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)

"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)
And now four. Selfie City (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker tagged for speedy deletion[edit]

User:CommonsDelinker has been tagged for speedy deletion since May 2018. Nuthin speedy happening. The given reason is: "show global user page". Does anyone understand what is supposed to happen? Or should we ask User:Billinghurst, who tagged it? Nurg (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Once the page is deleted, the software will automatically display the content at meta:User:CommonsDelinker instead. This feature is useful because it makes it much easier for the user to maintain user pages across a bunch of different wikis (see mw:Help:Extension:GlobalUserPage for more information if you're curious). Deleting the user page as requested should resolve the situation. (Don't delete the user talk page, though!) —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I deleted the page. CommonsDelinker is a useful bot that operates centrally throughout all Wikimedia projects, so its info page ("user page") should definitely come from Meta. --Alexander (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Recommending brevity in VFD voting[edit]

I think this idea of TT's is a good one. Shorter vfd discussions would be easier to follow, and therefore I think we should recommend brevity somewhere on the vfd page. Short comments are much better than long ones, especially in the case of a vfd. People don't always have time to read a five-paragraph essay about "why this travel topic should be deleted". I don't think we should force upon people a character limit or anything like that, though. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Yep - Usr:GZ, 21 Oct 2018
  • I'm inclined to oppose, because I see no reason why discussions have to be briefer here than on any other talk page. Can you give a reason why brevity is particularly relevant here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, to be honest, my recommended brevity was specifically for dealing with pages created by vandals. I don't think that these discussion in general need to be shortened. Your argument for brevity could be applied to pretty much any discussion page on here. If people don't have the time to participate, they shouldn't feel obliged to do so. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the recommendation not to let vandals take up too much of our time may or may not have merit, but it should be seen separate from advocating censorship of length for any kind of policy or vfd discussion. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are some contributions who, as the Americans would say, filibuster some discussions, which excludes those who aren't willing to spend the time wading through long, convoluted arguments. (I'm not referring to any of the people above.) This is not specific to VFD, though. Ground Zero (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
No need to bring Nicaragua's worst "President" into this... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify, in case anyone misunderstood, that I was referring to the "project page" as the above menunlink says rather than this talk page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)