how to do things is valuable. Moving them out of main space is cumbersome and no real use. --LPfi (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
These articles have the {{CompletedEvent}} template which adds a box at the top of the article "This event has closed and is no longer open to the public.", and adds it to the category. I think that this does make the status fairly clear, but maybe it could be in bold or a bigger font. AlasdairW (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
We should handle these in the same manner as the rest of our joke articles. Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Time travel is in project space, Wikivoyage:Past events/London 2012 games could certainly join it there, as an archive. K7L (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I second that idea. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I am ok with that. There are a few links to update, mainly between these events, or from the similar events which are yet to happen. AlasdairW (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting "guilty until proven innocent"[edit]

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it.... If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it.

The "guilty until..." bit contradicts our the "status quo bias," which underlies our general policy.

It may have been appropriate early on when there was a lot of concern about copyright violation ("our entire site is 90% suspected copvios" wrote one editor when this was being discussed on the predecessor site), but I don't think we have that issue now.

It has also been argued that this enables the deletion of an article, etc., that violates policy. But some of our VfD debates hinge on whether an article, etc., violates policy. I think it is fair to say that if there is consensus that an article violates policy, then there will also be consensus to delete, so we do not have to build in a bias for deletion.

I'm struggling to find a reason for this policy that is relevant now. I propose this change:

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it.... If no consensus has emerged to keep delete the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it close the VfD discussion. Closing the discussion does not preclude a later re-nomination for deletion.

Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd delete the sentence about articles, files or templates being guilty unless proven innocent, but I'm not sure closing a discussion inconclusively is a good solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing a discussion is good if no one has any new points or if the outcome is clear, so that no new points will change anything. A minimum time is good, because outcomes can be guessed wrong when too few have had time to express their views. A maximum time can help in the case the same arguments are made over and over (then you do not have to indirectly criticize people for that). But minimum and maximum times do not have to be the same. --LPfi (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea of moving away from "guilty unless proven innocent", particularly for articles that have been around for some time. I would suggest a minimum discussion time of two weeks, and that inconclusive discussions are best closed after 2-3 months. AlasdairW (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed with what result, based on what criteria? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
This is the crux: many of our discussions do not reach a consensus after a long time. Now, the rule is that if there is no consensus, then the discussion is closed and the article is deleted. I am proposing to change the rule so that if there is no consensus, the discussion is closed and the article is kept. Ground Zero (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
What standard for "consensus" are you proposing? Maybe a majority vote would be a better metric. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The same standard of consensus that is being used in VfD now and everywhere else in Wikivoyage. I am not proposing any change to our Wikivoyage:Consensus policy. Ground Zero (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I tend to think that if a majority supports deletion and there are good policy reasons for it, the page or file should be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
That would be fair. I also think that if a majority supports keeping an article, we should keep it. But we seem to have decided to stick with "consensus", a less clear concept. Ground Zero (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Since we're proposing a policy change, we can have a different standard at VfD than on other things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
There are two points here: whether we want a figure different from 50 % and whether we want a vote. I suppose I'd want more than 51 % for deleting something, but introducing clear voting is another can of worms. In the current situation I see no big difference, but with a larger editor base one would have to keep track on puppets, and on en-wp (and with en-wp editors on Commons) there is a problem of voting instead of reasoning, which is absent on sv-wp where voting is not used (other than in very specific contexts). --LPfi (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I would require both a majority and a policy-based reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A different rewrite[edit]

I've never liked "guilty until proven innocent" & do not much like the notion of voting instead of consensus. I'd rewrite the entire section as follows:

===Deleting, or not===
Deciding whether to delete is tricky because we have two conflicting goals: we do not want the wiki cluttered with useless articles but we are reluctant to throw away someone's work or to remove something that might eventually become a good article.
Where a clear consensus emerges — whether to delete, redirect, rename or move the article — we can just act on that, after waiting about a week to ensure everyone interested has a chance to comment.
When there is no consensus we wait longer — at least fourteen days and sometimes longer if the discussion is lively — in hopes a consensus may emerge after more discussion. If not, then it becomes a judgment call and the decision will usually be made by one of the wiki administrators since only they can delete articles anyway. Factors that tend to get an article kept are that it has substantial text or that many people have argued for "keep" (a good example is the debate over the Esperanto phrasebook, archived at (insert link here)). Short articles or those with only a few defenders will usually be deleted or redirected.
===Action once it is decided===
Where the outcome is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager can do it. Some moves can also be done by anyone. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.
Where the outcome is to delete, or for a move that requires deleting a redirect first, only an administrator can do that. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.
When deleting a template, consider first replacing it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name. Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it.

I think this addresses the issues raised above. Pashley (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This assumes the Esperanto phrasebook is kept as I think it obviously should be. If not, my example should be deleted or replaced. Pashley (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but this doesn't sit right with me at all. There is no reason to change this policy except that in the Esperanto debate, we have a majority vs policy and precedent and the "majority" is looking for a way to circumvent that. The above proposed wording is rather bold proof. You not only want to change the policy but you want to enshrine Esperanto by specifically mentioning it in the policy and then sneak "substantial text" as a reason to keep an article in spite of that NOT being a reason to keep an article, not being policy-based, and being specifically mentioned as NOT a valid reason in deletion discussion that this is springboarding from (Esperanto). Our "guilty until proven innocent" policy has not been an issue as far as I remember and actually encourages participation and engagement, unlike the reverse where you can just sit on your hands or ignore legitimate concerns with a vote and the article can be kept. Changing the policy in order to give an alternative to engaging the arguments is a bad idea. These are a lot of changes just to save an article that quite honestly I think even the people who want to keep it know is useless. It seems usefulness and the site goals are being thrown to the wayside in favor of the sentiment that "it's a shame to delete something with lots of text" which has really become the crux of this whole debate. That's not valid. It has no relation to our goals; quite the opposite, it opens the door for articles that are counter to our goals to have a policy-based reason for keeping as long as they are thorough/long. Are we really going to change the policy so that article length precedes policy and precedents all for the sake of keeping a phrasebook we know has no real-world value? Because that's what it looks like... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with ChubbyWimbus, and I think we should not change the policy until after the Esperanto phrasebook is deleted, and in that fashion remove any possible bias. Selfie City (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I like neither the idea that a large number of words is an argument against deletion nor that an individual administrator gets to make an arbitrary decision if no consensus is reached. What if most admins disagree with his/her decision? I think that unless we are able to agree on a new policy that gives clear guidelines for what to do in the absence of consensus (or a majority, whatever), we have to stick with the problematic but at least decisive status quo. As for a large number of words, brevity is the soul of wit, and I have edited lots of articles with the specific aim of simplifying and shortening the language. We don't get paid by the word on this site. Moreover, someone could write a long article about Mickey Mouse, and it still wouldn't be a travel article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not actively contributing on this site anymore, so please don't use my comments when determining consensus, but this discussion highlights one of the reasons why I left. Wikivoyage will never fulfill its goal of becoming a pre-eminent travel resource unless more effort is put into finding ways to include new editors, which often means incorporating contributions that don't exactly conform to policies that were mostly written more than a decade ago. Even if an Esperanto Phrasebook doesn't belong in Wikivoyage (and I would argue that it does no harm to keep it), a community where the first option seems to be deletion "unless there is consensus to keep" does not seem like a community that is welcoming to new editors and new ideas. Instead of deleting, find a way for the contributors to demonstrate an article's merit, tag the article with a tracking template to note that it might not totally fit with Wikivoyage's current WIAA criteria, or, in the case of the Esperanto phrasebook, just leave it be since deleting it involves making a pedantic argument that even though it clearly fits into the category of "phrasebook" it might not meet the bar of "travel-relevant phrasebook".
If switching from "consensus to keep" to "consensus to delete" meant that less time was spent debating VFDs I think that would be a big improvement - if the same amount of time currently spent on debating VFDs was instead devoted to figuring out how to better incorporate new edits and ideas that don't fit the current status quo, Wikivoyage would be a much more vibrant place, and one that I could imagine eventually fulfilling its goal of becoming a viable internet travel resource. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I basically agree with this. The problem is how to write that into policy. If people want to propose a simple policy of requiring a consensus to delete when it's not an obvious case, I guess that would be a simple matter. I'm unconvinced it would necessarily produce greater contentment among editors, though, because whereas people like you and me are happy with a broader focus, other users are not and want this site to squarely focus on articles about destinations and other core aspects of relatively short-term travel. By the way, I wish you would return to active editing, but I think your post does count toward consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with ChubbyWimbus and Selfie City here, and must confess that I find Ryan's remarks about accommodating new users more than a little confusing: the Esperanto phrasebook is not the work of a new editor, at least not a recent one, so it's not at all clear to me who we'd be discouraging from further contributions if we were to delete it. Furthermore, to his comments about WIAA edge cases, we already have a place where users who want to test-drive new ideas can do so, and that place is their own userspace. In fact, in lieu of deleting the article outright, the idea was floated of moving it to someone's userspace who would volunteer to host it, but there were no takers, which seemingly indicates that for all the bandwidth many of us have utilized in defense of this article, there's little if any interest in the actual subject matter. Secondly, I found ChubbyWimbus' points about pocket-vetoing VfD nominees through silence to be precisely on point. The flipside of giving people latitude to try out new things is that if an experimental article is called into question, it's the responsibility of the person who went out on a limb to prove that his experiment is travel-related and within scope, rather than that of the community to prove that it's not travel-related and not in scope, which correlates more with the "guilty until proven innocent" status quo than with the new proposal. I'd love just as much as anyone else to see more new contributors, but not to the extent of telling them they have the complete run of the place and feel free to ignore policy and scope and all that boring tedium. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I have to say, I support the policy change, but I disagree with Ryan, and agree with AndreCarrotflower, and I'm not sure if I agree with Ikan Kekek, who seems to be having a bob each way. Giving people boundaries and guidelines makes it easier to contribute, not harder. Where Wikivoyage struggles because it's so hit and miss on our core articles. So many towns and villages around the world with no coverage on what there is to actually see and do, while so many experiments wallow with after one good author goes on a mission and then they are left wither once that author loses interest. The site needs more focus, and we're not going to get that by making editing by travellers easier, not by encouraging specialist editors going on a frolic of their own. --Inas (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, my feeling is that we need a clear policy. I'm OK with either the current policy or a clear new policy such as I outline below. What I'm not OK with is an unclear policy that does not clearly spell out what happens when there is no consensus. Either there is a bias toward deletion, as is currently the case, or there is a bias toward keeping. Either way is OK, but it seems to me that it has to be one or the other, because other attempts at phrasing for a new policy so far were IMO not good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The scenario with some trying to get a consensus by careful reasoning, while other get their will by just voicing their opinion and then leaving, does not seem very attractive. I hope people are responsible enough for the consensus to work. Perhaps the consensus can be interpreted to ignore shot and run votes. (And for the Esperanto article: I'd volunteer to take the article, but I did not want people to feel the issue is solved by that – very few will find the phrasebook there – so preferred to keep quiet.) --LPfi (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

New proposed rewrite[edit]

How about making this simple? Here's the current text:

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent

Proposed rewrite:

As this site has a "status quo" bias, a nomination to delete an article, file or template, when not obvious as a matter of policy, requires a consensus. However, both those in favor of and those opposed to deletion must cite Wikivoyage policies, guidelines and/or goals in their arguments, and while the traveller comes first is the guiding principle on this site, it won't be sufficient to save an article about a garden implements store or any other kind of article, file or template that is obviously against other policies.

Current text:

If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it.

Proposed rewrite:

If after a policy-based discussion, no consensus has emerged to delete the article, file or template, it will be kept. If a consensus in favor of deletion has been attained, an administrator can delete the nominated article, file or template.

Irrespective of whether the Esperanto phrasebook is deleted before these changes, are you in favor or opposed? I think this is where the rubber meets the road, so have it out. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I made one further change, which is reasonable and only fair: People in favor of deletion have to give policy reasons, too. We've seen plenty of nominations unjustified by policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I definitely agree with a need to provide a policy-based reason when proposing to delete something. Many nominations are along the lines of "this looks bad because it is short" or "I don't like it" although they are thankfully less common these days. Gizza (roam) 22:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

*I support Ikan Kekek 's' proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep it simple?[edit]

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it.... If noa consensus has emerged to keepdelete the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it.may do so. If discussion reaches no policy-based consensus, the status quo is retained.

K7L (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In effect, the status-quo is always going to be to retain? Isn't it? Why bother listing that?
If, after fourteen days of discussion, a consensus has emerged that our deletion policy applies to the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it. Otherwise, any Wikivoyager can still work to improve, retain, merge or redirect the article, as informed by the discussion. --Inas (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Simpler and good. I support this language. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Inas' wording is short and sweet, let's go with that. K7L (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Ground Zero (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I like it. Easy to understand and consistent with other policies. Gizza (roam) 21:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I still don't see where there is a need to change a policy that has not failed us and as I stated above encourages engagement nor have I seen any of the fervent "let's change the policy, because I don't like it" camp offer any actual reasons for why we need to change it (or address claims made by myself and others who question/oppose the change). Are you just pushing forward with this "I think I have the majority, so let's force a short-sighted policy change just to get my way" or is there a reason somewhere that I'm missing? You guys are moving awfully fast on how to reword your "policy change" without addressing ANY concerns or providing ANY reasons why the changes are better. This discussion quite frankly is an excellent reason why majority is a HORRIBLE basis for decisions. The current "majority" is boldly making decisions because they feel they don't have to engage simply by virtue of having the majority. I reread the discussion: There is ZERO engagement in opposing thoughts and no real arguments made as to why we need this policy change. Just a lot of "We don't like the policy" and a very fast progression to agreeing on changes. It's really everything we should NOT be. There is already a general bias just to keep everything, because "it does no harm", "someone took the time to type it so why ruffle feathers", "who cares, it's just one article", "it might get clicks", "it's long", etc. but these are all attitudes that need to be fought AGAINST as they are all dismissive of the site goals. Having the vfd throw slightly more burden of proof onto "keep" voters is a good way to weed out wishy-washy "keep" votes that may be based on the aforementioned problematic reasons and force people to stay focused on our policy and goals (the nominator for "deletion" must provide a reason in their nomination anyway, so it always starts with the "delete" argument anyway). I see no proof of us ever callously deleting articles without policy-based reasons and do not foresee that happening, but I can definitely see us keeping more articles "because it's easier" with no policy proof or even in the face of policy problems if we change the policy. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a need because we have at least three contradictory policies. We have Wikivoyage:Consensus with its default status quo bias. We also have a policy (with a few rare exceptions) of not deleting real places, instead redirecting them. Then we have this guilty-until-proven-innocent in VfD which contradicts every other policy. The end result is an incoherent, contradictory mess - which simply is not working. K7L (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Vitriolic rants discourage me from contributing to policy discussions, that's for sure. Everyone in this discussion on both sides is an experienced editor who has given a lot of time to build a travel guide. Let's try to keep that in mind. I've fired off angry responses to things in the past, and I've regretted it. After ready the tirade above, i went out for a walk instead of responding right away. This sort of argument does not contribute to building a community. Quite the opposite: it turns people off the project. We've already heard from Ryan why he left, and that is a damn shame. We are all contributors, and sometimes we disagree. K7L has set out some good points, and Ryan has too. Don't diss arguments advanced by other editors just because you don't agree with them. I'm going off to create some content now. Ground Zero (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I share ChubbyWimbus’ frustration with what seems like a pointed avoidance of addressing the issues raised by the “delete” voters in favor of the easier but short-sighted approach of making the issue moot by wielding a half-baked policy change like a battering ram. Perhaps instead of misplaced accusations of vitriol, these newly minted Esperantists ought to actually answer the question of why avoiding messy policy discussions at the price of the continued existence on our site of out-of-scope cruft is preferable to engaging with those with opposing viewpoints and coming to something that can truly be called a consensus? To K7L’s comment, perhaps they can also answer the question of where exactly it’s written that our status-quo-bias policy has no exceptions, and if that’s such an incontrovertible rule, why has our site functioned perfectly well for the past 12 years with a pretty glaring exception to that policy on the books? I should say as well that I’m not impressed by threats to quit the site, warnings about how such-and-such a proposal will make other editors quit the site en masse if implemented, or even after-the-fact explanations from former editors about why they quit. Collaborative projects like this one aren’t for everybody, and that’s okay. Any editor who absolutely has to get their way all the time really ought to step back and consider whether wiki editing is the hobby for them (or, in Ryan’s case, anyone who doesn’t want to get his hands dirty with lengthy and sometimes contentious policy discussions probably shouldn’t volunteer to be an administrator). In the end it may be that I lose the argument and the Esperanto phrasebook stays, but if so, I’m not going to take my toys out of the sandbox and go home, nor are most of the other reasonable people here who sometimes get into disagreements with other editors. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I did not threaten to quit the site. I said I was going off to create some content. I hope you understand that that is something very different. Responding to my comment about vitriol with more vitriol, and saying that my accusation was "misplaced" bewilders me. Arguing that everything's fine and we shouldn't change because we've always done it this way doesn't impress me at all. Any project or organization that resists change is doomed to fail. The status-quo-bias rule is a general rule for the project, and VfD is an exception to this rule that doesn't seem to have much basis. This has been raised as an issue several times over the years (scroll up the page). Ground Zero (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to say that the supporters and opponents of the proposed policy change are both right: Either policy works. However, I disagree with arguments on both sides that either policy is likely to cause any significant damage to the site. This is essentially a dispute between people who prefer to have a bias toward deletion or a bias toward not deleting. Yes, if the policy is changed, it will have some effect of broadening the focus of the site. However, I expect the effect to be modest. If it turns out to have extreme results, that would be because there is no consensus to delete wildly off-topic articles. Do we really think that's likely? I see this, instead, as a marginal issue that will affect articles that are close cases. And to tie it to this debate and to Marriage in China (which I should stipulate, I don't think we can or should undelete, because undeletion requires a consensus, not a retroactive lack of consensus for deletion), the results would be that since some substantial number of participants in the VfD discussions found a travel-related justification for those articles, however strained the proponents of deletion found it, those articles would have stayed in existence (though in the case of Marriage in China, probably with a new title and definitely with substantially edited content and focus). I'm not sure I can think of another article we've debated in VfD since I've been here that would have been kept and was otherwise deleted, though please mention any others you can think of.
I'll admit to having a slight bias toward the proposed policy change, because my argumentation style in VfD threads is to question both sides and then make up my mind. For example, in the case of the Esperanto phrasebook, I proposed deletion and thought the last two VfD threads advanced no good argument for keeping it, but the points about Pasporta Servo eventually convinced me. That's travel-related. All that said, I think a compromise that might work is, as User:SelfieCity suggested, to agree to remove that phrasebook from articlespace, so as to grandfather its VfD into the existing policy before the change of policy is made. That way, we wipe the slate clean and move forward with a slightly different philosophy in VfD going forward. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The bit about diva-ish threats to quit the site did not pertain to you, Ground Zero. It was more a reference to diva-ish threats by some editors that other editors (specifically newbies) will quit the site if the preferred outcome to this discussion doesn’t come to pass, which was floated in the parallel discussion at the VfD page. My point was that people who aren’t given to collaboration or aren’t prepared to take things in stride when they lose a debate are temperamentally unsuited to working on wikis, and given that such an editor probably would have eventually left regardless, as soon as they didn’t get their way on some other issue, kowtowing to high-maintenance editors shouldn’t be a high priority. My comments regarding Ryan were meant to imply that those considerations can apply to experienced editors too, not just newbies. As to vitriol, I just hope you understand what this looks like from the other side of the conversation. From the angle I see it, certain users have chosen to respond to the valid policy concerns regarding the Esperanto phrasebook presented by CW, myself, and others by attempting to force through a policy change that (at least by the looks of it) is an explicit attempt to silence dissent, and are now stonewalling our concerns regarding the policy change itself. And now, for our troubles, we’re being faulted for expressing our frustration about that, while the response to our substantive concerns continues to be crickets. It’s a very bad-faith way to go about things, by the appearances of things. Consensus is not achieved through strongarm tactics any more than it’s achieved through simple majority vote, nonparticipation in discussions, or anything else that consensus is not. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thinking about the objections some folks have made that their concerns are being disregarded, I propose that language be added to the statement posted by K7L above, stating that all participants in VfD discussions must offer a reason for their argument, even if the reason is "per User X", meaning that they agree with User X's argument. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to scale this whole discussion back away from "how we can implement the new policy" to first justifying the policy change with examples of how the current policy fails us and/or how the change would improve things which I have only seen a few vague/weak attempts at and not by very many people. I would also like some of the concerns/comments raised to address. Here are some that I have raised, along with others:

  • "Guilty until proven innocent" encourages participation and forces engagement in order to keep while the reverse permits a lazier and less engaged approach by those who wish to keep (Ryan claimed that it is a "good thing" to just keep articles in order to avoid vfd discussions. To me, "less time debating" is neither inherently good nor bad. Some topics warrant more discussion than others and most vfd discussions are in fact quite brief.)
  • Per User:AndreCarrotflower: "it's the responsibility of the person who went out on a limb to prove that his experiment is travel-related and within scope, rather than that of the community to prove that it's not travel-related and not in scope, which correlates more with the "guilty until proven innocent" status quo than with the new proposal."

The "Guilty until proven innocent" policy requires us to look at an article and determine if it matches our site goals and does not violate our policies. An "innocent until proven guilty" policy on deletion starts with the premise that any article SHOULD be here and you need to prove that it doesn't belong, but that is not true to how our site operates and is certainly not in line with our goals.

  • From myself: "There is already a general bias just to keep everything, because "it does no harm", "someone took the time to type it so why ruffle feathers", "who cares, it's just one article", "it might get clicks", "it's long", etc. are all decision-making processes that are dismissive of our goals and should be combated. The current policy does this while the new proposal further facilitates the proliferation of keeps based on those kinds of reasons (whether spoken or unspoken).
  • User:Ground Zero wrote: "if there is consensus that an article violates policy, then there will also be consensus to delete" But in the Esperanto discussion, instead of "consensus that an article violates policy" we ended up with precedent and policy being brought up with no one disputing it yet users simply didn't want to delete the article namely because it is long and someone put effort into it. I know there have been others in the past where a policy violation was indisputable but some people for various reasons simply wanted to keep an article, so there is clearly NOT always a consensus to delete articles even if policy and precedent might dictate it to be an "easy delete".
  • To add to the above, if as I suspect, part of the reason that article length and time spent are being talked about is because users think it feels a bit "confrontational" and feel bad, I question whether the changes would make that better and think it may make the vfd actually feel slightly more hostile as the nominator has to go on the attack.
  • User:AndreCarrotflower: "why avoiding messy policy discussions at the price of the continued existence on our site of out-of-scope cruft is preferable to engaging with those with opposing viewpoints and coming to something that can truly be called a consensus?"
  • Specifically to Ikan Kekek (and I thank you for attempting to engage in discussion): I don't really understand your argument that beginning a discussion as "undecided" is better if there is an "innocent until proven guilty" policy versus the "guilty until proven innocent" policy. Many people enter with "Comment"/"Question" rather than "keep/delete" in order to have things clarified before they decide. Those concerns should not be overlooked any more than "keep/delete" points.
  • Just to add a point on deleting long articles: In truth, the clearer we make our policies and the sooner we act when we notice violations, the more likely we are to avoid a situation where an editor or editors spend(s) a lot of time working on an article only to have it deleted. Changing policy to accommodate articles that some people like in spite of policy violations and/or not aligning with our goals is much more likely to cause problems for editors and breed resentment than deleting someone's article with clear policy and goal-based reasons behind us. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I often have an initial position on a VfD-nominated article. For example, on the Esperanto phrasebook, it was to delete, on the basis that previous arguments simply treated it as an exception because it was a long article and "wasn't hurting anyone". Only the information about Pasporta Servo ultimately changed my mind because it is travel-related. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll also say that you could be right, and the only way to know for sure is if we do change the policy. But that said, would requiring every participant in a VfD discussion to give a reason for their support or opposition go some way toward satisfying you that there will be sound reasons for doing either? I think there should be some kind of requirement for there to be a policy-based reason to either keep or delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If we had a really active site with lots of regular editors, I'd agree that we should not change to accomodate new editors, or even sensitive ones. But we have a site with lots of skeleton articles, and lots of articles quoting prices from 2014, 2011, and 2007. A travel guide is too big a project to be managed effectively by a smallish group of efitors, no matter how dedicated. The Esperanto article has been around so long that its creator has either moved on or is a fixture here who won't leave if one article is deleted. On the other hand, the "things are working well enough as they are and there's no need to change" argument could well be applied to this article. This article was imported from the predecessor site in 2006, and Wikivoyage's integrity has not been undermined by its existence here. It has not caused scope-creep, and has not resulted in a Klingon phrasebook being accepted as an article. For my part, I prefer to embrace change as being both necessary and good for organisations. "We've always done it this way" is the weakest argument I can think of, but it works both ways. Ground Zero (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The argument isn't "We've always done it this way". The argument is "It's tried and tested and hasn't failed us" and if proven success and lack of failure is unimpressive to you, then there can be no change you won't approve and no current policy you would support keeping. That would make it seem as if the change is being supported just for the sake of change, which is really bad policy-making. The idea that you are "embracing change" while those who wish to keep a successful policy simply "don't embrace change" is a false characterization. I have supported changes and am open to change, but I don't "embrace change" without a clear purpose and compelling reason(s) as to why it's an improvement. In the broadest sense, changes are "necessary and good for organizations" but that is much different from "any change is good change" which is emphatically false. Every proposed change should have a reason that shows it is more beneficial than the previous way. Making changes and hoping magic happens is a fast road to failure, as is a "Let's just shake things up" attitude. No change is "good change" without reason.
Part of the point of the Esperanto deletion debate was that it seemed to have been arbitrarily kept when precedent was established to delete articles like it, so while it may have sat around for a while without notice, it has hit the wall now and merely existing for a long time doesn't address the issues brought forth against it. As far as scope-creep goes, we should always try to be forward-thinking and anticipatory so as to prevent it rather than dismissing concerns as paranoia under the assumption that no one will ever challenge any of our policies so we need not think about it. Sure, we don't want to be too restrictive, but I don't really think that applies to a discussion about articles about fake languages. It's a rather specific topic that really only brings clarity to what is basically already an unwritten policy in that languages like Klingon don't have a place in our travel guides. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree that the policy is a proven success. That is something you are presuming. As others have pointed out, it is inconsistent with our general bias for the status quo, and is a built-in barrier to innovation. I don't agree that scope-creep is a big problem that needs this hammer. It can be dealt with be the normal approaches since Wikivoyage editors are a reasonable bunch of people. Ground Zero (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
What's the evidence that the current policy has failed the site? I think either policy will work, and the difference should be relatively marginal and is a philosophical one related to precisely what ChubbyWimbus wrote above: Whether you fall more to the side of fearing scope-creep or preferring to let 1,000 flowers bloom. Both viewpoints are valid, but the reason I think the change, if it is agreed to, will be marginal is that you are never going to get a consensus to turn this into something other than a travel guide, but also because a lot of enlargement of this site's scope has been established and is quite unlikely to be undone. For example, I don't see any clamor to eliminate the various travel topics on bygone empires (the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, the British Raj, etc.) or journeys (On the trail of Marco Polo, etc.), and while the cuisine articles remain problematic to my mind, I doubt we'll delete the whole slew of them. So let's all accept that (1) whether we make this change or don't, the slippery slope won't slide; (2) whether we make this change or don't, there is room to innovate on this site, and it's limited only by topicality and users' imagination and initiative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
And I still haven't seen anyone suggest more than two articles - 2 - that would (have) be(en) kept under the new proposed policy that were (or would be) deleted: Marriage in China and Esperanto phrasebook. I'd really like to see another article or two be mentioned, because otherwise, I think the evidence suggests that this is quite a marginal change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Going back only as far as January 2016, I found three more: outer space (sic), St. Louis (Illinois), and Northern Rhodesia. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Going back further, a number of itineraries were deleted in 2014, that I think might have been kept under the new policy. One day in Hong Kong was moved to my user space - there were two keep votes and only one delete. I suggest we keep the existing policy of "guilty until proven innocent" for new articles, but after two years articles should be presumed to be innocent. I have chosen two years as outline itineraries are likely to be nominated after one year. AlasdairW (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
St. Louis (Illinois), really? Wow. That makes me think again. AlasdairW, I would not agree to a statute of limitations on deletion. Supposing an obviously off-topic article survived in a quiet corner for 3 years? OK, I get that your proposal is more nuanced than that, but I still have trouble agreeing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The real issue is that there are two different policies in fact[edit]

Let's be real here for a second. We all know that deletions simply don't happen to "real places" because someone somewhere started claiming we don't delete real places and everyone since slavishly adheres to that instead of actually arguing whether a place whose wikipedia article consists of stuff the census spambot wrote and which has 100 souls to its name merits coverage. However, travel topics are held to a much higher and more onerous standard. There, to me, lies the rub. We should have sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander, not apply a strict status where two out of six can delete and the simple argument "I found this place on a map once" overrules five out of six who say "Nobody lives there or cares" Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles about real places are deleted when they are created in bad faith, such as by that one Australian user we all love so much. However, when they're created in good faith, they are redirected if they can't support their own article. But where do you redirect a topic or itinerary that's either not relevant or is so undeveloped that there's really nothing to merge? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The "not relevant or is so undeveloped that there's really nothing to merge" condition happens with real places too, if there's truly nothing there worthy of even one {{listing}}. No point redirecting Toronto (Prince Edward Island) if there's nothing in Toronto (Prince Edward Island). K7L (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
But real places are inherently part of larger real places, are they not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I did drive through Toronto PEI, then turned around and drove through it again to see if I could see anything the second time. Nope, couldn't. You'd only find a place to sleep if you knocked on one of the few doors and asked to be taken in for the night. And fed. And it was a bunch of kilometres before I got to another settlement. I suppose it's part of a county, but there are only three of those in the whole province. PEI is small. Ground Zero (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I think what you're saying is their are two things that inform our deletion policy, and one of these is administrative. It's simply easier to redirect a real place - because of the way our wiki works. Deletion is an admin action, you can't see the history, etc. If deletion was a normal user action, and simply was another "revision", then we may want to be more liberal with deletions. Redirects on the other hand are very similar to deletions, and for real places they are just quicker and easier all around - the history is preserved, and the article "goes away". --Inas (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Preserving history matters if there's some content at the old page which is to be merged to the destination (indeed, Wikivoyage:CC-BY-SA pretty much precludes merge-and-delete due to the need to preserve attribution) but Toronto PEI doesn't have a history worth preserving, any more than the Unicode teacup icon has a history worthy of preservation. K7L (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that we could usefully make the "redirect for real places" only apply to cities that we can locate on the map without doubt. If we are unsure where the place is, or it is not a city/town/village then we should not redirect. For instance we have Saddleworth Square which redirects to London/East after being nominated here. AlasdairW (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
If we could have a rule that could be applied without the VFD effort, I'd support it. But applying this rule, Toronto PEI still gets a redirect. And most of the VFD discussions seem to be edge cases, where some people seem to think it can refer to a real place. --Inas (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
There are exceptions, but in general not deleting real places is a good rule. Previous discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Completely_empty_skeletons. Pashley (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I think Toronto (Prince Edward Island) would be an exception. I'd suggest nominating it for deletion and pointing to this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Another possible rewrite[edit]

This is a very different way to rewrite this section and may or may not go along with Wikivoyage’s general policies, but it would be a solution that both sides of this debate could agree with.

Existing text:

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

Possible rewrite:

All nominated articles, files or templates must be discussed on this page before being deleted. If, after twenty days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If consensus has emerged to delete the article, file, or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

If there has been discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but no consensus has emerged on either side of the deletion discussion after twenty days, the side with the most votes shall be treated as consensus. If two or more sides of the discussion have the same number of votes, the deletion nomination should be postponed until another Wikivoyager votes, and that final vote will decide what will happen to the article. However, if a deletion nomination comes to no obvious resolution after forty days, the article in question should be deleted.

If, after twenty days, only the nominator for deletion has voted on what should happen to the article, the article should be kept, the deletion nomination should be closed, and the nomination should be archived.

This might not be the perfect way express this, but this is the general idea. This would hopefully remove the bias toward guilt or innocence for articles and make sure that articles are only deleted when they should be and when there is a large group of people agreeing that the article should be deleted. Selfie City (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We've avoided simple vote-counting, because that's not a consensus and also requires policing for sockpuppets. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The sockpuppet policing is a good point, Ikan Kekek. However, we have to remember that 90% of the voting on the VfD page consists of the following editors: Gizza, AndreCarrotflower, you, me, Ground Zero, K7L, Granger, all the other administrators, and all the active users. The only time recently when we even got close to sockpuppets on the VfD was when someone said to bring in Wikipedia editors to vote on the Esperanto phrasebook. If WV had reached Wikipedia's size, sockpuppets would be a major concern, but as it stands, not enough people vote on the VfD page to even make sockpuppets a problem.
However, we could do this instead with the rewrite to remove the vote-counting:
Rewrite #1 text: If there has been discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but no consensus has emerged on either side of the deletion discussion after twenty days, the side with the most votes shall be treated as consensus. If two or more sides of the discussion have the same number of votes, the deletion nomination should be postponed until another Wikivoyager votes, and that final vote will decide what will happen to the article.
Rewrite #2 text: If there has been discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but no consensus has emerged on either side of the deletion discussion after twenty days, the deletion nomination should be postponed until another Wikivoyager votes, and that final vote will decide what will happen to the article.

That way, we won't need to do vote-counting. Selfie City (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand. Determining "the side with the most votes" requires vote-counting. Also, we have had problems with sockpuppets on this site. You haven't been here long enough to remember some of them and probably are not involved in policing a currently-active one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The point is that rewrite #2 does not mention "the side with the most votes". #2 is removing the vote-count by postponing when there is no consensus. #1 is my first possible rewrite and #2 is the rewrite based upon what you said at 20:15. Selfie City (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
One possibility is to use vote-counting but have a requirement that users can only vote if they had already made a certain number of edits on Wikivoyage before the discussion began. This is the method used on the English Wiktionary for some decision-making processes (though not for deletion discussions). Over there, it seems to deal with the issue of sockpuppets and related problems (like off-wiki canvassing). It might or might not be appropriate for Wikivoyage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, and thanks for your thoughts, but what about the other possible changes I've suggested: twenty days instead of fourteen to give more opportunity for consensus-building, the forty-day limit for consensus-building or deletion, and the automatic keep if no opinions are made besides that of the nominator. Do others think these will make the nomination process fairer? (think of previous deletion nominations, I've haven't been around so long, and think whether or not this work well with them) Selfie City (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Given the difference of opinion on what constitutes "consensus", i.e. we do have have a consensus on what "consensus" means, I think that something like this could help resolve this dispute and address the ill-feeling that is being created by it. I don't think that we should dismiss this and "just move on". Ground Zero (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus[edit]

The way things are going with the possible rewrite, nothing will change, and if no-one wants a change, that’s fine. But let’s get consensus for something.

I’m going to lay out all the options for the section of the VfD page in question. Underneath each is the consensus decision, if any:

Existing text[edit]

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

Original proposed rewrite[edit]

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it.... If no consensus has emerged to keep delete the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it close the VfD discussion. Closing the discussion does not preclude a later re-nomination for deletion. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

(Consensus decision inconclusive)

Second proposed rewrite[edit]

Deciding whether to delete is tricky because we have two conflicting goals: we do not want the wiki cluttered with useless articles but we are reluctant to throw away someone's work or to remove something that might eventually become a good article.

Where a clear consensus emerges — whether to delete, redirect, rename or move the article — we can just act on that, after waiting about a week to ensure everyone interested has a chance to comment.

When there is no consensus we wait longer — at least fourteen days and sometimes longer if the discussion is lively — in hopes a consensus may emerge after more discussion. If not, then it becomes a judgment call and the decision will usually be made by one of the wiki administrators since only they can delete articles anyway. Factors that tend to get an article kept are that it has substantial text or that many people have argued for "keep" (a good example is the debate over the Esperanto phrasebook, archived at (insert link here)). Short articles or those with only a few defenders will usually be deleted or redirected.

Where the outcome is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager can do it. Some moves can also be done by anyone. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

Where the outcome is to delete, or for a move that requires deleting a redirect first, only an administrator can do that. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

When deleting a template, consider first replacing it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name. Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it.

(Consensus result inconclusive, but trending negative)

Third ("simple") rewrite[edit]

As this site has a "status quo" bias, a nomination to delete an article, file or template, when not obvious as a matter of policy, requires a consensus. However, both those in favor of and those opposed to deletion must cite Wikivoyage policies, guidelines and/or goals in their arguments, and while the traveller comes first is the guiding principle on this site, it won't be sufficient to save an article about a garden implements store or any other kind of article, file or template that is obviously against other policies… If after a policy-based discussion, no consensus has emerged to delete the article, file or template, it will be kept. If a consensus in favor of deletion has been attained, an administrator can delete the nominated article, file or template.

(Consensus result in favor until User:ChubbyWimbus intervened)

My first rewrite[edit]

All nominated articles, files or templates must be discussed on this page before being deleted. If, after twenty days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If consensus has emerged to delete the article, file, or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

If there has been discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but no consensus has emerged on either side of the deletion discussion after twenty days, the side with the most votes shall be treated as consensus. If two or more sides of the discussion have the same number of votes, the deletion nomination should be postponed until another Wikivoyager votes, and that final vote will decide what will happen to the article. However, if a deletion nomination comes to no obvious resolution after forty days, the article in question should be deleted.

If, after twenty days, only the nominator for deletion has voted on what should happen to the article, the article should be kept, the deletion nomination should be closed, and the nomination should be archived.

(Consensus inconclusive, but leaning negative)

My second rewrite (removing vote counting)[edit]

All nominated articles, files or templates must be discussed on this page before being deleted. If, after twenty days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If consensus has emerged to delete the article, file, or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

If there has been discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but no consensus has emerged on either side of the deletion discussion after twenty days, the deletion nomination should be postponed until another Wikivoyager votes, and that final vote will decide what will happen to the article. However, if a deletion nomination comes to no obvious resolution after forty days, the article in question should be deleted.

If, after twenty days, only the nominator for deletion has voted on what should happen to the article, the article should be kept, the deletion nomination should be closed, and the nomination should be archived.

(Not enough comments for a real consensus)

My third rewrite (change to third paragraph)[edit]

All nominated articles, files or templates must be discussed on this page before being deleted. If, after twenty days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If consensus has emerged to delete the article, file, or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

If there has been discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but no consensus has emerged on either side of the deletion discussion after twenty days, the deletion nomination should be postponed until consensus is reached. However, if a deletion nomination comes to no obvious resolution after forty days, the article in question should be deleted.

If, after twenty days, only the nominator for deletion has voted on what should happen to the article, the article should be kept, the deletion nomination should be closed, and the nomination should be archived.

(No consensus, this is a new one I created that removes the one-vote change in what will happen to an article - I'm doing this to stop possible sockpuppets)

Which is best: let’s make a decision now. Selfie City (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Just remove "All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent." entirely and replace "If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it." with "If a consensus has emerged to delete the article, file or template, an administrator may do so." K7L (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I have written another draft of new wording at User:Nurg/Deleting, or not. I welcome comments on it at the Talk page there. I intend to copy it here after any further refinement of it. Nurg (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Nurg's rewrite, for consideration[edit]

I put forward, for consideration, these bullet points to replace the "Deleting, or not" section.

  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to delete, an administrator may delete it.
  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to redirect or merge, any Wikivoyager may do it. If you make a redirect, please check for any resulting broken redirects or double redirects.
  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
  • If there is no consensus after 14 days, allow a further 7 days for discussion.
    • If, after the additional 7 days, there is no consensus, the page should be kept – any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
    • If, after the additional 7 days, there is a consensus, implement it in line with the first three points above.

Additionally, I suggest that instructions about how to delete should be moved to a separate section (perhaps on the "Votes for deletion" page; perhaps at Wikivoyage:Deletion policy). The "Deleting, or not" section should be only about making the decision whether to delete, not the technicalities of execution. Nurg (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I would give my cautious support to this proposed language, recognizing that adopting this new policy might have negative effects and reserving the right to suggest a return to the current status quo if the results end up worse than the current situation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Support this proposal. However, I think all the information about the process should be detailed in one place, for simplicity's sake. That place might as well be at the top of the Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion page. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I attempted to outline concerns above with a convenient bulleted list of points, to which only Ikan Kekek responded to the one directed at him. If there is really a concern about consensus building or a desire to even keep consensus building, I'll ask again if we could first address the concerns. The main argument in favor that I saw was just to make everything "innocent until proven guilty" because other parts of the site operate that way. The vfd is different (and I don't think "being different" is a reason to change it given that there are reasons for the difference). I also acknowledge Ikan Kekek's point that neither the current policy or the new policy should dramatically change the site however, even if that is so, a policy change should always improve things, even if slightly, and if it doesn't improve things or it makes things even minimally worse, it's not a worthy change, which is my view on this proposal. So, does anyone care to address the concerns from the bulleted list above to demonstrate why/how this policy change is beneficial? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Chubby, there has been endless debate over this, with few people changing their minds, if anyone. I appreciate that you have taken the time to enumerate the arguments being made, and respond to them one by one, but this ends up being a bit of a "wall of words". You have dismissed or ignored some arguments made by people you disagree with, or simplified their arguments in a way to make it easy to counter them. This is a common debating strategy to win a debate, but here it doesn't work. Wiki talk pages just are not a format conducive to lengthy, detailed debates -- either people haven't read what you've written because there's just too much, or they decide that responding point by point at length is not a good use of their time, and they go back to creating content. I know that the latter is what I did. I've read what you wrote above, and it did not convince me. The proposals are an attempt to find common ground, rather than to win the debate since the debate isn't going anywhere. We can expend a ton of time and effort arguing over individual articles and whether there is a policy basis for them and what the precedent is (look at how much energy was sucked by the deante over the Esperanto article), or we can adopt a streamlined decision-making process and get back to building a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
To give one example, in your response to my point, "if there is consensus that an article violates policy, then there will also be consensus to delete", you argue that "users simply didn't want to delete the article namely because it is long and someone put effort into itusers simply didn't want to delete the article namely because it is long and someone put effort into it". Yeah, that isn't the central argument being made, and if you think it is, you weren't paying attention. Arguments were advanced that travellers can use Esperanto, especially because of the Esperanto home-stay network, that we have other phrasebooks for very obscure languages, that there is no other place in the wikisphete for guidebooks, and so on, but the last thing I would want to do is reopen that debate - it's over. Let's focus on improving the policy so we spend less time arguing. Ground Zero (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I am referring to the policy change proposal. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
My general opinion is that, when there's no consensus, it usually means that those in support of delete are right; but of course, I wanted to delete Esperanto. I think the supposed change needs to include a scenario where no-one votes on the nomination, something that is covered in the current VFD page but is not dealt with properly in Nurg's draft. Still, I agree that there should be some kind of postponement, which became obvious during the Esperanto discussion. Selfie City (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────But at the same time, I support the change and I hope that the change is made as soon as possible. Selfie City (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't envisage a situation where no-one votes, as the nomination counts as a vote. In the extremely unlikely scenario that no-one responds to the nomination, then the consensus (of one) will be to delete. But I'm sure this has never happened in WV or WT history - there are always people interested in sharing their opinion. Having said that, it does no harm to make this explicite in the text. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I support the proposal as well. When opinion is mixed and a consensus can't be reached, the article should be given the benefit of the doubt. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I put the wording forward without explicitly stating my opinion, but I do support the proposal. I considered the arguments of ChubbyWimbus, but I am not persuaded by them. Some points reference the Esperanto debate, which I did not follow, as I had no interest in the article (based on its title) and did not care whether it was deleted or kept. I don't have a rebuttal to all the rest of ChubbyWimbus's points, but I will comment on two. As for the rest, I feel similar to Ground Zero as just above. ChubbyWimbus said that the "it might get clicks" argument was among "attitudes that need to be fought AGAINST as they are all dismissive of the site goals". I disagree - attracting more visits might not be a stated goal, but it does help the project. ChubbyWimbus said that the "less time debating" aspect "is neither inherently good nor bad". I disagree, and so does our "Wikivoyage:Consensus#Status quo bias" policy, viz., "... to avoid endlessly debating intractable issues, so that we can spend most of our time adding new content, rather than sparring over existing content." I agree with Ikan Kekek's earlier comments that this current debate is between those who "have a bias toward deletion or a bias toward not deleting", and that a decision either way will not cause any significant damage, and is "a marginal issue that will affect articles that are close cases". I can live with a decision either way, but I think it is better to keep content in close cases, so I support the proposal. Nurg (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • And, to be clear, I also support the proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I support the proposal. AlasdairW (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I support the proposal. The exact wording doesn't matter, but we do need to lose "guilty until proven innocent" for consistency's sake. K7L (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's move ahead with this. Is this consensus? Selfie City (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Does this proposal benefit us?/What's wrong with the current policy?[edit]

I'll put this in its own heading as perhaps I should have done earlier so that it doesn't get lost and people can engage in a single setting. I still haven't seen the concerns addressed and I do think it's really important that we have solid reasons for policy changes, which I haven't really seen. At any rate, here are the concerns that have been brought up:

  • "Guilty until proven innocent" encourages participation and forces engagement in order to keep while the reverse permits a lazier and less engaged approach by those who wish to keep (Ryan claimed that it is a "good thing" to just keep articles in order to avoid vfd discussions. To me, "less time debating" is neither inherently good nor bad. Some topics warrant more discussion than others and most vfd discussions are in fact quite brief. If a user is averse to discussions, they don't have to participate. There are plenty of antisocial ways to contribute. Vfd is not and should not be one of them.)
  • Per User:AndreCarrotflower: "it's the responsibility of the person who went out on a limb to prove that his experiment is travel-related and within scope, rather than that of the community to prove that it's not travel-related and not in scope, which correlates more with the "guilty until proven innocent" status quo than with the new proposal."

The "Guilty until proven innocent" policy requires us to look at an article and determine if it matches our site goals and does not violate our policies. An "innocent until proven guilty" policy on deletion starts with the premise that every article SHOULD be here and you need to prove that it doesn't belong, but that is not true to how our site operates and is certainly not in line with our goals.

  • User:SelfieCity wrote: "My general opinion is that, when there's no consensus, it usually means that those in support of delete are right" - I don't want to put words in his mouth, but this seems to follow the above comments that if an article is so difficult to justify that it inspires a lot of debate and no clear consensus for support then it probably isn't justified.
  • From myself: "There is already a general bias just to keep everything, because "it does no harm", "someone took the time to type it so why ruffle feathers", "who cares, it's just one article", "it might get clicks", "it's long", etc. are all decision-making processes that are dismissive of our goals and should be combated. The current policy does this while the new proposal further facilitates the proliferation of keeps based on those kinds of reasons (whether spoken or unspoken).
  • User:Ground Zero wrote: "if there is consensus that an article violates policy, then there will also be consensus to delete" But in the Esperanto discussion, instead of "consensus that an article violates policy" we ended up with precedent and policy being brought up with no one disputing it yet users simply didn't want to delete the article namely because it is long and someone put effort into it. I know there have been others in the past where a policy violation was indisputable but some people for various reasons simply wanted to keep an article, so there is clearly NOT always a consensus to delete articles even if policy and precedent might dictate it to be an "easy delete".
  • To add to the above, if as I suspect, part of the reason that article length and time spent are being talked about is because users think it feels a bit "confrontational" and feel bad, I question whether the changes would make that better and think it may make the vfd actually feel slightly more hostile as the nominator has to go on the attack.
  • User:AndreCarrotflower: "why is avoiding messy policy discussions at the price of the continued existence on our site of out-of-scope cruft is preferable to engaging with those with opposing viewpoints and coming to something that can truly be called a consensus?"
  • Just to add a point on deleting long articles: In truth, the clearer we make our policies and the sooner we act when we notice violations, the more likely we are to avoid a situation where an editor or editors spend(s) a lot of time working on an article only to have it deleted. Changing policy to accommodate articles that some people like in spite of policy violations and/or not aligning with our goals is much more likely to cause problems for editors and breed resentment than deleting someone's article with clear policy and goal-based reasons behind us.
  • On User:Nurg's response, the reason "it might get clicks" is not a valid reason to support anything and is an attitude to fight against is because LOTS of things "might get clicks". Our articles should not and cannot be evaluated on their ability to get clicks. They must always be evaluated on whether or not they meet the criteria for an article and fit our goals. Cat pictures and porn have proven to attract tons of clicks, but we obviously don't allow them, because they violate many policies, aren't travel-related, and don't fit our goals. That was my point. Certainly, if something fits within our goals and can garner site traffic, we would welcome it.
  • Also, to User:Nurg's other point about debate lengths: The "guilty until proven innocent" policy does not require any more debate than the new proposal. You just delete the article (and it will never be discussed again, because it's gone). I don't think a debate must always be closed if the discussion is still productive and/or users are still working through things. That is what I meant by it not being necessary to be stringent, and I think our admins understand that as well and usually have a good sense of when things are winding down, getting off-topic, moving in circles, etc. to close discussions. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
ChubbyWimbus, you're looking at each article and thinking, "Why should we keep it?" There's nothing wrong with that viewpoint, but it will mean that the number of articles will be limited and the remaining Wikivoyage articles will very strictly follow policy. For the most part, I'm on the same side as you about this, but when you consider that 13/18 of Wikivoyage's city articles are outlines, it makes you think twice about being pro-delete for articles on the VFD page. Basically, we need all the content we can get, and keep that in mind if you want to delete an article such as the Esperanto phrasebook or Gestures.
But another way to look at each VFD is, "why shouldn't we keep it?" Because it's true that the Esperanto phrasebook wasn't doing any harm. When we need every word we can get on this Wiki, you could argue that it's best to keep every article we can. Selfie City (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree with using "why shouldn't we keep it?" as the starting point. If something is nominated for deletion, then it is nominated with some sort of concern that it is out-of-scope, against policy, etc. so there needs to be proof that it belongs. All articles do start at "delete" by the nominator by default. The vfd is not a random article check where Pittsburgh is just as likely to pop up as Thumb wrestling. As stated above, our current system encourages people to provide such proof while the change in policy permits/encourages more weasel tactics of disengaged interactions in the event of a disagreement. Putting a little fire under our feet to prove an article's value to our project forces us to always think about our goals. That's a good thing. If we can't justify an article's existence within our project, why should we keep it? Desperation for attention/clicks is not a good guiding principle. You can make anything vaguely travel-related just by adding a location. I definitely don't see a need to delete the vfd page and process in order to "keep every article we can". Also, if the scope of the site is seen as "too narrow", that is not an issue related to "guilty until proven innocent". The vfd permits permissible articles, so if the issue is that the "permissible articles" are too narrow, changing the vfd policy isn't the way to address site scope. To use the vfd as a way to dismiss the site's scope sounds like another excellent reason to KEEP "guilty until proven innocent" in order to prevent that kind of abuse. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
There are some articles here that I don't think are a good use of time and effort, such as British Empire and Musicals, so I choose not to spend time on them. They may well draw in readers, especially if no-one else is covering these topics from a traveller's perspective. And readers can turn into editors. Wikivoyage benefits from more travel-related content, not less. Where we disagree is what constitutes "travel-related". I see knot evidence that Wikivoyage is overwhelmed by non-travel articles, so we can afford to loosen up a bit in order to draw in more travel-related articles. And if we find that the policy change leads to bunches of non-travel articles popping up, we can change the policy back. Desperation for attention is not a good guiding principle, but we do need more attention than we are getting how, so loosening the policy makes sense. (I don't think this policy change, or failing to change it, will save Wikivoyage, or sink it. It will have impacts at the margins.) I do not share your belief that Wikivoyage editors cannot be trusted to make the right decisions about what is travel-related, so a higher threshold for keeping an article is required. I think we are a pretty level-headed bunch, even those who disagree with me. You would probably benefit from trying to understand that people who disagree with you are not always wrong. Ground Zero (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Ground Zero, your argument that "Wikivoyage benefits from more travel-related content, not less" is probably the fundamental reason why so many people wanted to keep the articles that have been up for deletion since Esperanto. I have to agree with you on that issue when you consider the number of outline articles on Wikivoyage that need content. Selfie City (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
And since actions speak louder than words, I rescued Salsa dancing in Latin America from deletion by updating it and adding content, as you know. To me, that's not a core article of a travel guide, but now we have an article that other travel guides don't that may bring readers our way. Ground Zero (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think Esperanto and Salsa dancing in Latin America have actually brought me more onto your side, Ground Zero. Also, when I discovered that more than 2/3 of city articles were outlines, it really hit me that Wikivoyage isn't near where it needs to be. Of course, with time, I think Wikivoyage will expand and gradually reach usable/guide status all-round, but until then we shouldn't be liberal with our article deletion. Selfie City (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

ChubbyWimbus, you're always sincere in advocating for whatever you think is of most benefit to the site, and I think that's great and a good example for everyone. And I agree with you on at least one thing, which is that "because it could get clicks" is not a good reason to start or maintain an article that clearly has no travel content and could not under any stretch of the imagination be turned into a legitimate travel topic. But where we might differ is that there are a whole bunch of topics that may have started with no obvious relevance to travel at all, but imaginative people have shown that they can be legitimate travel topic articles. So while their talk pages will show that I have often been skeptical of travel topics that started off without being obviously about travel (for example, the cuisine articles, which admittedly still need a lot more work to be the kinds of travel topics I'd want to see that would tell people where to go for a, b, c, d, e, f and all the way to z specialty), I think that if there's a reasonable way to make them true travel topics, people should be allowed to do so - if necessary, with instructions and the threat to take up a Vfd again if nothing is done within another year. And on the Esperanto phrasebook, you'll probably recall that I was always in favor of deleting it until I was convinced it was actually relevant to travel because of the Pasporta Servo organization. Even so, I would have insisted that the phrasebook be edited to eliminate content that's irrelevant to real life, such as fictional dialogues with police about arrests or with waiters in restaurants. But really, the time for arguing that there was no travel-related reason to argue for keeping that phrasebook is long past.
I don't really know how to address the speculation that there will be more laziness and less discussion if we discard the "guilty until proven innocent" policy. There is just no way to know whether this fear is justified other than by changing the policy for other reasons and then seeing.
Is there another important argument I didn't address? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, I don't think deletion discussions will decline like you say because the "bias", if you like, is now towards keeping, although it's not as strong a bias as the current text. The keep bias will make sure those who want to delete do some consensus-building, and as a result of the consensus-building those who want to keep will do consensus-destroying; so things will be fair in the end.
I think, if we exclude the way it's written (I'm not crazy about the bullets), the biggest problem with this proposed change is that it doesn't have enough checks and balances, something I'd like to see considering the lack of checks and balances in the current text. When I say checks and balances, I mean as little bias towards keep or delete as possible in the guidelines. Somewhat like the legislation/veto idea in the Constitution. Selfie City (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but the U.S. Constitution gives the President the veto power. There is no President of Wikivoyage. So what is your proposal for more checks and balances? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

One major downside of "consensus to keep"[edit]

I must admit I tuned out of the discussion for a time so forgive me if this was raised already. The problem with "consensus to keep" is that in theory a group of dedicated trolls or even one editor with clever sockpuppets could always vote "delete" on everything that comes up for VfD or even nominate and then vote "delete" and thus in theory force everything to be deleted. We know that wouldn't happen in reality, but why have a policy that allows for something like this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It does not. A consensus is required, and if you think we won't recognize trolls, then there would be much more serious problems than whether to tweak Vfd policy one way or the other. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Esperanto phrasebook deleted?[edit]

That's strange...after the last few votes and people changing their votes, I thought the consensus for keeping had become pretty clear... —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, regarding changing votes, "I'm switching to keep so we can just get this over and done with" is pretty blatantly not policy-based reasoning. Secondly, again, consensus is not a majority vote, and up to the bitter end there remained a significant minority of participants in that discussion who were for deletion based on policy-based reasons. Furthermore, as I said in my remarks at the archive page, "there was no consensus behind any of the proposals to amend our deletion policy and do away with the 'guilty until proven innocent' rule... [a]s frustrated as many of you are surely going to be, this deletion was by the book." Believe me, I understand the frustration, but part of working on a collaborative project like Wikivoyage is accepting that sometimes things don't go your way, knowing when to stop trying to force an issue, and being willing to let things go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the phrasebook couldn't remain in articlespace. Since no policy change has been made, deletion decisions have to be made under the old policy. However, a user had volunteered to have it moved to his userspace, so I think that it should be restored there. Please speak up, because I don't want to trawl through a long discussion thread to see who it was. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I did. Is it going to be linked from somewhere or is it there only for those who know to search in userspace or manage to look at the page logs? --LPfi (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
LPfi - We generally don't link from mainspace to userspace. By definition, when users adopt VfD-candidate articles into their own userspace to prevent outright deletion, it's with the understanding that the user will edit the article to bring it within scope, then reintroduce it into mainspace when it's ready. In view of the reasons given for the article's deletion, that would most likely entail converting the article from a phrasebook to a travel topic (the earlier-proposed Esperanto travel or something along those lines), though if you have other ideas, by all means. I'm sorry I missed the part where you volunteered to adopt the article; I will restore it into your userspace shortly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
As I see it, no policy-based reason was ever given for nominating this & none for deleting it, except "guilty until proven innocent" & our inability to reach a consensus to keep. Pashley (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Just because you personally were against deletion doesn't magically make the "delete" votes non-policy-based. You and the other "keep" voters presented your case but were unable to persuade enough of the deletionists to reconsider to constitute a consensus as we define it on this site. You then proceeded to try to fast-track a policy change for the explicit goal of making the deletion of the Esperanto phrasebook avoidable by technicality - which was a pretty clear attempt to game the system, but about which I kept my mouth shut for the sake of not being a dick - and again were unable to find enough people dissatisfied with the status quo (or dissatisfied enough with the status quo to prioritize overturning it in a broad sense above petty squabbles over the exact wording of the new policy). I say again: regardless of anyone's personal feelings about whether the article should have been deleted, the deletion was handled by the book and it's time to let it go and stop trying to force the issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Rein it in Andre: you are out of line. I've dropped out of this discussion because it became clear to me that the policy was going to be enforced even though doing so does not improve Wikivoyage. But I accepted that the decision was made, and I have moved onto other things.
I object, however, to you characterizing the proposal to change the policy as "a pretty clear attempt to game the system". The discussion on the policy change makes it clear that those of us who want the policy changed do so because we think the policy is wrong. Furthermore, we are committed editors who contribute a lot to Wikivoyage. Like I did when you accused us of being "self-serving", I am going to remind you that we are volunteers, here to build a free travel guide, like you are. We do not benefit from this aside from the warm fuzzy feeling we get from contributing. No-one is trying to game the system. Please stop making Wikivoyage less fun by accusing your fellow contributors of bad faith. Ground Zero (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll take you at your word that the policy change proposals were not an attempt to game the system, though I find the sudden urgency of doing away with the "guilty until proven innocent" clause odd given that no one expressed concerns about it on any of the three previous occasions in the past two and a half years when an article has been deleted despite a majority voting to keep. But to the rest of your point, a good way to get me not to accuse other editors of bad faith would be for other editors not to accuse me of bad faith, an accusation I earned for doing nothing more nefarious than enforcing policy using the procedures laid out at the beginning of the vfd page. If people here have a problem with our policies - either our deletion policy, our definition of consensus, or our policy on how to go about changing policies - that's fine, but I didn't have any hand in writing them, so their argument is not with me anyway. All I did was what I'm supposed to do as an admin; if anything, what would have been misconduct is if I had closed the nomination as "keep". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
If I have written anything that makes you think I am accusing you of bad faith, please let me know. I do not mean to suggest that in any way. Similarly, I would expect that you would take responsibility for your own behaviour, and not blame other editors for what you write. As the one who proposed the policy change, of course I take your accusation of "gaming the system" as an attack on me. I proposed the change because I only became aware of this policy through the Esperanto phrasebook VFD, and it strikes me as contrary to the spirit of Wikivoyage, and not contributing to building the project. As I set out in my argument for the change. I don't know who accused you of bad faith, but I am pretty sure it wasn't me. The contradiction between Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion#Deleting.2C_or_not and Wikivoyage:Consensus#Status_quo_bias has been raised on this page in 2013 and 2014. It's not a new issue. Ground Zero (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
None of this should be construed as an attack on, or even a reference to, you personally. You were one of several editors who advanced competing proposals to do away with guilty until proven innocent, some of whom went on to accuse me of bad faith and some of whom did not. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I said about getting it over and done with because I thought the best thing to do was to get consensus keep the article so we can get on with other things, but if we've just deleted it, I'm fine with that too. Selfie City (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe we had consensus to scrap "guilty until proven innocent" because it contradicts too many other established Wikivoyage policies, including the requirement for Wikivoyage:Consensus and the bias toward keeping every Toronto (Prince Edward Island)-sized speck on the map if they're real places. Now that we have that consensus, the article should be restored. I'm not averse to seeing this turned into a travel topic (perhaps auxiliary languages) instead of a phrasebook, but there is no consensus to delete and plenty of consensus to scrap "guilty until proven innocent" once and for all. K7L (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The most popular of the several competing proposals counted five votes in favor and two votes against. I'll remind you that consensus is not a majority vote, that consensus is also not attained by nonparticipation in policy discussions (even if ChubbyWimbus and myself hadn't spoken out against the policy, five users weighing in is an awfully small sample size, especially given how many people chimed in on the Esperanto phrasebook VfD nomination), and in the absence of consensus, status quo bias applies in all cases except VfD votes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
If all but two supported a change? Consensus does not require unanimity, as was pointed out in Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2014#No consensus to keep. K7L (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Consensus does not require unanimity, but again, it does require participation in policy discussions. Five people isn't a large enough sample size to establish a consensus. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no specific requirement as to how many users constitute a quorum. K7L (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Any reasonable reading of the “consensus is not nonparticipation in discussions” clause would take into account that five users is far less than the number that participated in the Esperanto phrasebook VfD debate, and further still less than the total number of active Wikivoyagers who would have a stake in such a policy change. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
No. Existing policy does not say “consensus is not nonparticipation in discussions”. What Wikivoyage:Consensus does say on the question of whether consensus is not created without participation is to ensure "interested individuals participate in a consensus-building discussion by soliciting feedback". This was done, feedback was solicited. If only two people of all that responded saw any point in keeping the broken 'guilty until proven innocent' and the rest expressed an opposing view, so be it. The outcome, while you disagree with it, appears valid as a consensus if consensus does not require unanimity. K7L (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────At this point I have no choice but to throw up my hands and conclude that it's pointless to continue arguing with someone who continually misreads policy (intentionally? I'd hate to be accused of assuming bad faith again, but it certainly looks that way) and twists logic into pretzels in an increasingly futile attempt to "win" this debate or be "right". This is a collaborative project, and we should be working together toward a common goal, which from time to time includes losing arguments with dignity and grace. I certainly have done my share of that in the past. Now I've suggested several times already that those who are keeping this already-resolved issue alive instead let it go. If you want to disregard that suggestion, fine - stew and seethe about it all you want - but as for me, I've already said everything I need to say about how my actions were within the parameters of policy and now I'm going to move on to more productive activities. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

5-2 is not a consensus for changing a rule, though it would be sufficient for changing a single article's pagebanner. And those opposed to changing the rule had logical concerns. So though I was on balance on the side of changing the rule (while agreeing to take that phrasebook out of articlespace), I would back Andre up on this. Plus, there was no consensus language for a new rule, anyway, and it hadn't been adopted, so expecting an indefinitely postponed decision doesn't seem reasonable to me, especially since I was not the only one in favor of changing the rule who agreed that the new rule shouldn't apply to an existing VfD nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
If a 5:2 margin isn't consensus enough to remove the one phrase "articles are guilty until proven innocent", what is? K7L (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Like 10:2, IMO, and maybe 8:2. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Personally, now that the article's deleted, I think we should just forget about Esperanto and move on. Selfie City (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Why? The problems caused by "guilty until proven innocent" go well beyond your personal agenda of deleting the Esperanto page; that's why discussion goes back to 2013. K7L (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(indent) There is no "golden number" on what constitutes "consensus". Talking numbers kills consensus in favor of vote-counting. An infinite number of frivolous votes cannot trump one well-reasoned argument. There can be a lot of nuance, and it's important to follow the arguments. If the majority of one type of vote is at the beginning and then a point is made and the last few people were to agree that the new point is valid, then the previous voters really need to re-engage or their votes could become moot (depending on what the new point is). In the above article change proposal, in terms of engagement and arguments for the proposal, it looks like a weak 2~3 vs 2, with Ikan Kekek who has stated he doesn't even care that much either way actually being the most engaged on the "for change" side. If there is so much excitement and fervor around this policy that is about more than just a desire to change it, I'd really expect more engagement and less proposals. Instead, there are a LOT of proposals with, as I said, very minimal engagement in what should be the most important part of consensus building. Even after I was accused of a "vitriolic rant" and I put up the bulleted list in hopes that it'd be easier for people to address (I did assume good faith), the concerns were not addressed, and a new set of proposals was written. I don't want to repeat myself, but I don't know how else to operate. I can accept an a reasoned consensus that doesn't go my way, but the core of consensus building should be the argument phase and engaging with the opposing side not in writing proposals that pre-assume the change must happen. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"Right at the very top, before everything else."[edit]

This text is on the VfD page and was probably written before page banners were designed to come "before everything else". Should we change this text on the VfD page slightly to make it clear that even if you put the VfD tag at the beginning of the source, the banner will still show above the VfD on the article that is going to be deleted? Also, I'd like to mention that there are two new VfD's that I've nominated that no one else has voted on yet, so if you want to vote on them, feel free to do so. Selfie City (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Archive?[edit]

Is there a limit to how long discussions can be? This page is so long that it seems wise to archive some of it, possibly 2006-2013. Selfie City (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Great idea. No-one will complain. Ground Zero (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I've done it. Selfie City (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
And expanded archive to three pages. Selfie City (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)