Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search


Policy on destinations "not open to tourism"[edit]

So what's our policy on place that aren't "open to tourism"? This could cover rocks in the ocean that happen to have CIA factboot pages, little military blips like Wake Island. Should we hold out with the idea that someone has been there or might want to go there? Or are they silly things to even have in the database since they'll prolly only just be CIA pages... thoughts? North Korea is another one, thought more in the wild realm of possiblity... (WT-en) Majnoona 18:01, 21 Jan 2004 (EST)

Wake Island, Sealand, and the like should not have articles, just a mention on the continent, country, or whatever page that they are not open to tourism. As to North Korea, can a Chinese visit it? Is there any country whose nationals can visit North Korea? -(WT-en) phma 20:38, 21 Jan 2004 (EST)
I read about this recently in the Globe & Mail. North Korea is apparently a vacation paradise for Chinese people. Apparently they get a real kick out of the hard-core communism -- a flash back to different times in China. It's like Colonial Williamsburg of the Far East. (There are also apparently some casinos in Pyongyang, staffed entirely by Chinese and open only to Chinese tourists. Probably another draw.) --(WT-en) Evan 21:50, 21 Jan 2004 (EST)
Well, I have two different views on this. The first is this: one of the things I hate about mainstream guides is that they tend to leave out a lot of places because they're hard to get to or certain people aren't welcome there. For example, it's practically impossible to find a good guide to Burma, because the government there has let it be known that tourism is not welcome. I think having black holes in our guide because someone says you can't get there, or someone thinks you're not allowed, is just sucky. At the very least, I want to know what I'm missing.
I think we can trust travellers not to go places we tell them are really hard to get to or really dangerous once you get there. I don't think we have any obligation to hide destinations from people just because they're really bad places to be.
Now, after all that: I also don't know what we win by having CIA factbook imports about places that we're 99.9% certain no one's ever going to write a real article about. There's a diminishingly small possibility that one of the military contractors or cargo pilots remaining on Wake Island will help us write a guide, but... I'm not gonna hold my breath. Having a placeholder for an article that just isn't ever going to be written is probly not all that necessary.
On the third hand -- Hunh! Where did that come from? Somebody call the circus! -- I'm not sure what it hurts. On the odd chance that somebody does go back in and fill out Wake Island... it'd be really cool, wouldn't it? I could see it being very useful for those some-hundreds of people who go to Wake -- there's probably not any other guide to the island. --(WT-en) Evan 21:50, 21 Jan 2004 (EST)
I concur, leave them in. A wiki is an eternal construction site by its very nature. Keeping the DB clean is a good thing, but we want to be a world-wide travel guide; we should not plan in black holes on purpose. Leave that to the traditional media. I would not at ALL be surprised if we will eventually have articles for those "black holes". This is the internet. We have an audience in the hundreds of million - the chances that of all the travelguides, someone eventually (say in 5 years) contributes an article to wikivoyage about those "black hole" places are actually pretty good. Wikivoyage just needs to generate enough overall attention. -- (WT-en) Nils 22:47, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)
A bit late to join this discussion (which I found via "what links here"), but I want to point out that a usable guide to Wake Island wasn't all that unlikely to be written, nor was it especially difficult. :)
Addressing the larger policy question: Don't underestimate the interest of people in visiting places like this. I discovered in looking up some info about Wake Island that there are people who'd like to visit it because they grew up there, have a relative who died there, they dug the movie, because of its historical significance, or simply for its status as a geographic "blip". Even if all we could tell them was, "The sand is radioactive, the waters are mined, there's an ABM laser in orbit ready to blast aircraft, and your citizenship will be revoked by members of the Commonwealth, NATO, OAS, OPEC, WTO, or Myanmar (Burma)," that'd still be a valuable article, because it'd answer their questions about traveling there. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:40, 23 April 2006 (EDT)
I agree with Todd. Furthermore, some of the military controlled islands (such as Diego Garcia) despite being off-limits to civilians actually do get a lot of visitors - military personnel are constantly rotated in and out, and a description of recreational facilities would be most welcome. Proper warnings should be in place when necessary (don't try to just land your boat on Diego Garcia). Furthermore, if the local inhabitants are truly unwelcoming of visitors, that should be noted as well. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) SONORAMA (talkcontribs) .

Undeleted pages[edit]

So, for pages that survive v.f.d., it might be a good idea to copy the discussion to their Talk pages. That might keep them from coming up again in the future. --(WT-en) Evan 16:22, 20 Apr 2004 (EDT)

No nomination[edit]

I moved the following from v.f.d., since I don't actually see an article nominated for deletion. --(WT-en) Evan 13:39, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)

Yes, I agree it wasn't a nomination: or rather it's someone mis-using the page to request a change rather than a deletion. But I didn't know whether it was possible to remove things once they were there. (Well of course it's possible, I didn't know it was policy.) -- (WT-en) Hypatia 06:07, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)

Why delete article of an important airport?[edit]

moved to Project:votes for deletion by (WT-en) Evan

Get Out the vote[edit]

I seem to be almost the only one who processes vfds these days. Contrary to expectations (see Project:External links), I'm not terribly rigid about killing the articles which would seem to be indicated from policy. This has led to an undesirable buildup of pending items. I'd like to encourage all users to vote more and make the outcome blindingly obvious. Also, if there are admins who would delete stuff if only they had a delete button to make it easy, feel free to just leave a note here or on my talk page letting me know which items and I will execute the indicated article while cheerfully blaming the admin who made the decision. -- (WT-en) Colin 03:44, 19 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I'd be happy to help in the slaughter, but alas, I don't have a delete button for normal articles — only images! (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:40, 19 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Deletion in German Wikivoyage[edit]

Can anyone delete articles in de:Project:Bitte löschen? At the moment, there is no admin in action and there are still deleting candidates from April. Thanks, 11:27, 26 Jun 2005 (EDT) aka de:Benutzer:(WT-de) Steffen M.

If there is no active admin at the moment there should be one soon. Maybe you can put up a "call for admin" in Stammtisch? (WT-en) Guaka 16:45, 26 Jun 2005 (EDT)

23 July 2005 Vandalism[edit]

All have now been deleted per speedy admin delete clause.

All these pages were created by vandalism. Were a chain of redirects caused by a page being constantly moved. Vandalism was undone by undoing each move in order it was done, now all that remains is to delete the redirect pages that were created as a result. Other pages have been redirected to similarly spelled articles. Rapid deletion is recommended. -- (WT-en) Huttite 01:13, 23 Jul 2005 (EDT)

User:(WT-en) Willy on Wheels! has declared a vandalism competition today. In anticipation of more vandalising pages I vote that any page moves that User:(WT-en) Willy on Wheels! initiates that appear to be vandalism should be undone in the reverse order that they were created and any subsequent edits by User:(WT-en) Willy on Wheels! that prevents those already vandalised pages being returned to their pre- move state should be deleted. After pages are returned to their pre-move state, any redirect pages created due to vandalism should be deleted reasonably promptly. Offensive and obscene article titles should be given priority. No further discussion should be needed concerning this user's vandalistic moves and edits. However, accept contributions that are positive and not destructive. -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:26, 23 Jul 2005 (EDT)
From the Project:Deletion policy: "Administrators may also, at their discretion, delete obviously violating articles and images, such as vandalized pages. If there is any chance that an article or image could be considered useful, they should go through the deletion voting procedure." So your proposal perfectly matches the policy. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 02:25, 25 Jul 2005 (EDT)

About the San Salvador Images[edit]

About Image:Sansalvador.JPG, Image:Teatrogransala.JPG, Image:PAALACIO NACIONAL.jpg, and Image:Galerias.jpg they are all from and the webmaster doesn't have any type of copyright on it or anything. So i dont know....... Im new to wikivoyage and i dont know about all this copyright crap.. but I hope we straighten this out.

Thanks for talking with us about it. Under the Copyright law in effect in most industrialized nations, authors DO NOT have to explicitly claim a copyright. An author's work is only placed into the Public Domain (Public Domain == has no copyright and is free for the taking) if the author very explicitly releases it. So yes, according to your statements, this is a Copyright Violation. Any chance you could take some pictures yourself? If you do, keep in mind that we want pictures that represent what the traveller will want to know about that are unique to San Salvador. For example, every city has people, so don't take pictures of people. Or trees, McDonald's, etc. Check out other front page articles to get ideas about what is good. Alternately, you could try writing to the website owner and asking if it's okay to use the pictures here under the Project:Copyleft conditions. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:07, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Well I Can't take pictures because I live in Indiana but I'm hoping to go to El Salvador Next Year but Ill write the webmaster and ask.
Good luck with that. Sadly, it rarely works, but it's worth a try. Expect the pictures to be deleted though if you don't get a response in time. If they are deleted and then you get the needed permissions, see Project:Votes for undeletion. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:22, 16 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Do talk pages get deleted too?[edit]

I would assume talk pages should be deleted when an article/image is deleted, but this isn't stated anywhere that I can find. Talk pages get deleted too, right? -- (WT-en) Wrh2 21:34, 18 Aug 2005 (EDT)

I think in some cases there's a good discussion worth preserving. It might also be a good place to archive discussion of the deleted article. Maybe the corresponding talk page should have to be voted on, too? --(WT-en) Evan 16:35, 3 Sep 2005 (EDT)
It might be a bit heavy handed to force an additional vote on the talk page, since most often the talk page discussion is simply about whether to delete the page or not. Perhaps a policy change such that deletion discussions, including the talk page discussion, get archived when the page is deleted in a Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2005/ page or some such would be sufficient? As things currently stand, it does seem a bit wrong to lose the discussion when a page gets deleted. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 14:39, 4 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Double redirects[edit]

I went through double redirects. Most of them are some leftovers after moves (mostly because of errors in names), and orphaned (sometimes links from Talk pages). I think most of them are subject to deletion. Also many of them have talk pages to be deleted. -- (WT-en) JanSlupski 15:24, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)

Why is there a need to delete most of these redirects? While deleting them may give the wiki some sort of neatness, it is unnecessary. These pages all exist as double redirects because someone redirected the page to another page that was then moved again. They will show up as orphan pages if they are not redirects. A better solution is to change these redirects to point directly at the latest or best article name. Only delete articles where it is completely unrelated to travel. -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:12, 11 Feb 2005 (EST)
Don't delete. Redirects are very practical for people like me, who often just simply type a URL to reach a page at Wikivoyage. (WT-en) Guaka 20:10, 7 May 2005 (EDT)


Would it be possible to turn on table of contents of the vfd page? It's getting too long already. Thanks. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx)

The only way to suppress a TOC is with the __NOTOC__ tag, which I don't see in that page. Most likely the TOC is not appearing because there aren't enough sections to need one -- I think you need four sections before one appears (although I may be wrong about the number). -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:53, 14 March 2006 (EST)
It seems to me that it would be useful to change the formatting so that each vfd gets its own section. Right now, it looks like a little bit of a mess, and it's harder to vote on individual vfds. Doing that would give a reasonable TOC. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 14:06, 14 March 2006 (EST)
I took a stab at trying to make the page a bit more organized - I didn't think this would be too controversial, but if anyone objects please just revert my change. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:25, 14 March 2006 (EST)
I like. It makes it easy to comment/vote on each item. And the easier it is to vote on, the more participation we're likely to get. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:56, 14 March 2006 (EST)

Swift deletion[edit]

Folks, the policy allows swift deletion and it should be used for obvious vandalism cases like Yugozcheckoslovakokai... (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:26, 30 March 2006 (EST)

Standards for photograph release, and VfD[edit]

Not sure whether this is the right place to discuss this (feel free to suggest alternatives), but: I'm getting concerned as to whether the standards now in use for deleting photographs owing to copyright issues may have tightened unnecessarily, and inappropriately, in recent times. As I paw back through the photos used for Previous Destinations of the month, I'm struck by how many of them were submitted with release language that's ambiguous at best, and sometimes nonexistent. There are a couple of these that I suspect would have been VfD'd if they'd been submitted with comparably ambiguous release language today. Is this a good thing? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:29, 6 April 2006 (EDT)

I don't think it hurts to be a bit paranoid about copyright, but you're right that there does seem to be an unequal standard applied to some images, with some people assuming good faith unless the image can be found elsewhere by searching the web, and others assuming copyvio unless the uploader specifically cites source and license. Hopefully if the proposed changes to the image upload page are made and all images are required to specify a license prior to upload then the ambiguity will be removed, and maybe at some later date we can go through all pre-existing images without specific license info and either tag them or remove them, thus eliminating the possibility that there may be copyvios on the site anywhere. In the mean time it's probably best to emphasize that in case of questionable images all attempts should be made to contact the uploader prior to listing an image for deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan 03:30, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

User:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem[edit]

This user appears not to understand our copyright differences from Wikipedia, and he is not responding to messages. We really need to track down the source of each image he's uploaded -- it seems that most of them are from Wikipedia commons. Ones which are dual-licensed with CC-bySA can be kept once we add proper links to the original and attributions. Others need to be nominated for deletion. Shalom is very prolific, and help would be appreciated on this task. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:01, 10 April 2006 (EDT)

Image in user's page[edit]

The policy here is that requests for deletion in a user's namespace by that user are granted without discussion. I just extended the logic to images of the user in the user's space [1]. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:41, 21 April 2006 (EDT)

Articles for individual diseases[edit]

Should we have them? I am opposed, at least till we have contributors who will do more than simply copy from wikipedia. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:12, 24 April 2006 (EDT)

A disease is not a travel topic. "How to stay healthy when you travel" is a travel topic. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:46, 24 April 2006 (EDT)

Policy, style, and V.F.D.[edit]

I think the votes for deletion page is a poor place to work out policies and guidelines. If there are edge cases and gray areas in our policies, they need to be dealt with on talk pages, in the pub, or by proposing new style guidelines and policy pages. VfD should be for figuring out whether current pages don't fit into Wikivoyage based on current rules, not for figuring out what the rules are. --(WT-en) Evan 19:39, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

My reading of existing policy says the redundant itinerary should be deleted under the "duplicate" rule if it cannot add something beyond the coverage of the encompassing itinerary. The beauty of a gray area is that you can legitimately see my question as a rule-making discussion and I can simultaneously see it as trying to figure out how the particular case fits in with existing policy. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:11, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
Well said. --(WT-en) Evan 20:29, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

Archive VFD discussions?[edit]

I think we should start archiving VFD discussions as these are getting more contentious. It is good to have them as reference for future decisions or for changes in policy. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 08:18, 13 May 2006 (EDT)

Separate images and article deletions?[edit]

This page is getting huge and most of it is taken up with requests for image deletions. Should those be separated from the article deletion discussions? (WT-en) Pashley 22:38, 16 May 2006 (EDT)

Agreed, I was going to suggest this too. So Articles for deletion and Images for deletion. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:23, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
Really good idea. --(WT-en) Evan 16:59, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
I've created Wikivoyage:Votes for image deletion as an image-specific VFD page. It would use a different Template:Vfid. (Along with this, I'd suggest changing this page to Wikivoyage:Votes for article deletion, with a corresponding template.) Please follow up at Wikivoyage talk:Votes for image deletion. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:09, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
Can I suggest Wikipedia's shorter names of "Articles for deletion" (AFD) and "Images for deletion" (IFD)? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:22, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
Done. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 14:56, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
Are we sure that, in the long term, this is going to be necessary/desirable? I have a sense that the zillions of images presently tagged for deletion are due to just a few "helpers" who've shown up recently. Sooner or later they'll get a clue, and after that, it's not obvious to me that the benefits will outweigh the added complexity of putting the VfDs where they should be, monitoring multiple pages for "expiration dates," multiple archives, etc. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:32, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that as Wikivoyage continues to grow, the number of clueless "helpers" is only going to increase... (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:42, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
Agreed about this issue not going away, which is also why I think we'll eventually need some more streamlined procedures for handling both bad-faith VFDs and good-faith copyvios... see Project:Deletion policy. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:17, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
Those helpers are what makes this site work. I most certainly hope that they will increase; that's the only realistic way we'll reach our goals. Making them feel welcome and giving them clue is the main way experienced Wikivoyagers can be effective. --(WT-en) Evan 11:05, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
It took me a while to find this discussion - it looks like the IFD page and template have been implemented, but do we really need them? I'd rather look at just one page to see what's proposed for deletion rather than having to keep track of two. Also, while I agree that as contributions increase the number of VFD/IFD articles & images will increase it seems that the solution of having two pages simply means we'll eventually have two very large pages rather than one. I'd like to see the current system of putting everything on the VFD page kept as-is, and in the future if that page really does get unwieldy we can discuss speeding up the deletion process, or doing something similar to Wikipedia where the VFD page is simply an index that points to sub-pages, or doing something else entirely. -- (WT-en) Ryan 05:20, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
The VfD page is currently over 30 K bytes, largely requests for image deletions. Is it time to consider splitting it? Or to use more speedy deletes on apparent copyvios, perhaps make the policy "delete on sight and send the user a note"? Or to try something else? (WT-en) Pashley 05:43, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
I vote for more speedy deletes on obvious copyvios/rubbish. But ideally we'll soon have all uploads go directly to shared, so that will make it a non-issue... yay! – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 15:02, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
No, that will just move the problem to a different location. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:52, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Her question was about whether we should reconsider splitting into AFD's and IFD's... and I'm saying no, partly because they WILL be separate if all images/files are moved and uploaded direct to shared, and also because I agree with the arguments of Ryan, etc above that 2 pages is more of a pain than one. And the VFD page right now isn't really all that out of control... I also agree with Evan that this is a good problem... it's not always fun, but that's why we have admins... to help sort out the good and bad additions. I think the discussion below about deleting vs redirecting (and actually putting our "speedy delete" policy to better use) will also help to keep the page manageable – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 16:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
D'oh... I understand your point now. Right, of course. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Two weeks to ten days, maybe less?[edit]

Moved to Project:Deletion policy by (WT-en) Evan

Move during VFD[edit]

Looking at what happened on the List of Egged lines case (which has been moved to Bus travel in Israel while being voted for deletion) I think that moving a vfd-tagged article is questionable because:

  1. We'd still have to deal with the deletion of redirects.
  2. It sort of makes us lose the sense of continuity ("which article were we voting anyway?") and the whole voting history becomes harder to retrieve (maybe someone wanted the redirect to be deleted but not the actual article, etc).

I think that moving articles sometimes can be a sound alternative to deleting them, but maybe that should be done only after the voting is finished. Can you guys think of any cases where moving during vfd is a good choice or should we add a recommendation about keeping the article title during the voting procedure? (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 14:54, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

Uh, I think that usually moving/renaming is something that's done instead of deletion-- ie it's another possible resolution. The difference this time was that it was moved before there was any sort of consensus that that was what needed to be done. It's prolly important to try and avoid waving the vfd around when what really just needs to happen is a discussion regarding the article name... which can usually happen on the talk page. In any case, this only seems to have come up this once, so it's prolly not that big a deal, but go ahead and add a line somewhere suggestion that pages not be moved until there is a concensus about what to do. (WT-en) Majnoona 15:08, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
The only reason this came up is because someone had no respect for the process to begin with. Asking people not to move an article while it's under VFD probably wouldn't be heeded any more than asking them not to remove the VFD notice unilaterally. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:21, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
I think moving is a reasonable thing -- but a note ought to have been left in the VFD that the move occured and of course a move does not cancel the vfd. And before a move, it should have been clear that a renaming was a discussed outcome. This would be similar to the common situation where someone suggests a redirect instead of a delete, and the redirect is implemented before the vfd is done. Like Todd said, the problem in this instance was someone who isn't yet understanding how to collaborate rather than the process itself. Collaboration appears to be a novel process to many contributors, and sometimes they react badly at first. If we're lucky, they learn and become helpful. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:57, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

Reverse chronological order[edit]

There's been some concern about the length of this page, which I think is kind of valid. I find it hard to scroll through all the VFD nominations to find the last one that I read, and read on from there.

I think splitting articles and images will help a lot, but I wonder if there are some other tricks we can do to make reading VfD a more pleasant experience. One thing I've seen on some Wikipedia Votes for X or X nominations pages is that they run in reverse chronological order. That is, new items are added at the top of the page.

Consider if you've read VfD items A through F, and you'd like to see what the new items are on the list. If they're in chronological (OK, alphabetical, but you get my idea) order, they might look like this:


To read the "new" items (G through J), you have to start at the top and scroll down through all the ones you've already read. If items are in reverse chronological order, the newest items are at the top:


You can start at the top and work your way down until you get to something you've already read, and stop there. For 30-50 items on a list, this can be a real eyestrain saver. I think the main point is that the length of the page stays the same, but the apparent length is shorter because you don't have to read so much of the page. --(WT-en) Evan 17:49, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

I don't think it matters much. There's a table of contents and you can just click on what you wanmt to look at. But I've no objection to the the change. (WT-en) Pashley 00:50, 5 November 2006 (EST)
I strongly prefer the status quo and would like to retain the comfort rather than bother to change the procedure. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:28, 5 November 2006 (EST)

Rail Travel & Airline Articles[edit]

While the current policy says 14 days of discussion, there is a very clear consensus that the Rail travel in Europe, Discount airlines in Europe, and Rail travel in North America should be kept. Rather than continuing to confuse the many anonymous users who are voting to keep these pages, would anyone be opposed to ending the VFD now? -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:48, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Good idea. (WT-en) Pashley 21:07, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

  • Strong support. There is a clear and obvious consensus. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:19, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
Done. The policy says 14 days, but it seems senseless to keep articles listed when there is a clear consensus to keep and the reason for listing them was not covered by the Project:Deletion policy. I think the conversation should continue about how to speed up the deletion process in these sorts of cases though. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:40, 1 June 2006 (EDT)


Now that we are making good use of catagories, should we be looking at a procedure to remove those that are not needed? I would thing this would be the place. Any comments? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 07:32, 20 October 2006 (EDT)

As Jani is fond of saying, bump. I don't see why extraneous categories should be treated any differently than other suspect pages, but Tom is right that this could use some discussion. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:52, 21 November 2006 (EST)
Agree. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:33, 14 February 2007 (EST)

"Outcome" in archives?[edit]

When doing today's maintenance, I experimentally added an "Outcome" line to the material being archived. It strikes me as possibly useful for the reader to have an easy way of seeing how the VFD process turned out. It's also just a little bit of extra work for whoever is doing the archiving. Opinions? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:52, 21 November 2006 (EST)

I like it, shouldn't be too much extra work... (WT-en) - Cacahuate 15:30, 13 February 2007 (EST)
I've been doing this too. Shouldn't be a problem. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:33, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Purging content before deletion[edit]

It seems to have become normal, or at least common, for pages up for VFD to be purged of any content other than the VFD banner. I don't think that's a good idea except in clear copyvio situations. The purge makes it hard to make an informed decision as to whether the page -- with its original content -- really should be delete. Why is this being done? Am I missing something? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:50, 8 December 2006 (EST)

I guess it should only be done if the text violates copyright or is in some way offensive. (WT-en) Xania 20:54, 8 December 2006 (EST)
I also tend to blank pages when the text is obvious vandalism or spam. I guess allowing that kind of text to remain published on Wikivoyage even under a vfd banner isn't a good idea too (but I agree that it can make it harder for others to decide on the deletion). -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 07:49, 9 December 2006 (EST)
Agree with Xania. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:32, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Images by User:(WT-en) AndyB[edit]

I've come across the following photos by this user, and each one says "Image Name, copyright Andrew Brown, 2003 (or 2004)":

They do not clearly state that they are licensed under a CC-BY-SA license. I would guess he uploaded them willingly, but it's possible he was unsure what the license meant. He uploaded these almost two years ago and hasn't contributed since, so I doubt leaving him a message on his talk page would get any response. I'm not sure what to do here. Any help? -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 16:30, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say this is am "innocent until proven guilty" case. The site does clearly tell users about the license, so if "AndyB" uploads stuff that's copyright "Andrew Brown", I'd say we can keep it. (WT-en) Pashley 18:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree that in a case such as this, where there's no reason to doubt the contributor's ownership of the copyright, that we can safely assume he meant to license them according to our standard license. (But this is also why I don't think we shoud allow uploads without a license specified.) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 00:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

deleting vs redirecting[edit]

There seems to be a lot of "don't delete, just redirect" lately... if we're going to continue in that direction, maybe we should just be putting the Merge template on the articles instead of VFD. What are the pros and cons of keeping non-articles around? Someone mentioned recently that it gives more for search engines to pick up on, so that could be good then. Is there a reason not to have excessive redirects lying around? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 21:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I would also like to have a clearer understanding of this issue. My assumption is that a redirect would only make sense if it is plausible that someone would ever search for that article title. Otherwise, being a parsimonious fellow, I thought the redirect would just be dead weight, a waste of space, clutter? The Lagansky district and Gorodovikovsky district articles looked like such dead weight, but if they boost search results, would it then make sense to actually make a bunch of non-article redirects for all sorts of minor sub-regions/districts? --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 21:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I've come to feel that a redirect that helps someone find (or link to) the information they were looking for is probably good one. I'm not thinking of search engines so much as Wikivoyage visitors, who might not guess correctly whether we decided X needed its own article or could be part of another. So if we can look at an article title and confidently assume "someone looking for X probably wants Y", we should redirect it; if not then it is clutter, so zap it. With that said, I'm not sure redirects are valuable enough in that regard that we ought to go around making bunches of them proactively; it's more of a way to make lemonade out of a lemon. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 00:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I've done some redirects proactively User talk:Pashley#Test_old_names. Where there are two or more fairly common names, or an old well-known name and a new official one, we need a redirect to whichever we choose as the article from the one we reject. (WT-en) Pashley 00:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, they're certainly a good idea in many cases. I was just cautioning against getting carried away with it just for the sake of snagging search engine traffic. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
My main reason for suggesting this is that it's something any user can do, and it doesn't clutter VfD. --(WT-en) Evan 11:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
So then I guess I'd like to know more opinions about where we should draw the line between vfd and redirect. As of now, our criteria for deletion is if an article has no potential to become an article within wt's goals then it should be deleted... like articles for specific churches, hotels etc... and it even says if there are duplicate articles for the same place (and gives the example of Holland/Netherlands) that one should be deleted... especially the latter I think we'd all agree would just be a redirect. Hotels and restaurants, among others, are even listed in the "speedy delete" criteria, but I see these being redirected sometimes as well. So can we decide more specifically what to do and maybe rewrite part of the deletion policy to reflect it? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 14:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I think you're right that the "duplicate article" criterion for deletion is inconsistent with our practices... and I like our practices, so let's change the criteria. I don't think it's a good idea to redirect hotels and restaurants instead of deleting them, because it implies that we want to create those kinds of redirects, and they really don't serve any useful purpose. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
My feeling on this are that we should not leave too mnay redirect articles around that people can change into unwanted (against policy) small artciles without people noticing. It is meach easier to spot an N in the recent changes and decide whether it is worth an article than to spot changes to current redirect articles. I have heard people talk about "broken windows" in the past - is this similar? If we do decide to carry on doing redirects a lot, do we want a Project:Votes for redirection? -- (WT-en) DanielC 13:17, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Would a sensible (and simple) policy be to delete, rather than redirect, when the article in question does not meet our Project:What is an article? guidelines? --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 13:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I think there are situations where we want to redirect a non-article title to an article. If someone sees we don't have an article for Greenfield Village (a large attraction) they might "helpfully" create one, but if we redirect that to Dearborn, where there's info about it, they probably won't. Someone turning a redirect into an article is less likely... and if someone does, we can usually fix it (with a quick merge) easily enough when we find it. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, sometimes it makes sense to redirect a non-article. I have vfd'd Eden project, but that is actually something a traveler might search for and specifically want to go see. It probably is a very good candidate for a redirect to the closest town rather than deletion. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
What seems still unresolved in this discussion is whether the creation of non-article redirects is either undesirable because it encourages the proliferation of non-articles, or desirable because it preempts non-articles. My feeling is that the "is it a real place" criterion is too broad—maybe the policy could be: redirect, rather than delete, non-articles that someone might conceivably search for? --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 15:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
Sounds like we're leaning in favor of redirecting attractions and destinations that you can't sleep in. I'll start doing that then too, and hopefully that will help diminish the amount of vfd's a little. I'd rather continue "speedy deleting" articles for hotels and businesses though. Any objections to that? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 04:58, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Agree, delete hotels and businesses, but redirect major attractions to containing or nearby town. If they get enough text to be unwieldy there, then move them out to their own articles. (WT-en) Pashley 06:38, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
A couple of cases recently suggest a new rule. There was a museum that wound up redirected to Dinosaur Provincial Park and Savica Waterfall looks like it will be redirected to a national park. Can we say in general that attractions in national parks should be redirected to the park? (WT-en) Pashley 20:45, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
I feel like our practices on redirecting v. deleting have strayed pretty far from the text of our Project:Deletion policy and we should probably update the policy to reflect this. Ultimately, it seems that if a redirect is possible, then it is better to redirect than delete. That is, if the place actually exists and is contained within a single destination article, we should just redirect to that article because 1. Redirecting is "cheaper" than going through the deletion process and 2. Redirects up page counts for the target article. Have I understood this well enough to change the policy, or would others object to this change? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes we should update the deletion policy... I think we're agreeing to delete restaurants hotels and private businesses, and redirect attractions including museums and waterfalls to the city/park/region that contains them – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 06:21, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm not going to bother reading the entire discussion, but I just wanted to say I dislike most redirects and think they should rot in hell. Viva the delete button! -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 06:27, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
More cases turn up as VFDs all the time, latest is Nalanda, ruins of a university near Patna. Last week, the Alhambra. I'd say major attractions like the Alhambra or Taj Mahal should have redirects. I think people might know of them but not have a clue what city or region they were in. (WT-en) Pashley 20:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Kal0[edit]

I'm deleting these as they look to be from the same contributor as User:, User:, User: and User:(WT-en) Mainer2006 - places with little-or-no population that generally aren't even listed in Wikipedia, and in this case filled with listings whose address aren't even the same city. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:22, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Mass deletion of images on Shared[edit]

User:Tatata has embarked on a campaign to tag all images on Shared with valid licenses. This is a very good idea, but he wants to VFD everything unless somehow proven otherwise, which is IMHO not the way to do this. Please see wts:Wikivoyage_Shared:Travellers'_pub#Images_without_license_or_information and chip in. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:02, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

orphaning images before vfd'ing[edit]

I added a couple words in the intro to clarify that we shouldn't always orphan an image before adding it to the vfd page, but an anonymous user reverted my changes, which I've reverted again... I think images should only be orphaned first if they clearly meet the vfd requirements and we're just going through the motions of a vfd for the sake of policy. It's much easier for the admin clearing out the outdated vfd's to remove images from articles when deleting them than to figure out where they need to be readded to if the vfd fails. That line has been bugging me for a while, does anyone else disagree with my changing it? I'd even vote for cutting out that line altogether – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:21, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree. Images should as a rule not be orphaned when listed for vfd; they should be orphaned when deleted. We might want to put some additional text on Confirm delete to remind admins to orphan images and articles before deletion. If an image is in such bad taste or such a clear candidate for deletion that it needs to be removed from a page, then it probably qualifies for speedy deletion rather then the vfd process.
A really nice feature would be if [[Image:]] could detect the vfd template on the image page and display a small vfd notice where the image is used. I think a lot of image vfd's go unnoticed and undiscussed by wikivoyageers until such time as the image is actually deleted. A number of times contributors have questioned by deletion of an image after the vfd process has completed, since they did not know that it was vfd'd.
--(WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:26, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
That would definitely be nice... maybe since you're so handy with templates you could create Template:ifd as a smaller version of the vfd one, which could be inserted into the image description on the page that it appears on. Only problem is that most images are on shared, so we would probably need 2 separate templates... one for directing to the :en vfd page, and one directing to the :shared vfd page. Perhaps Template:ifd shared or Template:ifds? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
I'd actually prefer if we can do this in some automated manner without adding another step requiring us to add templates where ever the image is used. A mediawiki patch to the [[Image:]] code should allow it to automatically detect the {{vfd}} template on the image's page on either en: or shared: and insert a small notice with the image. I'll test this locally to see if that can work and how much overhead it will generate. If it looks feasible I'll speak to Evan to see if he is willing to patch WT's mediawiki with something like this. If this can't be done I'll look into a Template:ifd type template. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:03, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
See also Project:Deletion_policy#Orphaning articles/images - how to restore the links?. I'd be in favor of only orphaning prior to actual deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:06, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
On third thought, I'd really like to cut out the entire line about "prep work"... it isn't necessary, and not generally how we've been doing it... anyone disagree if I remove it? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:04, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
Bullet #2 right? I think it would be fair to remove that line—we have been taking the steps it lists only after reaching a final decision on the vfd page anyway. And it generally makes sense to orphan/merge vfd'd content only after we are fairly certain it is going to go. Orphaning an image for a vfd that gets voted away creates two unnecessary steps: the orphaning and the de-orphaning. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:36, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
Makes sense to remove it; we are not following it anyway. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 02:56, 29 October 2007 (EDT)


Had a bit of a look around and I think that messing with a mediawiki patch to change the way [[Image:]] behaves might be a bit more involved than what I would like to get into right now. As per (WT-en) Cacahuate suggestion I have create a simple template (Template:Ifd) that can be used to add a notice where the image is used. If this looks usable then we can create one for shared as well. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:44, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
That looks perfect to me! – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 16:07, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

CC by-sa not-1.0 images[edit]

Have I missed discussion somewhere to delete CC by-sa images that are not licensed under version 1.0? Last I checked, there was still plenty of uncertainty about the migration process, and IMHO deleting these would be jumping the gun. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:27, 3 January 2008 (EST)

There was some discussion on Shared. I have been vehemently anti-not-CC-by-SA 1.0, but I think this would be an excellent issue for IB to step up and offer their resources (lawyers) to settle the matter. I understand Evan's thinking on the subject about upgrading the site's license, but the legality of that seems unclear too. Not to mention the hassle. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 05:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)
There is also discussion at Project:Travellers'_pub#GFDL_and_Creative_Commons. I'm becoming vehemently pro CC-by-SA 2.0 or 3.0 for compatibility with others. (WT-en) Pashley 08:37, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Moved to Wikivoyage_talk:Copyleft#GFDL_and_Creative_Commons. (WT-en) Pashley 10:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Probably the best discussion to date is at Wikivoyage_talk:Image_policy#CC_by-sa_1.0_and_CC_by-sa_2.0. To quote Mark:
The reason that you can use CC by-sa 2.0 images in a CC by-sa 1.0 work is that the 2.0 version imposes no restriction on re-use that the 1.0 version does not impose. Content owners rights are fully respected when their work is used in accordance with the additional restrictions (however tiny they might be) which are present in the 1.0 version of the license.
This is logically equivalent to us allowing CC by 1.0 images: CC by-sa 1.0 is more restrictive than CC by 1.0, so if you follow the by-sa guidelines, you're also following the by guidelines.
Based on this, I suggest we clarify in the image policy that CC >1.0 images are allowed. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:21, 5 January 2008 (EST)
...and to cover our legal ass I've asked the friendly folks at CC for an opinion. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:32, 5 January 2008 (EST)

So here's Mike Linksvayer from CC. Basically, my logic was wrong, but the end result is right:

BY-SA 2.0 pretty clearly says *later* version, which BY-SA 1.0 clearly is not. That said, it is not clear that merely including an image in a web page causes that entire page to be a derivative of the image, triggering SA. For example, BY-SA images are used in Wikipedia articles, licensed under the FDL, which is not now compatible. But they do and you would have to provide notice of the license the included image is under.
This is a complicated issue and CC cannot give legal advice (even if it were a simple issue).

So, yes, we can use CC >1.0 images embedded within Wikivoyage, as long as appropriate notice is given. (Which it is: click on the image and it clearly shows the license.) Hell, according to this, we could even use GFDL images! However, no, we can't retroactively change CC by >1.0 images back into 1.0. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:50, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Khun, please read the above and stop VFDing images with CC >1.0 licenses. Since Creative Commons says including images in web pages is OK, and the original license is correctly recorded on the image page, and the community consensus seems to be that usage of such images is acceptable, I'm going to suggest amending policy to note this explicitly and a speedy keep on all images VFD'd only for this reason. All in favor, say aye! (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Already read the above, thanks.
OK to display in a web page isn't enough (and they didn't even say OK, only not clear that it isn't OK).
I've read many discussions about this, and "community consensus seems to be that usage of such images is acceptable" is bullshit.
But if you can get a consensus to speedy keep all images VFD'd only for this reason, I can take a hint.
~ 07:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Sure, there's plenty of debate and no consensus on whether and how to migrate 1.0 to a later version — but that's not the issue. The issue is, can a CC >1.0 image under that license be used as part of a CC 1.0 work? It's a little grayer than I'd like, but if CC and Wikipedia think it's good enough, then it's good enough for me.
I'd suggest adding the following to Image policy:

Images must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC by-sa) or a compatible license. Compatible licenses are:

The preferred version is Any Attribution-ShareLike (v1.0 and above). Use of CC by-sa versions that exclude 1.0 is allowed, but discouraged, as re-use of them requires explicitly noting the different version.

Comments? And oh yes, let's finally merge the en Image policy into shared Image policy as Senor .4 long ago suggested. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:00, 1 February 2008 (EST)
You say "Sure, there's plenty of debate and no consensus on whether and how to migrate 1.0 to a later version" but just in case you missed it, what I said was "I've read many discussions about this, and "community consensus seems to be that usage of such images is acceptable" is bullshit.".
You say "but if CC and Wikipedia think it's good enough, then it's good enough for me" - good enough to display as a web page, yes - but not for other purposes. ~ 08:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)
What I'm saying is that I see plenty of debate about migration, but (AFAIK) you're the only one calling for deleting CC >1.0 images.
And the policy here is for the set of web pages called Wikivoyage. The responsibility for reusing correctly is the re-user's problem, not Wikivoyage's. If somebody takes Wikivoyage CC by-sa 1.0 content and doesn't mention the license, it's not our fault, and neither is it our fault if they use 2.0 content and don't mention that it's 2.0. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:39, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Speedy keep all. It would make a lot more sense to gather a consensus to delete <1.0 images somewhere aside from the VFD page before flooding it with nominations – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Speedy keep all. I think it's clear that CC-by-sa 2.0 and above images can be included in our articles, both legally and within the spirit of the contribution of those photographers. -- (WT-en) Mark 13:26, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Archiving of VFD discussion where the outcome is keep/merge/redirect[edit]

Project:Votes for deletion says: "If the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then ... copy the deletion discussion to the talk page of the article being kept or redirected." and then a bit further down "copy the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month"

Project:Votes for deletion/Archives says: "2. All vfd discussions are to be archived here, whether the outcome was deletion, keeping the article, redirect/merge, etc."

So just confirming - copy it to both? Or does the above need to be amended? ~ 10:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

This bothers me too. IMO vfd decisions to keep/merge/redirect should be archived at the relevant talk page, not on the vfd archives page. The vfd archives should exist only to archive discussions that have nowhere else to go (since the appropriate talk pages have been deleted). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:46, 10 January 2008 (EST)
I disagree. The two archives service different needs, and both should be used. Keeping the discussion on the article's talk page provides useful precedent the next time the article comes up for VFD -- as they often do. Keeping it in the monthly archives (1) maintains a convenient way of ensuring that VFDs have been processed correctly, and (2) allows searches for precedents where the searcher doesn't remember the name of the article in question. The VFD archive is our corporate memory, not just for what has been deleted, but also for how the whole process works. It should be inclusive. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:10, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Fair enough, I hadn't really thought of that second argument, but that makes a lot of sense. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Couldn't we have a post-VFD template to pop on the article talk page to explain that the page was VFD'd, that the outcome was to not delete and that the discussion has been archived, and to generate a link to the appropriate VFD discussion archive page? Something like {{vfdkept|January 2008}} - ?
In principle, yes, and if we were constrained on storage space so that we needed to minimize redundancy, that would be the way to go. In practice, we're not so constrained, so why not make the information available directly and easily? Talk pages aren't our face to the world, and it doesn't hurt to have them "cluttered" with stuff like the VFD discussions. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:52, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Archiving of VFD discussion where the outcome is speedy deletion[edit]

The guidelines don't currently cover this. Presumably if there's only a deletion nomination, that can also be speedy deleted without being archived. What should the guidelines suggest be done if the VFD page discussion about an article page that's speedy-deleted comprises comments from more than one user? ~ 06:47, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I don't see a problem as long as everybody agrees that it should be speedied. Of course, if somebody disagrees, then it's not a speedy deletion candidate anymore and should go through the full VFD process. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:46, 12 January 2008 (EST)
BUMP! I think the guidelines should be tweaked - anyone have any further input before I propose how to clarify the policy? ~ 16:41, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Personally, I don't find the archiving process "speedy". If it's an uncontested speedy, then I say let someone delete the nomination (estimated time: 10 seconds) instead of archiving (estimated time: 90 seconds). --(WT-en) Jonboy 16:50, 29 January 2008 (EST)
I'd rather we archive everything that gets listed on vfd when deleted. This will give the contributer that listed it a record of what happened, regardless if it was deleted after 14 days or speedy deleted. Articles that are speedy deleted on sigh by an admin before being listed don't require archiving. Granted, it does take a bit longer, but collectively we actually do have a lot of time to manage it. --(WT-en) Nick 00:55, 30 January 2008 (EST)
How about this as a compromise (this for anything where the outcome is a speedy delete): if there is no VFD page nomination, then only delete the page and don't archive anything; if there is a VFD page nomination but no discussion on the VFD page (so nothing more than straightforward "Delete" nomination/votes - in other words, there really isn't anything worth archiving, only an unqualified consensus to delete) then delete the page and don't archive anything; but if there is a VFD page nomination and any form of discussion (so there's more than straightforward "Delete" nomination/votes, even if there isn't an outright objection - in other words, there's actually something actually worth archiving) then archive the discussion as appropriate (normally to VFD archive page only, but in exceptional circumstances also to article Talk page at the discretion of whoever is doing the deletion/archiving).
Another suggestion: speedy delete nominations which don't need archiving (as defined by the above suggestion) don't need to be (and probably shouldn't be) removed from the VFD page immediately. They should be left there for at least 24-48 hours, and are very easy to clear off the page en masse later. ~ 02:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Bump. I support 203's compromise suggestion. We often get nominations for articles just before an admin speedy deletes them (e.g., an article named In fairness, those probably don't need to be nominated to begin with, since they stick out like a sore thumb on recent changes, but when they are, it would be nice to just remove them from the page once deleted. If anything, they only clog up our archives with stuff that isn't really relevant to anyone looking back through them (no one would have to check why the log says we deleted [[]]).

An edit summary on this page when removing a clear speedied nomination stating "speedied" should be enough, right? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:44, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Why the "Don't know" tag does not apply[edit]

I can buy the argument for deleting images without explicit license tags on Shared, because there is a license pulldown, and anybody ignoring that clearly has no clue. However, here on en, Special:Upload clearly states:

All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0.

So there is no such thing as a "don't know" on en -- all images are CC by-sa 1.0 unless otherwise specified. Hell, you could even construe that to say that all images uploaded are CC by-sa 1.0 in addition to any other license the user may choose to specify! (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:00, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I absolutely agree. There's no such thing as a "don't know" license on Wikivoyage. Anything that lacks a specific notice is CC-by-sa, so long as the author has sufficient rights to grant. -- (WT-en) Mark 13:58, 5 February 2008 (EST)

CC-by-SA discussion (A)[edit]

...continued from Image:Viking ship in Stockholms strom.jpg

What you're suggesting conflicts with the second sentence of Wikivoyage:Copyleft which says: Anyone can use Wikivoyage content according to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license.
Can you provide a link to a reputable expert resource which confirms that non-CC-by-SA-1.0 content can be legally incorporated into CC-by-SA-1.0 content (NB: NOT that the two can be displayed on the same web page, but that they can be merged and the result then distributed as CC-by-SA-1.0)? ~ 05:36, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Jani contacted CC about this and they responded, but that is just about what we can do as a web page and does not touch on redistribution. Again, the main issue seems to be the text of our copyleft, not our practice. Perhaps we should either add caveats about the images and redistribution, or we could come up with a way to have image licensing automatically display in the print-versions of Wikivoyage pages. But I don't think breaking with our years-old practice and mass deleting non-1.0 images is the way to go. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
I don't think Wikivoyage should accept images it can't redistribute.
Creative Commons have confirmed that this image can't legally be redistributed as part of a Wikivoyage article, and it clearly conflicts with both the letter and the spirit of Wikivoyage:Copyleft, so it should be deleted. ~ 06:16, 23 January 2008 (EST)
I'm very confused by this last response. These images can be redistributed with our guides. That's not so much an opinion as a fact, the WTP Chicago guide, which should be available shortly, uses lots of CC-2.0 images and properly attributes them. We just need to 1) explain how and 2) make it easier to do, rather than rush to delete useful images. And I certainly don't see how you say that this image conflicts with the spirit of the copyleft—that Wikivoyage guides be reusable by anyone for any purpose, provided that they are properly attributed and shared-alike. And where did CC "confirm that this image can't legally be redistributed as part of a Wikivoyage article?" --(WT-en) Peter Talk 06:48, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Are you suggesting that separately licensed text and images can be combined on the same printed page and the result not be considered a derivative work? ~ 07:39, 23 January 2008 (EST)
I suppose you could either consider it a single derivative work, or simply a print out containing several original works. But I don't think that matters, so long as whoever prints it out for redistribution does include licensing information & attribution information for whatever is on the page.
Speaking of which, our current "print-version" pages do not include any attribution information (in addition to licensing information) for images. This is in violation of licensing requirements (for anyone who prints them out for redistribution) & we should fix this. File attribution & licensing information should automatically appear on print-version pages that include the file. But following the logic by which you are arguing to delete this image, we should instead delete all images?!, since our current print-version format does not properly attribute them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 08:08, 23 January 2008 (EST)
I don't think there can be any doubt whatsoever about this - if you take some text describing a place, and some pictures of the same place from another source, and combine them, print them, and sell them as a guidebook - that guidebook is a derivative work. Agreed? ~ 08:57, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Now, you've neither responded to my points nor explained why this is relevant, but no, not agreed. There most certainly is doubt—the very response from CC, which I linked above, says word for word, "it is not clear that merely including an image in a web page causes that entire page to be a derivative of the image." I don't see the difference between a print-out version and the web version. And ultimately, as I've said at least twice above, what is important is that all content is accompanied by proper attribution & note of its license. We do that on the web, regardless of image license—that's what is required by any CC-by-SA license. We don't do that in print, regardless of image license. So again: we do not need to delete these images. We do need to fix our print output to include image licensing & attribution info. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)
I'm not sure I agree with your definition of derivative. Switching media itself will probably qualify as derivative. I'm not sure why that is germane to this discussion because it doesn't address the licensing issue but a printed guide book that is an amalgamation of many articles here would, I think, automatically qualify as derivative. Also, by my reading of copyleft, every contributer to the original pages would need to be acknowledged in the print version. --(WT-en) Wandering 13:26, 23 January 2008 (EST)
There is a difference between web and print. For print, the entire derivative can only be distributed under one licence (or one set of licences, each licence covering the entire derivative), and that licence (or set of licences) has to be compatible with the copyrights on the work that comprises the derivative. ~ 09:41, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Says who? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:48, 23 January 2008 (EST)
This is all very confusing. Peter's edits notwithstanding, it still seems to me that the ONLY proper license is 1.0 and any contribution that is not made under 1.0 should probably be deleted because the contribution was not made according to the terms and conditions set out by wikivoyage. How can we say that contributions not properly licensed will be deleted and then keep them anyway? If many images have to be deleted then that is too bad but the number of incorrectly licensed images should not be a factor in figuring out licensing issues. Even if we make changes to licensing down the road, I don't see how those changes can apply to contributions made in the past so, IMHO, we should delete the images, fix the licensing, and move on. If you've used improperly licensed images in your Chicago book, I wouldn't worry too much because, even if they were improperly uploaded on wikivoyage, a license for use exists. I don't see how you can get sued by an unhappy wikivoyage contributer. --(WT-en) Wandering 13:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I was giving one example of a derivative, not a definition.

It's germane because derivatives can't comprise works with incompatible licences.

I don't understand why it would be OK to use "improperly licensed images" on the basis that "a license for use exists".

I don't understand why the likelihood of being sued is relevant - surely our concern should be to ensure that Wikivoyage is legit? ~ 15:08, 23 January 2008 (EST)

OK - about derivatives and incompatible licenses. My point about being sued or not was just un-lawyerly advice. Since Wikivoyage Press has apparently no relation with wikivoyage, the legal position of the producers of the Chicago guide is not for me to determine (unless I think they are improperly using my contributions). My point is pretty straightforward here - any image not explicitly licensed as cc by sa 1.0 should be deleted. --(WT-en) Wandering 15:23, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Perhaps we should have a separate discussion on the implications of the current licensing scheme and printed guide books in the wikivoyage press pages. I think there are a number of issues that need to be clarified - including, but not limited to, the definition of a derivative work, the rights and responsibilities of the person who reuses the works, the rights of the original contributers and how they will be protected, and, though this is not associated with licensing, making it a responsibility of wikivoyage admins to declare a commercial interest in wikivoyage material.--(WT-en) Wandering 15:23, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, we will need to move this discussion as well.
Now lets try and clarify this discussion, as a lot of what is being discussed is frankly irrelevant. In particular, I have no idea why 203 is making assertions about definitions of derivative works—definitions are decided by the existing text of the CC licenses, not by us, and anything left unclear is open for pragmatic interpretation. Also, the statement "I don't understand why the likelihood of being sued is relevant - surely our concern should be to ensure that Wikivoyage is legit?" indicates a profound misunderstanding of the legal issues under discussion. As Mike Linksvayer from CC said, "it is not clear that merely including an image in a web page causes that entire page to be a derivative of the image, triggering SA." Because the license does not address the issue under discussion, we are in a legal gray area and therefore there is plenty of room for interpretation by interested parties. Ultimately our goal in dealing with such an undefined legal area is to make sure we do what is best for Wikivoyage, meaning a) what makes sense for running the site, and b) what keeps us (or IB) from getting sued. Deleting all non-1.0 files would clearly make no sense for running the site, and there is little if any chance that anyone would sue us (particularly if we make the changes under point three below), and even if they did, it is extremely doubtful that they could win, since they would have to show damages, which would be a task of Kafkaesque levels of absurdity.
First, our copyleft is not a piece of legislation, it is a policy we create. If it contradicts something we are doing, we can simply change it—the only thing that could prevent us from changing it is if the change would undermine what we understand to be the rights of previous contributors and users. Changing the text of the copyleft to allow non-CC-by-SA-1.0 files does not undermine anyone's rights, since it does not affect anyone's contributions at all. It merely conforms the text to a practice that has been used throughout pretty much the entire history of the site.
Second, to keep our site "legit," all we need do is ensure we are complying with the terms of the licensing of material on our site. We already do this, as we provide attribution & licensing information for all material on Wikivoyage.
Third, There is one legal wrinkle that we need to work out, because although we have kept to the terms of share-alike in listing the appropriate licenses for individual files, we have also given the impression in our Copyleft & elsewhere that all the content of the site is available for re-use under CC-by-SA 1.0. This is not accurate and is arguably a violation of the share-alike clause for files licensed under share-alike versions >1.0. More importantly, we should be clear about this to help downstream users re-use wikivoyage content, in line with our basic goal of print re-usability.
To fix that third point, we need to 1) alter all text advising down-stream users that they can re-use all WT content under the CC-by-SA license to indicate that they should also include image-specific licensing; and 2) optimally, alter the code by which print-version articles are generated to automatically grab licensing & attribution information from the Image credit template.
While some of the discussion may be irrelevant wrt whether or not to delete this particular image, I wouldn't call it irrelevant by any means. The collective work/derivative work distinction arises because, according to the license, derivative work has to be licensed cc-by-sa-1.0 while collective work can be from multiple sources, each with a different license, as long as each component is correctly attributed. It would seem to me, and I could be wrong, that improperly licensed images in derivative work would render that derivative work to be not in compliance with the terms of the cc-by-sa-1.0 license. Since the definition of collective work includes 'unmodified form' and the definition of derivative work includes "any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted," I would assume that print (as opposed to web) is a modification. Of course, an easy work around for this exists by ensuring that, at any single point in time, the web version matches the print version (unless a printed guidebook is itself considered to be recasted - but that's best left to lawyers to hash out).
I also disagree that the problem is with copyleft. The problem is that wikivoyage has explicitly informed contributers that all material is cc-by-sa-1.0 and can only be cc-by-sa-1.0 and then allowed the selection of other licenses when uploading images. cc-by-sa-1.0 says "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You." Seems pretty clear to me. Unless there are legal opinions on equivalence between the different licenses, I still don't see how we can keep images not properly licensed. If pragmatism were the only constraint, there would be nothing to stop us from copying text from wikipedia and then waiting for a lawsuit. Obviously, we don't do that here. --(WT-en) Wandering 21:55, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Your first point, if I understand correctly, is that the print version of Wikivoyage articles is a derivative work comprised of the images & text on the page, while the web version is a collective work. If this were true, we could not include images in the print versions that are anything other than CC-by-SA 1.0 because that would compromise the essential promise of our copyleft—that anyone may print out & redistribute our guides provided they include attribution & share-alike. If this were true, then we could also just solve the problem by simply adding image tags to the thumbnails in question telling our software not to include them in the print versions. So even if this were true, as you argue, it would still be a bad idea to mass delete all non CC-by-SA images, since there is a more practical way to deal with the problem.
But I don't accept this argument at all. Why on earth would reading a WT guide on paper rather than online turn the exact same body of collective work into something derivative? The act of printing out a WT article does not somehow negate the fact that it is a collective work, created by the collective contributions of all the contributors to that article. To make it a collective work, under the broad wording of the CC-by-SA licenses, all one needs do is assert that they have not changed it substantially to warrant a claim of ownership over a new form. In any rate, that decision (and it is an easy decision to make) is, as you say, up to the re-distributor to make, not for us. We do, however, have an obligation IMO to make it clear to downstream users that our work is a collective work that sometimes does include works with different licensing than 1.0 Attribution-ShareAlike, which will require proper attribution and licensing.
I disagree completely with your second point. The problem is not that "wikivoyage has explicitly informed contributers that all material is cc-by-sa-1.0 and can only be cc-by-sa-1.0" while allowing files under other licenses. That betrays nothing to the contributors who either decided to contribute text under CC-by-SA 1.0, nor does it betray anything to the contributors who uploaded files under other accepted licenses in violation of the outdated text of our policy which did not match our practices. The problem is that Wikivoyage has explicitly informed re-distributors that they could redistribute our guides without citing any licenses beyond CC-by-SA 1.0, when in fact we do have images in our guides under licenses that require ShareAlike under non-compatible later versions of CC Attribution-ShareAlike. That has already been done and we cannot undo it, we can only set about correcting it in the future.
There are two options for correcting this problem. The first, as has been suggested in this thread, would be to delete all images on site that require ShareAlike for licenses other than CC-by-SA 1.0 (that would be all CC Attribution-ShareAlike licensed files 2.0+). The second, as I've proposed, would be to clarify our instructions to down-stream redistributors of Wikivoyage content. This would entail rewording several of our MediaWiki files & adding clarification to our copyleft. I argue that we should go further than this and also rework the way in which print version articles display attribution & licensing to make it easier for downstream users to comply with the terms of CC Attribution-ShareAlike. But it seems to me very obvious that the second option is superior, because it allows Wikivoyage to continue to cooperate with other open-source licensed projects on maps, images, and other media, rather than painting ourselves into an archaic and incompatible licensing trap. Comparing these two proposed solutions, I see only disadvantages to the former, reasonable and surmountable challenges to the latter. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)
I disagree completely with your disagreement re my second point. Whether our practices are outdated or not is not the issue. The issues are (1) what does the license say, (2) what licenses do we say we accept and (3) what conclusions will a reasonable person draw from what the license says and the way we describe what our license says. For example, a reasonable person would draw the conclusion that material submitted by him/her will be reused only on other web sites from the phrase "If you do not want your work to be re-used on other web sites and modified by other users please do not submit!" while the terms in the license makes it clear that the work can be reused in any media. This is the sort of thing that lawyers love and could go to court on and argue about intent, deceptive practices, reasonable conclusions, etc. till the cows come home. As long as there is no money involved, no one cares but add money to the equation and all sorts of issues of intent, deception etc. arise and these are best avoided. So, the question re the images is what will conclusions will a reasonable person draw from the license and from what we say about the license. We say - only cc-by-sa-1.0 (and very clearly at that too). But then we allow people to submit stuff under other licenses. While I can't see how that can be used to sue wikivoyage that doesn't mean that someone won't find a way to do so and, IMHO, it is better to just delete non 1.0 images and be clear about what we accept going forward. The license talks about derivative works and collective works and uses words like "unmodified form" when describing collective work. You say taking an article from a website, combining it with others, and repackaging it as a published guidebook for sale is not modifying the form. I suspect the courts could easily draw a different conclusion partly because of three things: the re-used on web sites disclaimer above, the change in media, and the addition of money. In fact, what cc intended when writing the license is no longer the issue but rather it is what a reasonable person can conclude from the license and from information provided by wikivoyage about the terms of the license. My suggestion is, and I think these are fairly simple, (1) dump images not cc1.0. (2) either clarify the terms of the license, or remove all descriptions and replace with a pointer to the license and (3) remove all other licenses from the list (why do we have other licenses listed anyway?). We also need a code of conduct for admins who intend publishing guide books - something simple like a declaration of intent or something - so that conflict of interest doesn't become an issue for the admin publishing the book.--(WT-en) Wandering 11:50, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I find the implication that I am somehow making disingenuous arguments here because of my WTP affiliation about as offensive as it is baseless. No outcome from this vfd proposal will affect my work on the printed Chicago guide in any way—there simply is no basis for such a conflict of interest. If there were, I would not let it stop me from advocating what I honestly think is good for this site, as I have always done. If you are interested in creating a conflict-of-interest policy, the appropriate way to do that would be to either write a draft policy & see what others think, or raise discussion about it in the pub or on a Wikivoyage_talk:Conflict_of_interest page. Not here. In any rate, if my insight is unwelcome, I will no longer contribute. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:46, 28 January 2008 (EST)

I find the implication that I am somehow making disingenuous arguments here because of my WTP affiliation about as offensive as it is baseless. I don't think I've implied that anywhere (and I reread my arguments carefully). You seem to be drawing an implication that is not intended and I am certainly not accusing you of making disingenuous arguments. Quite the contrary, I should think, since I'm discussing things openly and clearly here and am reading and responding to your insights and arguments. Why would I bother if I thought your arguments were motivated by self-interest rather than by reason? About the conflict of interest policy: My experience is that a conflict of interest policy is always a good idea wherever conflicting objectives exist (which is not the same thing as saying that the conflicting objectives are actually affecting policy). It is in the interest of members who have conflicting interests to have such a policy in place - I, and other wikivoyage users not using wikivoyage material for-profit, have no interest in such a policy because it does not help us in any way. If you think you don't need one, that's your call.
In any rate, if my insight is unwelcome, I will no longer contribute. There are many contributers on wikivoyage and, IMHO, you shouldn't take negative implications (whether meant or not), or even personal invective, from one person to heart. Have some faith in the quality of your ideas and your contributions (which are excellent). Disagreements are valuable in any open venture like this one because they bring important issues out onto the table for discussion and, as a valuable member of the community, you should wade into them rather than withdraw from them. (If this sounds a bit patronizing, I apologize. Couldn't frame it any other way but that is not my intention!) --(WT-en) Wandering 12:42, 29 January 2008 (EST)
There was absolutely no reason to bring up a conflict of interest policy in this discussion beyond that of maligning me personally. This is clearly not the place for such a proposal. Although I realize that your comments are in good faith, I think you have both misunderstood most everything I have said here, clearly misjudged me as a person, and stepped outside of the bounds of appropriate discussion and wiki-etiquette. And I am insulted by this patronizing, presumptuous, and unsolicited advice, and for the continuing attacks elsewhere, and for the continued misrepresentations, and for the continued lack of a proper apology. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:54, 6 February 2008 (EST)
Me and my buddie Forrest Gump have been following this conversation and all we can say is Gollleee. Two of our favorite contributors are having a disagreement. Neither of you are responsible for this problem, and it seems far from resolution. Me and Forrest think you should sit down and have some shrimp and beers, and discuss this a bit further. You are talking way over our heads and we are not much help. But, please resovle it in a peaceful manner, like big people. Forrest and I would miss either of you if you quit contributing. Maybe we should somehow move on in another manner. Or you could just go shrimpin with me and Forrest, that would be fun. (WT-en) 2old 13:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Well Forrest and I reread these comments and we are as confused as ever. Since I have contributed a few photos, I think I have an interest in this conversation. By no means do I want anyone to think I have a clue about the interpretation of these licenses, but as a contributor, I think I may want clarification a couple of things. 1.)Most of my photo contibutions are under the 1.0 or higher choice and I am hoping that covers everything and is not a problem, if not please advise. 2.)When I contributed to wikivoyage, the intention was to contribute to a web based travel site. I had no thought of supporting a print project like WTP. While I do not object to the use of anything I may contribute, I do not know if I really care, or if it is a concern of that images are not compatable to downline users. I see that as their problem, and no concern of So, if the subject photo conforms with the use of (and the rest of them so licensed) my vote is to Keep. If the subject photo does not conform to license requirements then Delete it and all other photos so licensed now and go on. This project will last a loooooong time and the current administrators and contributors have a responsibility to get it right. We owe nothing to downline users and it is their problem, let's not make it ours. 12:18, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Images automatically licensed as cc-by-sa-1.0?[edit]

...continued from Image:Asia 2006 156.jpg

Guidelines? What guidelines? But as far as I know, no periods of time are mentioned anywhere, and going through the {{dont know}} tag stage seems to be optional. I've been adding {{vfd}} tags to images that already have {{dont know}} tags, and adding {{dont know}} tags to images with no licence. ~ 18:21, 31 January 2008 (EST)
No reason - but then my conclusion that the incorrectly licensed images should be deleted doesn't seem to be universally acceptable. Not sure if there is some plan afoot to somehow legitimize the 'no license' images as well. --(WT-en) Wandering 18:29, 31 January 2008 (EST)
It doesn't matter that it's not universally accepted. All that matters is that after 5 weeks of debate they have not, by any stretch of the imagination, been "proven innocent". ~ 18:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Since you seem to be flitting around more than everyone else, do you get a sense that there are huge numbers of images that are licensed by cc-by-sa other than 1.0? There seem to be three or four listed in this page which is not a huge amount (I assume, no one wants the unlicensed ones) and I'm wondering why we have this panic (we are headed for disaster) thing going on. I get the feeling that there's a subtext here that I'm missing and wonder if you have an insight into this. (Insights from other admins seem to be in short supply.) --(WT-en) Wandering 22:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Could be that most of us are feeling the same way, what are we missing?. I for one don't see any huge issue here, we have always removed invalidly licensed material as we come across them and as far as I can see we have been doing a good job. If this vfd page contains all (or most) of the invalid licensed material in wikivoyage then we have been keeping it quite clean. I can't see any reason for doom and gloom and a sudden rush to clean all up at once, but since Tweak (If I may use the name (WT-en) Sapphire assigned to feels the need to list all now, I'm happy to work through them as usual. Even if all these are deleted, the impack on WT as a whole is minimal. --(WT-en) Nick 02:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Relatively speaking, no, there aren't that many with incompatible licences. I'm going to VFD them all now: #CC-by-SA-2.0 (13 images), #CC-by-SA-2.5 (67 images), #CC-by-SA-3.0 (2 images). ~ 04:37, 1 February 2008 (EST)
To put that in perspective, 8,349 files have been uploaded (Feb.1st 2008). Also bear in mind that of those 82 images, some are not linked to from anywhere, some are only linked to from Talk pages or "joke" articles, some are only linked to from User pages (presumably it's not unreasonable to expect that they be re-licenced), and some are copyvios; and some are just really bad photos. Of the rest, many have been uploaded by their creators and it would be simple enough for the uploader/creator to re-licence them. ~ 07:11, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Well, let's try to put some closure to this. It seems to me that there is some sort of consensus that we should delete the improperly licensed pictures. To summarize the discussion above: (WT-en) Jpatokal wanted to keep the pictures but only because there was no consensus. So, let's set (WT-en) Jpatokal aside for now and see if we have a consensus.,, (WT-en) Wandering, (WT-en) Nick, (assuming .4 and .6 are different) feel that these images should be deleted if we've done our bit in trying to correct the license. User feels we should keep them if the licensing requirements are met and delete them otherwise. I think it is quite clear that higher licenses don't satisfy our requirements because only (WT-en) Peter has argued to keep them and even his options require a change in our licensing system which implies that these pictures do not match our current licensing requirements. I'd say there is a consensus to delete improperly licensed pictures (pictures with licenses other than cc-by-sa-1.0). Agreed? --(WT-en) Wandering 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)
You misrepresent my arguments above, presumably because you did not understand them. I argued that we clarify the text of our copyleft to match our day-by-day practices, not to change our site's licensing, which is a different issue altogether. You are conflating discussions and have not understood the issues at hand here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:39, 6 February 2008 (EST)
I also assume no one will argue that we should keep unlicensed ones. I notice that some of the pictures posted without a license are copyrighted elsewhere and due diligence says we should remove unlicensed ones post haste. Agreed? --(WT-en) Wandering 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)
No, not agreed on any of that. First, it's not an issue of "improperly licensed" images, it's an issue of whether some correctly licensed images can be used on Wikivoyage. Second, there is no such thing as an "unlicensed" image, there are only CC by-sa 1.0 images without explicit tags. (Everything I uploaded before we even invented license tags, for example.) Third, the proper place or venue for this policy discussion is not VFDs, but the Talk page, where eg. Cacahuate has also expressed his support for keeping CC >1.0 images. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Could someone put a link from the Viking discussion above to this section so that everyone knows we're reaching a consensus? Thanks! Trust a picture about Vikings in a Storm to cause a storm! --(WT-en) Wandering 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Regarding Wanderings suggestion that we delete all unlicensed images:Old farts like me may pop up again, knowing NOTHING about wikiways, but willing to contribute comments on a lifetime of travel as well as a few photos'. Those of us in the old farts club as well as others may not have a clue about licenses. So, if you do mark one "Dont know", give it 30 days for the contributor to figure it out before a deletion. As far as other ill licensed photos, I think it best to get rid of them and clean up the project. Jani contibutes some of the best images on the site, and is one of the more wikiways informed. For some reason, a number of his photos have no license nor have had a license. I would not want to loose any of them. Maybe he could comment on why he does that. (the new one on the front page is about as good as we get, but has no license????????) (WT-en) 2old 11:11, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Makes sense to me (the 30 days part). Perhaps, at least for recently added pictures, we could drop a note in the users mailbox (a template would serve for this) letting them know that the image will be deleted in 30 days if cc-by-sa-1.0 is not selected. --(WT-en) Wandering 12:01, 2 February 2008 (EST)

OK, I'm starting to get pissed off here. Here's what it says and has said on Special:Upload for as long as I remember:

All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0.

Comprende? All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-sa 1.0. There is no such thing as a "Don't know" image, there are only untagged CC by-sa 1.0 images, and all these VFDs are null and void. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

(WT-en) Jpatokal, I'm sorry to hear that you're starting to get pissed off (though, I must admit, it is not at all clear to me why a fair discussion should make you angry). Anyway, the point is that wikivoyage has an obligation to its contributers (as well as to downstream users of content) to take at least minimal steps in ensuring that images are not copyrighted elsewhere and that their use under a common cause commercial license is fair. If a user does not select a license, wikivoyage should not blithely assume that it can be made available under a common cause license. If we accept your argument, then nothing in wikivoyage should ever be deleted (all those copyvio deletions of text, etc.) because, again by your definition, everything contributed to wikivoyage is automatically cc-by-sa-1.0. I could add the text of an entire book, upload songs perhaps, copy pictures freely from the internet, and you would assume that all this is kosher because we say that everything is cc-by-sa-1.0 by definition. That, I should think, is not a very responsible way of treating this enterprise. BTW, thanks for the tip on User:(WT-en) Cacahuate's contribution in the talk page. I'll take a look at it and add his views into this summary. I've also reduced the size of the quote above, it detracts from the discussion (makes this part look like a separate section). --(WT-en) Wandering 11:01, 4 February 2008 (EST)
That's not at all what I'm saying. If any image is a copyright violation, then it's a copyright violation regardless of what tag is placed on it, and can and should be dealt with as such.
So one more time. When any user uploads an image, they certify that it is available under the Creative Commons license. If there is reason to believe that this declaration is not true, whether out of malice, ignorance or stupidity, then the image should be deleted. However, for images like Image:IMG_0156.JPGs and Image:DSCF0039.JPG that have been VFD'd above, there's absolutely no reason to believe that these personal snapshots are not the work of the uploader.
You'll note that this is exactly the same thing as we do for text. Contributions are assumed to be legit by default, but we keep a close eye on dubious additions are promptly nuked. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:40, 4 February 2008 (EST)
If in fact (and I have no reason to question) Jani is correct that uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-sa 1.0, then when contribtors upload images, the images should be automatically tagged CC-by-sa 1.0. In my non-wiki life I have to deal with lawyers on a reular basis. They have advised me numerous times, not to create arguable situations. (WT-en) Jpatokal as a community leader needs to have a bit more patience with this sort of situation and act as a counsel in these matters and others. If he is actually getting pissed off, anger management classes may be in the future. Remember, creative people are always the first to go crazy. If we can not automatically tag untagged photos, then I support the idea to tag them Dont know, advise the contributor, wait 30 days and then delete. I think the tagging should be a voluntary action of the contributor, that would eliminate the arguable element from the situation/transaction.
You are welcome to suggest we change policy so that, in the future, images uploaded without an explicit license specified are deleted. I would even support you, as long as there's an easy way for that license to be specified while uploading, and all existing untagged images are tagged first. However, retroactively deleting thousands of images when they already have perfectly valid licenses is beyond senseless. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:40, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Did you have an idea how to tag all existing untagged images are tagged first ? And, at this point I am still thinking Delete. Reason: I do not think an arbitrary license is valid. ( Guess it depends on where also.) (WT-en) 2old 12:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Easy-peasy: give me a list of untagged articles, and I'll run a script to tag them all.
And can you please explain to me what is unclear or arbitrary about All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0? Why is this any more unclear or arbitrary than All contributions to Wikivoyage must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0, which is what we require for text contributions? (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:46, 4 February 2008 (EST)
The text is clear, but when one finds an image unmarked for license as in Image:PLO FlagShop.JPG , one of my favorites, I would think it better if it was licensed rather than guessing. For me it would be a perfect POM, but may have been avoided due to license fears/questions. On wikivoyage shared, it is common practice to mark unlicensed images VFD and for them to be deleted, (I have even been notified as such) so I thought the same applied here. Above you said "list of untagged articles" did you mean photos?. The dont know tag states Wikivoyage cannot keep images without a statement that licenses them under terms permitting us to use them. That is in conflict with your side of the debate here, that All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0. My personal preference would be that I could contribute images to wikivoyage, that could not be used by others, but that seems impossible. When it comes to photos, I really do not consider owning anything. It is simply something I have seen and I am sharing the view with others. That simple. Others may want to control the use, but in reality it is so difficult that even the thought is not worth while. So I guess one of my questions is, why even tag the Dont knows and why have they been deleted in the past under the same circumstances? (WT-en) 2old 14:01, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Wikivoyage Shared has different wording in the upload box plus a license selector that forces the user to explicitly choose a license, and there was a fairly lengthy argument there as well about what to do with untagged images.

However, here on en:, the upload wording is unambiguous and there's no requirement for users to place a license tag nor are there any instructions for doing so. The "don't know" tag is a fairly recent invention and, based on a quick Google of the archives, it has never been used as a reason for VFD until Tweak came along.

So. I'm going to propose that we do the following:

  • All old untagged images are tagged CC by-sa 1.0 and removed from VFD (unless there are other reasons to suspect they're copyvio etc).
  • Special:Upload is modified to have the same license pulldown as Shared.
  • After these changes are done, any new untagged images will be tagged with "don't know" and listed for VFD.

All in favor? (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

(WT-en) Jpatokal, I'm sorry, but the discussion above is completely at odds with your proposal. There is a lot of discussion above and it may be hard for you to read through everything so let me make it simple. The following users feel, and they have all made substantive arguments in favor, that images that are unlicensed or incorrectly licensed (cc-by-sa>1.0) should be deleted:,, (WT-en) Wandering, (WT-en) Nick,, and (WT-en) 2old. The users who want to keep the images are (WT-en) Jpatokal (though initially you did not express that view) and (WT-en) Peter. (User:(WT-en) Cacahuate's reasons for keeping are related to the need for a consensus and I assume he hasn't seen this discussion so I won't include him in the keep column.) Of the two in favor of keeping, (WT-en) Peter's view seems to be that the images are not properly licensed but should be kept for expedient reasons. You, (WT-en) Jpatokal, are the only user who feels that we have no responsibility towards our users in the matter of licensing.
Again, you completely misrepresent my above arguments, again presumably because you don't understand them (much less the issues being discussed). I do not think that >1.0 attribution-sharealike images are not properly licensed, that doesn't make sense to begin with, because all one needs to do to properly license a file as CC-by-SA is to indicate their intent to do so. Besides, that discussion has nothing to do with this one (again, because you don't understand the issues we are discussing, you have conflated several distinct discussions underway). This is a discussion merely of whether saving a file on a page where it says that you agree to certain terms by saving the file, actually does mean that the person agrees to those terms. It seems evident beyond reasonable objection that this is the case. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:39, 6 February 2008 (EST)
I find that comment genuinely offensive, and I expect an immediate apology. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry (WT-en) Jpatokal, but no apology is forthcoming. --(WT-en) Wandering 14:20, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Now I understand that you are a community leader but I hope you will see that the community is better served by discussing things (without shouting - I noticed that you, without comment, restored the big lettering in the quote above - and without aggression) and by being accepting of a viewpoint that may be at odds with your own. The success of wikivoyage should be of more importance to you than the presence or non-presence of a few (or many) images that have been loaded onto wikivoyage without a license and that wikivoyage is then redistributing under a free common cause license. In case after case the courts have ruled that websites cannot hide behind 'we don't know' when it comes to copyright infringement and I ask you to consider how it will look when a downstream user, Project:Wikivoyage Press is a good example, is sued for publishing copyright pictures and then Project:Wikivoyage Press sues wikivoyage for claiming that the picture was available under a free license and then wikivoyage says "hey, we don't ask our users to choose a license we just assign them, sometimes years after the fact!" Project:Wikivoyage Press will be fine but where will wikivoyage be? I, for one, believe that I have a responsibility to wikivoyage because my intellectual contributions are embodied in it. And, if you stopped shouting, getting angry, and being generally dismissive of other viewpoints, I hope you'll see it that way too. --(WT-en) Wandering 11:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)
The reason you think I'm "dismissive" of your arguments is that I find them completely and totally irrational, your renderings of other peoples' comments are tendentious at best, and you're conflating two completely separate issues (untagged and CC >1.0) to boot. But let me try asking you two questions.
(WT-en) Jpatokal, you can hold whatever opinion you like about the rationality of my arguments just like I can hold whatever opinions I like about the rationality of your arguments. However, neither of us own wikivoyage, we are both contributers to this site, and it is NOT conducive to a meaningful discussion to shout, to show aggression, and be dismissive. I'm sorry you can't see that.--(WT-en) Wandering 14:20, 5 February 2008 (EST)
A) Are you satisfied with text contributions licensed by users hitting the "Save page" button below the text "All contributions to Wikivoyage must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0"? (yes/no)
B) Are you satisfied with image contributions licensed by users hitting the "Upload file" button below the text "All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0"? (yes/no)
Do what you want down the road. I feel that the user should ALWAYS explicitly select a license or, at the least, agree that the work is free of copyright and that he/she agrees to release it under a clearly specified common cause license (with one of those agree/disagree check boxes). However, that does not address the issue at hand, which is, what to do with images that have been previously uploaded without a license, or uploaded with an improper license. --(WT-en) Wandering 14:20, 5 February 2008 (EST)
<plants hand on face, drags it down slowly, takes deep breath>
The user does "agree that the work is free of copyright and that he/she agrees to release it under a clearly specified common cause license" — that's precisely what the text on Special:Upload quoted above in big bold letters means.
Can you please explain to me why you feel that the wording of A) is sufficient for this permission, and the wording of B) is not? Or should we delete all text ever written on Wikivoyage as well? (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:58, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Also, let me spell out once more that any images that are copyright violations or are reasonably suspected of being copyright violations must be deleted. But whenever a user uploads a file, that user has certified that it's available under a compatible Free license, and we have to AssumeGoodFaith — in precisely the same way that we presume text contributions to be innocent until proven guilty. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:41, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Have you actually read the article you point to above (AssumeGoodFaith)? It makes for interesting reading even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the context in which you have quoted it. Lots of good stuff there. Some extracts:
Sometimes you really are being ribbed the wrong way (pun intended). Even so, it is still better to assume good faith — the question is not one of accurate perception, but of appropriate action. It may be more helpful to see the other person as a challenge to overcome rather than a personal enemy to be vanquished.
However, some times a person's goals may directly interfere with your life. They could be in direct competition with you, and there could be a limited number of resources. You may disagree at some fundamental level of morality. You could have something they want. They could even be completely unreasonable, knowing they have some sort of power over you, like a spammer that subverts technology against you. Conversely, you might engage in strategic conflicts to get what you want. PoliticalAction is almost by definition this kind of adversarial approach in the West. Remember to not make these conflicts personal, and never engage in conflicts that will accomplish nothing. Don't win a PyrrhicVictory by burning bridges you may have to cross in the future.
Well, worth a read. Clearly, I don't want a conflict with you. I was being tendentious and irrational well before you entered the conversation with your "I'm starting to get pissed off" remark. But, in the spirit of the article, I'll withdraw the remark you got so upset about. I don't really care what you think of my arguments (I am pretty close to being as long in the tooth as (WT-en) 2old so young whippersnappers don't easily bother me). Now, if you are willing to tone down your shrillness (what's with all that comprende? and "let me spell it out" and entering a discussion with "I'm starting to get pissed off") we may actually get somewhere toward a consensus on what to do with all those images out there. If, that is, you care about a consensus. --(WT-en) Wandering 14:20, 5 February 2008 (EST)
You accuse me of not caring about consensus and having no responsibility towards licensing. Now, I disagree with you very strongly about this topic, but have I personally attacked you? (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:58, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Currently I am in favor of Jani's last two proposals 2)* Special:Upload is modified to have the same license pulldown as Shared. * 3)After these changes are done, any new untagged images will be tagged with "don't know" and listed for VFD. And I would like it completed ASAP. However keeping unlicensed images does not set well with me at this point and I would like to se further discussion. Many may not agree, but take it from an older (in age) contibutor, this site is very new and if it is accepted by the travel community as I think it will be (Route 66 looks dead), it will be around a long time. Lets work towards making it as unquestionable as we can with the content. People are always looking for an opportunity, someone could actually set us up under the current situation and calmly wait for an opening to sue. Lets close any loopholes. This is not the voice of paranoia, but experience with opportunists. On another point, Jani, you may want to inform Evan that some of us appreciate him and the wife founding this site and participating in discussions in the early days and until he and the current owner split. They retained ownership of the rights to publish and contributors keep adding to the value of this site with very limited input from Evan. I for one would welcome his comments more in these debates, for the benefit of all. As with Thomas A. Edison, who also was an Ohio native, Wikivoyage is not his last invention (we hope) as with Edison who went on to found General Electric did not stop with the long lasting light bulb, nor the repeating telegraph key which was one of his earlier works. (WT-en) 2old 12:09, 5 February 2008 (EST)
It looks to me as though license tags are causing a great deal of confusion. We should probably get rid of them.
All images without image tags are CC-by-sa 1.0. This is stated very very clearly in the upload form, and has been for 5 years.
If for some reason we decide to keep the license tags then we should immediately add cc-by-sa tags to images for which the tags are missing as so to avoid future confusion. -- (WT-en) Mark 13:02, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Greetings all, I just want to voice my support of the view that uploaders of images without tags have declared (by using the site) that all contributions are licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0 and as they have declared that, they also agree per the terms of the CC-by-SA 1.0 license that the materials they have submitted are available under CC-by-SA 1.0 or do not infringe on the proprietary rights of another person. Thus, there's no need to delete any images without a CC-by-SA 1.0 tag, unless you truly expect it to by a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 13:32, 5 February 2008 (EST)

I was accused by (WT-en) jpatokal of conflating the two issues (cc-by-sa>1.0 and unlicensed) so I went back and looked at this rather long and Hamlet-ian thread (to delete or not to delete, that is the question) and, would you believe it, the scream was right! If only he would talk like a normal person perhaps I would have heard him earlier. So, going back to first principles, here is my position:

cc-by-sa->1.0 images. "Keep" We should delete them because we've been giving the impression that they are not legit, but, I don't see how wikivoyage can be legally called to task for a choice that the user has made when uploading (our responsibility to the downstream user) or why the uploading user would care (our responsibility to the contributing user). On rereading, I see that we got tangled in definitions of derivative and collective work because (WT-en) Peterfitzgerald has been using these images in the Project:Wikivoyage Press Chicago guide (are there many of these in the Singapore guide as well, that might explain the anger) and the definitions of derivative and collective work. But, that is the business of a downstream user and, as long as wikivoyage ensures that the licenses are appropriate, no business of ours. Any images added to a wikivoyage article would, it seems, qualify as a "collective work" and we should be able to combine images with different licenses on the same page after appropriately modifying the 'content is available under' rider at the bottom of the page. That should be sufficient even though wikivoyage has been combining them as a collective work and displaying an incorrect licensing statement at the bottom of the page. An important caveat is how we do this because it is setting a precedent for misuse down the road.
Again, I find myself thoroughly misunderstood, misrepresented, and wrongfully and ignorantly maligned. To repeat, the >1.0 images used in the Wikivoyage guide are totally irrelevant to any decision made on this site. I believe we at Wikivoyage Press have the right to do so, provided we properly note licensing and attribution, and I have WTP's support in this. A dumb decision here simply doesn't bear one iota on the images in the book. But again, that is a separate issue from this one, which is even more clear cut.
My motivation in making the arguments I have about what images we may keep stems from my desire to make Wikivoyage the most effective open-content travel guide possible, and simply to see that logic and clear-headed understanding prevails against stubborn ignorance. If frustration came across in my arguments, it was simply because I felt that the points I made were not sufficiently addressed in the cascading responses, as my points (and the issues being discussed) were not understood by discussants. That would be a good time for clarification, which I was trying to provide. I got angry because you, Wandering, were repeatedly implying in bad faith that my arguments should be discounted according to a very incorrect and insulting perception on your part that I had a conflict of interest in the matter. I do not, and the fact that you continue in this line of personal attack further demonstrates that you do not understand the licensing issues being discussed, do not understand what I have argued, and are generally bringing down the level of discourse. --(WT-en) Peter Talk
unlicensed images. "Delete" I am uneasy about keeping images that have not been explicitly released with a free license by the uploading user. Wikivoyage has followed the practice of deleting them for quite a while (See: Project:Votes_for_deletion/May_2006, Project:Votes_for_deletion/June_2006 and presumably many others) and I don't see why we should suddenly decide we need to keep them. --(WT-en) Wandering 14:52, 5 February 2008 (EST)
I hope you don't take this badly, but I simply must disagree. We have been very clear from the begining that anyhthing uploaded here is under the CC-by-sa 1.0 unless otherwise indicated. I simply don't understand why this isn't clear. -- (WT-en) Mark 15:41, 5 February 2008 (EST)
(I don't take anything badly, I just find it hard talking to angry people.) If it was so clear then why were we deleting unlicensed images all along? A quick look at the deletion archives seems to show that deleting unlicensed images was a no-brainer. Anyway, I do think that there is a difference when a user explicitly makes a selection (of the license as well as indicating that there are no copyright issues) versus when the selection is implicit. That is one reason why many websites have the Agree/Disagree check box that users check off. --(WT-en) Wandering 16:08, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Can you point out what images have been deleted in the past for the sole reason of not having a license tag? I just looked through both Project:Votes_for_deletion/May_2006, Project:Votes_for_deletion/June_2006 and as far as I can see all deleted images are suspected copyvios, duplicates, advertisements or violate privacy rights. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:58, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Keep all images with no license marked. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:12, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Keep. This seems cut-and-dry to me. It's made clear - right out front and out loud, not buried in fine print - that anything uploaded here is under CC-by-SA 1.0. We don't require people to tag the text they enter in these here boxes, and we all seem content with the implicit understanding there. Some admins here do an impressive job of catching mis-licensed copyvio photos, but this ain't that. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:01, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Jeez Louise. I'll start by saying that I whole-heartedly agree with everything Jpatokal has said. While I give kudos for actually getting more of a conversation to take place about this than we've been able to in a while, as Jani says, the VFD page isn't the place to do it... clogging it with all these images isn't really helping solve our problems.

I'll pitch in my support of the Special:Upload text, I agree it will cover us in the event of an unlikely lawsuit, and I vote to keep anything uploaded without a license for reasons specified by Jani and others, with the obvious exceptions of copyvios, etc.

Re: >1.0 images, what a couple users here seem to be taking as a given is that 2.0 and 3.0 images are improperly licensed.... this has been discussed many times, and we clearly don't have a consensus that that's the case... we're still figuring out if they are compatible with us and beyond that whether we can and should upgrade our whole site to 3.0 and beyond, so the real debate should be getting to the bottom of that, rather than jumping the gun and vfd'ing those before a consensus is reached.

As for automatically tagging images, we've discussed it in a few places, I've been pushing for a while to figure out how to either default to 1.0 on the pull down menu in Special:Upload so that if anyone desire other than 1.0 they have to take action, OR to leave it as "select a license" and give them a non-ignorable error message to select a license before it will let them upload. Either way, I'd like it if it wasn't even possible to not select a license or to select an incompatible license, just as a double reassurance.

Lastly, if I can defend Jani for a moment, I do slightly understand his agitation... we've been slowly discussing all of this calmly in several spots around the site, and the mass vfd'ing of images like this was more than a little sassy, especially given the vfd'ers awareness of those other conversations, Jani wasn't jumping into a conversation agitated, this conversation has been ongoing for a long time in some form or another. But, to come full circle, I'm glad sparked the conversation that he was trying to spark, and I'm glad we're nearing a consensus – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:17, 6 February 2008 (EST)

A quote from Jani above: Wikivoyage Shared has different wording in the upload box plus a license selector that forces the user to explicitly choose a license, and there was a fairly lengthy argument there as well about what to do with untagged images. But, they continue to vfd untagged photos. Why is that and should both site not ne the same? And, for those getting angry, when I was much younger someone informed me that anger was a form of temporary insanity, after I pondered and reflected on that for many moons, I had to agree. (WT-en) 2old 09:32, 6 February 2008 (EST)
The logic — which I don't personally entirely agree with, mind you — is that on Shared the user can easily select a license from the pulldown, and if he doesn't, then he doesn't know/understand licensing in the first place and the picture is suspect. But on en:, there's no obvious way to tag images at all. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:52, 6 February 2008 (EST)
And I agree that en: should be upgraded to use Shared's system. However, this discussion is about what to do with the old images. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:52, 6 February 2008 (EST)
Jani's proposal to reform the :en system is sensible. Mass deleting images which clearly were uploaded in accordance with our copyleft, at a time when awareness of licensing documentation was lower among our contributors than it is today is not. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:39, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Wow, this discussion turned into a real barn-burner. With passions running pretty high it might be good for everyone to step back and look at the star articles, featured articles, (WT-en) maps, and other great things here and remember how much fun it can be to work together on travel articles instead of arguing about contentious issues like licensing.

That said, with regards to the current debate, my take on it is that existing images on en: with no license are fine - it's only been in the past year or two that we asked people to specify licenses, and before that all images were considered implied CC-SA due to the text on the Special:Upload page (see my first talk page comment for this same discussion in 2005...). It probably makes sense now that we have shared: to redirect upload links on en: to shared:, which would prevent this sort of confusion in the future. With regard CC-SA > 1.0, I think it's clear that the spirit of the license is that any version of CC-SA is fine, although the letter of the license doesn't state that; it's probably worthwhile trying to start a separate discussion about mass-updating the site to CC-SA 1.0+ - I'm sure we're not the first site to be faced with this issue, so it would probably be easy to dig up precedents from other sites on how it could be done. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:34, 6 February 2008 (EST)

On 02/04/2008 Jani said:So. I'm going to propose that we do the following:
  • All old untagged images are tagged CC by-sa 1.0 and removed from VFD (unless there are other reasons to suspect they're copyvio etc).
  • Special:Upload is modified to have the same license pulldown as Shared.
  • After these changes are done, any new untagged images will be tagged with "don't know" and listed for VFD.

All in favor? Jpatokal 23:12, 4 February 2008

And the problem goes on. And, (WT-en) Wandering seems to have wandered off (darn it). I am in favor of Jani's suggestion and would like to see it implemented ASAP with one change. The suggestion to add a check box, saying they understand and accept the terms, should be included. You should always try to create a situation that is not arguable. In addition, the text regarding images being sent to shared, should be in red, bold, larger print, so even an old, blind, dummy, like me can not miss it. Then, they can not ARGUE that they did not see it, without being required to take an eye test before driving or contributing images to Wikivoyage. (WT-en) 2old 10:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
I've altered the box on Special:Upload, can you read it now old man?  :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:37, 15 February 2008 (EST)
For some reason, I intuitively knew that you would be involved in the resolution of this problem. What you have done is a good start. Now, how about the check box to confirm the contributors action on how the image is licensed. I will see that you get a 10% raise in your Wikisalary. (WT-en) 2old 10:35, 16 February 2008 (EST)
Whether a checkbox or forcing the selection of a license in the pulldown menu, I agree it would be nice to force one of the two, I'd vote for the latter as with a checkbox it's still possible then to not select a license. However that's not something (I don't think) that we can implement, I think it's something Kevin at IB would have to figure out... and we should probably move all of the pieces of this vfd discussion somewhere else soon... and maybe start a tech request for a non-ignorable error message if a license isn't selected. And furthermore, as I've suggested in the past, I think special:upload on all language versions should redirect straight to shared – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 13:02, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I've been staying out of this debate, but will chime in now to say I'd support Jani's suggestions. (WT-en) Pashley 08:59, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
I've also stayed out of this for a number of reasons, but I fully support Jani's suggestion. I'll clean up the untagged images vfd later todaysometime this week, by tagging them cc-by-sa-1.0 and archiving the vfd. It seems totally legal since the it was explicitly stated on the upload page that all content will become cc-by-sa-1.0. --(WT-en) Nick 09:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Policy question: presumed guilty until proven innocent?[edit]

Policy question: Just how far should the presumed guilty until proven innocent guideline reach?

We currently have quite a number of images on vfd tagged with PD claimed, but presumably a copyvio. vfd submitter has however not made any attempt to find and list the source of the origional that is presumably being copyright violated.

After some rather extensive internet searches for the sources, I come up empty on most of those (where I have found copyvios, I have deleted and archived the vfd).

I would like to cancel the vfd on those where no source of a violation can be found with a reasonable amount of internet searching. It may also be a good idea to require link to source if a photo is listed as copyvio, else ALL our photos can be listed as vfd.

--(WT-en) Nick 15:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Agree... if it's a copyvio, then prove it... or as you say, our entire site is 90% suspected copvios – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
If the same user has uploaded other images around the same time that are copyvio, then the presumption should be that the other images in that set are also copyvio. --(WT-en) Inas 17:44, 2 November 2008 (EST)
I agree with Inas. Most of the time I have vfd'd an image on a suspected copyvio, it is because the same user uploaded a batch of other images that were demonstrably violations. (WT-en) Texugo 23:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Unused images[edit]

Swept in from the pub:

Holy schmoly, I just discovered Special:Unusedimages, all kinds of madness, copyvios etc... even a McDonald's logo... VFD'ing these would be monstrously tedious. Would anyone object to at least a first round of hacking by admins to clear out obvious things that aren't within our scope or feature portraits of people that aren't linked to from user pages? The copyvios are obvious speedy-deletion candidates anyway – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Sounds like a good idea to just speedy the obvious ones first without going through vfd. Maybe we should also create a Wikivoyage namespace page that link those we want to keep around(svg, wikivoyage logo compitition submissions etc) , that will clean up Special:Unusedimages and make it a useful tool for us to find deletion candidates in the future --(WT-en) Nick 01:27, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Both ideas here sound like a good idea to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:29, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Me too. (WT-en) Pashley 03:37, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Me, too :) -(WT-en) OldPine 07:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
I have create Project:Links to images that should not be deleted and started adding some of the old logos there. --(WT-en) Nick 06:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm going to hold of on doing futher deletions for a short while, there seems to be a technical issue. The images do delete, but the image pages does not and I receive a Warning: chmod() [function.chmod]: Not owner in /var/www/wikivoyage/mw-1.11.2/includes/filerepo/FSRepo.php on line 425 error when deleting. --(WT-en) Nick 06:48, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Weird. Hey thanks for jumping on this, I forgot all about my proposal  :) I just deleted an image and also saw the same error, strange... the image page does stick around, but only in the cache, if you purge it then the page is gone – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 09:59, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

speedy deletions[edit]

Can admins please delete the request also when they speedy-delete images, rather than leaving red links on the vfd page? Thanks! – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 04:11, 2 November 2008 (EST)


The following was a comment I made to (WT-en) Huttite's talk page. I decided to copy it here because it involves multiple votes, and some other users seem to be backing his side. Here goes:

Hi. I couldn't help but notice on the Votes for deletion page your tendency to vote for redirection even for less likely search terms. I just want to point out the slippery slope some of your votes imply. For example, if it became standard policy to allow redirection for things like Antique Shopping in San Diego, how could we then disallow the inevitable overzealous user who would sit and create hundreds of permutations of redirects to their favorite destination?:

If it were policy, your vote to redirect a hotel name would be opening an even bigger can of worms, allowing for tens or even hundreds more redirects per city article. This one is already explicitly against policy, and I, for one, do not want to go there, because I don't want to have to police the messy results. Please reconsider your stance on this. I'm copying this to Project:Votes for deletion, so that others can comment as well, so please reply there. Thanks!(WT-en) Texugo

The relevant section of the deletion policy is:
Redirecting non-articles, when possible, is usually preferred to deletion because a) anyone can make a redirect and b) redirects may help with search engine optimization. The rule of thumb is, if it is a real place, redirect rather than delete. Major attractions and geographical areas can and should be redirected, but articles about restaurants, bars, hotels, and other such commercial establishments should be deleted rather than redirected, in order to curb touting.
If someone is creating articles for the purpose of search engine optimization (touting) as in the "ad infinitum" example above then they should be deleted, as per policy. If an article was created by a user who just didn't know or understand the Project:What is an article guidelines then I think a redirect is useful to help guide them to the appropriate place for that information, and prevents others from making the same mistake. Defensive redirects don't hurt Wikivoyage and help us avoid dealing with invalid article subjects re-appearing. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:40, 1 February 2009 (EST)
Call me a preservationist or a conservative, if you like. I fail to see the need to ever delete any wiki page that is not either (i) totally off topic and has no hope of redirection, (ii) spam, (iii) a copyright violation (iv) is offensive or (v) causes a technical issue or problem. The deleted pages are still kept in the database and can be recovered at any time, so deleting them doesn't save any database space. Making them redirects could improve the chance of anyone finding the San Diego page in response to the search term, as it gets more links to it. Redirect also reduce the chances of people finding the other articles. Also, a quick check of the English language will show that there are only so many permutations of words and spellings before things become quite stupid, by the time things reached that point I would conceed that it is probably spam intended for search engine optimisation, and deletion would then be justified. If things got to the stage you suggest then deletion would start to be an option, but just one or two links are not near that stage, yet. - (WT-en) Huttite 04:48, 2 February 2009 (EST)
PS: I see xxx Shopping as being an attraction, so redirection is justified by the policy. If it was a Shop name in San Diego, or any other place, then it is spam. - (WT-en) Huttite 04:55, 2 February 2009 (EST)
So, how do we tell a entry created to tout, against a hotel entry created in error? How do we tell the tout that we are going to delete their article, when there are other similar ones as a precedent? --(WT-en) Inas 07:27, 2 February 2009 (EST)
The way I read it, it doesn't matter if the original article was created for touting purposes; the policy Ryan quoted recommends deleting articles on individual establishments to avoid future touting. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:43, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I'm very much with Texugo here. In fact, I came to the talk page to raise the issue and was pleased to find it had already been raised. As I see it, things like "Papua new guinea holidays" or "Amazon_hotel_hanoi" could be speedy deleted. They are obvious touting; the sooner we're rid of them the better. A redirect in these cases serves no useful purpose.

Redirects are needed for:

  • Famous attractions like Taj Mahal.
  • Alternate or obsolete names, such as Bombay. See User talk:Pashley#Test_old_names for more examples.
  • Mispellings likely to be repeated by searchers, for example Candy might be created as a redirect to Kandy.
  • Places too small for an independent article. For example, perhaps Fuqing and Changle should be redirected to Fuzhou; half a million is small for China.

However, as a general policy we should not clutter the place with redirects from things that meet none of the above criteria. (WT-en) Pashley 22:40, 11 February 2009 (EST)


moved from User talk:(WT-en) Wrh2

Just checking before I revert — did you un-archive the EEArchive discussion based on private email discussion? I don't see any reasoning given by the user who undeleted it from the main Votes for deletion page, and I'm not inclined to let him or her overrule Colin. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:44, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I archived the page after (WT-en) Colin removed it from the VFD page as a speedy keep, and removed the archive (for the second time) after User:(WT-en) Wandering re-opened the discussion. The VFD guidelines indicate that 14 days of discussion should take place, so even though it seems that there is a consensus to keep the article in question, since a few users object strongly to that opinion it seems like it would probably be best to let that 14 days run its course and then close this issue once and for all; doing so follows the standard process and will hopefully remove all doubt about whether this issue is being handled fairly or not. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:09, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Strange Bug[edit]

This is really odd but whenever I try to edit anything on the Votes for Deletion page, it leads me to a random nomination (not the one I clicked). Is this happening to anyone else? I tried to edit so many times, and sometimes it took me to nominations that I don't even see listed right now... It's kind of trippy. I don't even remember what I even came to this page for in the first place... Anyone else having this problem? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:14, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

Try refreshing the page. If you're getting an old version of the page, the section numbers will be off from what the server thinks they are, so you get the wrong section when you click an edit link. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)


Is this really the place to be proposing merges? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:05, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

If you propose a merge on the Talk page of a city, it is unlikely that someone will actually go there and comment. I think mergers end up here simply because it is a place that we all know others will check and make comments, so decisions can be made faster. They probably don't actually belong here, but it does prevent articles from hanging in limbo for months/years without anyone commenting... (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 14:26, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
They definitely belong here if the merge requires a deletion of the target page (usually a redirect), since only an admin can perform that operation. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:33, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
If the target page needs to be deleted, then it's a move, not a merge. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:22, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
Agreed in full with Peter. I can't see any practical benefit to maintaining a separate Project:Votes for merger page. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:39, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
I have taken to proposing merges here for exactly the reason stated by (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus above. (WT-en) Texugo 19:39, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
I have no problems with people proposing merges here, if they wish to solicit broad opinion on what is effectively a removal of the original article. However, I don't think there should a requirement to do so, discussion on the talk page and a merge notice should be sufficient in general. --(WT-en) inas 21:41, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

I guess my point is that this page is here because deletion is not an operation that non-admins can perform. Or at least, that was my impression. Merges, redirects, and most moves can be performed by anyone; do they need any more discussion than any other editorial decision? (WT-en) LtPowers 09:07, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

I would agree that not all merges necessarily need to be here, but the type for which the does-it-merit-its-own-article question is iffy essentially leads to the same type of discussion that we normally have on the vfd page. (WT-en) Texugo 22:53, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Merge & Delete[edit]

Similar to the "Merge" discussion above, the result of a few recent nominations has been "merge & delete". However, that action implies that we first have to merge the content and then finish the nomination by deleting the content; given that we've had "merge" notices on some articles for years, this isn't something that seems reasonable. Instead, I'd suggest that the following should be the only valid outcomes of a deletion nomination:

  1. Delete
  2. Keep
  3. Merge
  4. Redirect

If the desired outcome really is "merge and delete" then the actual outcome would be "merge", and the article can be re-nominated for VFD after the merge is complete. Keeping nominations open for months & years waiting for someone to merge creates both unnecessary clutter and some pretty grungy work for whoever happens to be cleaning up the VFD page at any given moment. Barring any strenuous objections I'd like to treat the current One week in Santo Domingo for a student nomination as a "merge" and close it as such. Once (if) someone completes that merge then the resulting redirect page can be re-nominated for deletion if desired. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:48, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

Rather than this, lets just have an addition to the merge template, just to say when the merge is complete the article should be deleted. So, if the outcome desired really is merge and delete (and usually it would be merge and redirect) we can remove it from the vfd page and just put the decision on the article talk page. Once the merge is complete an admin can proceed to delete it without any further fuss or renomination. --(WT-en) inas 23:19, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
Unless we mandate some other method of attribution upon a merge, we should always keep merged titles as redirects for attribution purposes. Otherwise, it's plagiarism. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:54, 22 May 2010 (EDT)
My opinion is that if there's content worth merging then the original article probably merits a redirect, both for attribution and to prevent it being created again. That said, with respect to the issue at hand I've put merge templates on the articles in question and closed the nominations; someone else can revisit the issue of whether we need a separate VFD if the articles are ever actually merged. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:30, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
But I don't think it's necessarily the case that it is always proper to redirect after a merge. Look at the current JR Stations vfd. While we could merge and redirect, for most (if not all), the redirects are more problematic than helpful. If users do this, regardless of attribution and good-faith additions, they are better off deleted. Out of curiosity though, how will saying "merge" instead of "merge and delete" speed up the merging process? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:32, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
How do we attribute the authors if we delete the original article titles? (WT-en) LtPowers 08:07, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
Saying "merge" won't speed up the merging process, but "merge & delete" slows down the VFD process since it indicates that a merge must be done and then the article must be deleted to complete the nomination. Since we don't currently have a "merge & delete" template, nor is there consensus that such a thing is a good idea (see LtPowers) I've closed the current "merge & delete" nominations in the same way that we would close a "merge" result - the articles now have "merge" templates on them, and the VFD discussions are archived on the talk pages so that if/when the merges ever get completed the nomination discussion is there for whoever wants to revisit this issue. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:46, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
LtPowers: I don't know exactly how we could attribute the authors, but the situation for a "merge and delete" definitely exists. It's like creating a Main Street article with great information about ONE city's Main Street. There's just no way we could justifiably make it a redirect to whatever city the creator's content was for, except for attribution, which would come at the cost of usability... (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:40, 26 May 2010 (EDT
I believe the solution in that case is to move Main Street to Main Street (My City) and then merge+redirect that. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:29, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
That's interesting. I have never heard of that being done. So, when the author gives the article a name that we cannot redirect, we move it to a less controversial article name and then merge and redirect THAT article and delete the original Main Street article? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:00, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
It would preserve the attribution history, at least. I suspect that's what Wikipedia does in such a situation. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:06, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Orphaned Images[edit]

A lot of recent nominations are citing "site policy is that orphaned images should be deleted", but are these files that were uploaded directly to the English version only? If not, are there ways to ensure that other language versions are not using them? Even from wikivoyage shared it seems not to be able to tell you what pages on which language versions are using specific images. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:27, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Other language versions cannot use files on :en; that's the whole point of :shared. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:02, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
See Project:Deletion policy#Reasons to delete images for the policy. Most of these images pre-date shared:, and as LtPowers said they cannot be used on other language versions. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:22, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
I thought so. Just wanted to make sure we weren't nominating photos that may have been used elsewhere. (although most of these photos have other reasons for their nominations anyway). (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:39, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
In the interests of efficiency, do we really need to debate these? Why can't they be covered by the criteria for speedy deletion? Ryan for example has just today added a lot of orphaned images for consideration. All are clearly ripe for deletion per Project:Deletion policy. Given that this page receives scant attention anyway, let's save it for articles which clearly need consideration.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
There have been instances in the past where people wanted to de-orphan images that were nominated, so putting them up for nomination probably still makes sense, but I'd be OK with shortening the nomination period for these sorts of images (say, 3-7 days) if there is concern with cluttering up the page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:52, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Revisiting this issue, English Wikivoyage has a few thousand orphaned images. Not all of them are suitable for deletion - some are SVG sources for maps, for example - but many are obvious deletion candidates and potential copyvios. I've been nominating obvious candidates and speedy deleting where it seemed reasonable, but is there any interest in handling this differently? Does anyone else feel that the current approach is unnecessarily cluttering up the VFD page, or should it continue as-is? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:37, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

See also earlier discussion Wikivoyage_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Separate_images_and_article_deletions.3F (WT-en) Pashley 08:20, 26 April 2012 (EDT)
I have no problem with the way it's currently going. If anyone sees an image worthy of keeping, it can be uploaded to shared. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:06, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

One additional note, in case anyone wonders why nomination of orphaned images is of any value: with the scheduled Mediawiki upgrade and other potential changes in the future we'll have the possibility of moving image hosting to Wikimedia Commons, but since they are fairly strict on licensing, moving images will require scrubbing questionable images from Wikivoyage and ensuring that we have licensing info for those that remain. Getting rid of questionable orphaned images seems like a good starting point for what could eventually be a massive migration task. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:57, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

{{delh}} and {{delf}}[edit]

I'd like to suggest that {{delh}} and {{delf}} be imported from Commons, and applied to deletion requests that are closed. Then a bot can easily pick them out and archive. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I find delh confusing, at least to human editors, because it comes before the section header. That means it shows up at the bottom if you edit the previous section, and it doesn't show up at all if you edit the section in question. But in general, we don't have enough deletions to be worth coding a bot for it. LtPowers (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearer wording in the header[edit]

Obviously policy discussions do not take page on the associated project page, but rather at Wikivoyage:Deletion policy.

Nevertheless and for some years we have had some nutshell advice in the header encapsulating some of the salient points that might be overlooked by people using this page.

Recently it became clearer that some editors were not aware that their view(s) would not be taken into account if they did not express a "delete" or "keep" rationale.

I would therefore like to propose that the header be changed to read as follows:

This page has lists of articles, files and templates that are recommended for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can recommend an article, file or template for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can comment on the deletion nomination, but a deletion rationale must be provided or the comment will be disregarded.

Recommendations are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

After fourteen days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain, there shouldn't be a deletion. Otherwise an administrator will delete the nomination. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections below prior to nominating or commenting on nominations.

The purpose of the votes for deletion page is narrow; policy discussion does not take place here.

See also:

-- Alice 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The bit about a deletion rationale must be provided or the comment disregarded is clearly not always true, and doesn't reflect current practice. The most common counter example is simply agreeing with another user's rationale, forming a wider consensus. And policy discussion does take place here. We interpret the policy, and discuss its application. We even note inconsistencies in its application, before moving the discussion to the deletion policy page. --Inas (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Most enlightening.
1) I wonder if you would care to comment again here where I understood the deleting admin to have intimated both here and on other pages that it had always been our policy to disregard any comment that did not supply a deletion rationale?
2) I can clearly see the efficiency advantages to be gained by this revision of 02:39, 26 November 2012 but, and again if I understand you correctly, you are indicating that Peter was pfing when he added that particular policy filip about "The purpose of the votes for deletion page is narrow; policy discussion does not take place here" but you only noticed that when I restored it? -- Alice 06:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreeing with someone else's deletion rationale seems fine to me, as long as it's regarding a deletion rationale. The point is that we're not tallying votes, or making/changing policy. So yes, the vfd page is for interpreting and applying policy—but not for creating it. --Peter Talk 06:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Guilty, unless proven innocent?[edit]

There appears to be a clear contradiction between Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion#Deleting.2C_or_not and Wikivoyage:Consensus#Status_quo_bias. The former may seem more relevant, but is not really a policy but a guideline/instruction. The latter is a policy, but is a blanket statement. We need to clarify this after the deletion of Marriage in China. JamesA >talk 04:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going to post about this. I'm mystified by how decisions are being made and who's making them. And I can cite other examples. There was a clear majority vote approaching a consensus to keep Template:Busy, yet it was deleted.[2] On the other hand, there was a weak consensus at best (more like dissension, with a large minority opposed) to keep Wikivoyage:Requested articles, yet the page was kept.[3] I am not arguing that Wikivoyage:Requested articles should have been deleted in the face of majority support, but is the standard that there needs to be a consensus to keep an article, or that there should be a clear majority to delete it? In neither case does there seem to be a consistent, clear policy that's being followed every time. So, are we working by consensus, or are some people making secret decisions, or what? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
There's also the odd double standard where "it's a real place" is a valid excuse to keep every Yarker-sized hamlet, whether it has any listings or not, but non-geographic articles (travel topics and itinerary) are pretty much shoot-on-sight if someone doesn't like them. Why the huge difference? K7L (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Side note, but having been the one who closed contentious VFDs in the past, it is a fairly thankless task and often tough to figure out exactly what to do with a discussion that is long past its two week discussion period. In general I would say always assume good faith on the part of the deleter, but please do raise questions where appropriate and, more importantly, suggest clarifications to policies (and ways make them consistent) as needed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with all the points made. There have been some hasty decisions that are often at odds with each other, but we should assume faith that the closers may have interpreted these confusing policies in different ways. I also agree that we should not keep every "real place". Sometimes it's better to put info about a small town with 2 listings into one about an all-encompassing region, or possibly a larger town, kind of like what I'm doing with Bangladesh's regions. Let's focus on correcting the policy. JamesA >talk 04:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
A real place should never be nominated at vfd. We're just going to waste our time with discussions on whether a place qualifies. If it is not worth an article, just redirect it to a larger place or region. One day it will help someone looking for it. If any discussion is needed it should be at the talk page of the article with people who are familiar with the place. Lets save vfd for real scope issues. There is no policy option to delete if it is a real place. (Exception being pcv). --Inas (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I surely am not assuming bad faith, but it was quite surprising to see Marriage in China suddenly deleted without further notice, when we have come to no consensus about either that article or the scope of topics that may be allowable on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Well our policy says exactly that, we delete articles when no consensus to keep has been reached after 14 days. If you think something else should have happened, you need to propose a change to that policy! --Inas (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Inas: I agree that real places shouldn't be VfD'ed, but redirected or merged where appropriate. That could probably be done under the auspices of a knowledgeable user. And Re your second post, could you link/cite that policy please? JamesA >talk 05:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
First of all, on real places being nominated at vfd - how about commercial estates where it's not clear whether or what to redirect them to? I would observe, also, that some of the posts I've made in talk pages of articles, such as Talk:Turin, where I asked at least twice whether the article should be moved to Torino, have been completely ignored. Posting here is a sure way to get noticed.
Second, Inas, there was a consensus to keep the deleted Template:Busy, as I mentioned - a much stronger consensus than there was to keep Wikivoyage:Requested articles, which was kept. I don't see any consistent application of a policy that an article that about half the discussants want kept, for specified policy reasons, is always deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
When I read Wikivoyage:Requested articles, I see an initial proposal to delete, followed by counter arguments to meet the arguments given, followed by arguments to keep that are not met or further discussed. Consensus is a difficult thing to determine, but you can't stop a consensus just by voting to delete at the beginning and not returning to the discuss the arguments given in favour of keeping.
If a real place need a redirect - then redirect it. If you don't know what to redirect it to, then use the article talk page. If you want further feedback, you can use requests for comment, or the pub. Commercial estates, etc, where they aren't real geographical places, fall within our vfd policy and should be nominated for deletion. This is just restating what is on the policy page. --Inas (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
What happened on Wikivoyage:Requested articles is that I saw which way the discussion was going and gave up. And I am not trying to reargue that vfd - I accept that there was a clear majority in favor of keeping that article, and I also think that the article probably isn't doing much harm and may be doing some good. So that is not my point at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The double standard is for articles that have just been created and for articles that have been around for a long time. The status quo bias rule recommends deleting the former and keeping the latter.

The "proven innocent" bit should be emphasis on the proven. That is, we're not votingтм—we're making policy-based arguments. Policy was pretty clear on Template:Busy, regardless of popular opinion. In such a case, people who want the page kept should head to the policy talk page and make their arguments for a policy change (in that case, it would be a discussion of templates designed for use in userspace at Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates, and from the deafening silence there, it would appear no one cared enough to do save the template).

Lastly, I'll also echo Ryan's point. Anyone closing a contentious, muddy vfd sticks their neck out a bit, and relies mostly on their reputation as a respected editor who understands our policies thoroughly. Lest it be thought totally thankless—thank you to those who do that type of work, even when I am unsure whether the action taken was correct! --Peter Talk 05:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't vote on Template:Busy. However, I think there's a contradiction here. If this site is based on consensus, and despite a previously agreed-upon rule, there is a consensus to violate it, why does the rule take precedence? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Because we can't re-argue every rule with every vfd. We arrive at the rules by consensus, and then apply the rules to the vfd. "Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our current policy." Changes to the policy should be argued on the policy pages, not here. --Inas (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
My point of view would be that if a decision made here by a clear consensus violates preexisting policies, the policies have to either be changed or absorb an exception to them. Consensus is a moving target that is always subject to change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict x3) We need a Use Common Sense policy or maybe a Ignore All Rules. Common sense and consensus should always come before policy, as we can't always design policies to be perfect for every situation.
And Peter, if your first statement is true, then Marriage in China did not really deserve deletion. It only goes to show there is clear confusion and the policy is nowhere near adequate. JamesA >talk 05:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as the one who has done the lion's share of said thankless work lately: what can I say, sometimes I get a wild hair up my you-know-what and I notice a major bit of cleaning that needs to be done and I dive right in. That being said, I had a sneaking suspicion that my sudden boldness might ruffle some feathers.

I think that a lot of the specific cases mentioned are excellent reasons why the current deletion policy as spelled out in Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#Deleting, or not is a good one - the paramount example being Marriage in China. In the case of that nomination, the discussion period lasted for 42 days - far more than the prescribed 14 days before action should be taken - and the deliberations had petered out in a stalemate, with no consensus having been reached and none likely to be reached.

What do we do in that case? Do we simply let the discussion languish on the page with no resolution? That, in my estimation, amounts to a de facto result of keep; therefore we have a page filled with questionable content, topped off with an ugly {{vfd}} template. At a place like Wikipedia, there's a large and robust community of active editors who will notice a template like that, and come to a page like this to reignite the debate with new insight that may help break us through the stalemate. We're not Wikipedia. The presence of VfD templates on a page for indefinite periods of time - and in the case of low-traffic pages like Marriage in China, "indefinite" invariably equals "long" - is an embarrassment.

Do we, instead, take contentious arguments like the one regarding Marriage in China and derive inspiration to improve our policies? Maybe, but realistically, how often is that going to happen? Is it even possible from a practical standpoint to, as Inas put it, "re-argue every rule with every vfd"? I think obviously not.

That, in my estimation, coupled with the fact that anything that's deleted on Wikivoyage can be undeleted, is why I think it's a good idea to be biased in favor of deleting questionable articles absent any clear consensus to keep, redirect, merge, disambiguate, etc. The nature of working on a collaborative project is that toes are stepped on every once in a while. Policy discussions like this are useful in keeping disagreements to a minimum, but at some level, it's inevitable. Better that a decision be made that not everyone is happy with than we waste time arguing in circles. I also greatly appreciate the acknowledgement by other commenters, even those who may have disagreed with my perceived hastiness, that I was at least acting in good faith and following policy as I understood it.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest doubt that you were acting in good faith. I do disagree with your point about undeletions, though, because it is much harder to get a consensus to undelete than to avoid a deletion in the first place. Would you disagree with that point? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
While I also agree you acted in good faith, there appears to often be a selective application of policy. While the page may say guilty unless proven innocent, WV:Consensus which I clearly linked to before deletion says pretty much the exact opposite (quoting no exceptions). JamesA >talk 05:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that a case where we're really split like Marriage in China (I don't have an opinion on whether keep or delete was the right move, and I made the case to keep), it's ultimately not that big of a deal for either action to be taken, and I'm glad that someone took one. I don't see that as evidence that our methods here don't work. Re: Template:Busy, if you care, just bring it up on the policy talk page. There's been too much time wasted on that template because people aren't bothering to make the case for a policy change that would probably pass.
And again, I disagree with this reading of "guilty unless proven innocent." That just means that if no one makes the case for why a page should be kept per policy, it will be deleted. --Peter Talk 05:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
To speak to JamesA's comment: if I'm not mistaken, the line in Wikivoyage:Consensus that you're referring to is:
"In the case that a consensus becomes impossible—those involved have carefully responded to each others' arguments, but remain in disagreement—we stick with the status quo practice."
I saw that too when you linked to it, and I think the thing that you and I disagree on is whether that's a statement of hard-and-fast policy (i.e., "the rule is we have to stick with status quo absent a consensus for change") or a statement of general truth (i.e., "if there's no consensus for change, what we usually end up doing is sticking with the status quo"). We would do well to clarify that question. But, even leaving that aside, I think common sense dictates that where there's a conflict in our policies, we apply the one that addresses the issue of deletion in particular, spelled out on the top of the page, rather than the one that's applied to "consensus" in a much broader sense.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't really care about Template:Busy. I never cared one way or another about it, and that ship has sailed and, fortunately, Saqib didn't leave and stop editing here (which would have been my only real concern). I also don't care greatly that Marriage in China was deleted. What I care about is having a deletion policy that is more consistently applied and more in line with our policies on consensus, which, as I understand it, is the entire basis for this site, and should take precedence over everything else. So a line should be drawn in some clear place, and I'm really not seeing it. The way I would summarize the discussion is: (1) Template:Busy was deleted in spite of a clear consensus to keep it, because a preexisting policy required its deletion. I would respond to this by asking, in that case, why there was any discussion in vfd at all, and conversely, since there was a discussion and a consensus was against deleting, why was that disregarded? (2) There was a consensus to keep Wikivoyage:Requested articles. I see a clear majority to keep that article but not a consensus. Under those circumstances, keeping the article was sensible, though arguably inconsistent with the decision on "Busy."(3) Since there was a stalemate on Marriage in China, there was no consensus to keep, and therefore it was deleted. That's actually clear. But in that case, what do we do with (4) These are not really votes, and the consensus doesn't actually count here; only policy counts. My reply on that is that it violates the entire concept of consensus to insist that previously agreed-on policies supersede a new consensus on a specific. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, discussions at VfD are supposed to be focused on how our pre-existing policy applies to specific articles. The consensus we're trying to come to is not the question of whether the article should or should not be deleted per se, but rather, the question of whether or not the article violates policy. If someone disagrees with the policy, well and good, but that discussion belongs elsewhere. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I fully understand your explanation, but we can always change our policy on what discussions at vfd are supposed to be focused on. I'm thinking about the concept of jury nullification. Juries have the right to disregard laws if they come to a consensus to acquit a suspect who they know is guilty of violating a law, on grounds that they just don't like the law. Here, we have no laws, only guidelines reached by a previous consensus, so nothing as serious as jury nullification can ever happen here, nor are any issues nearly as grave as someone's liberty or imprisonment. So why should we be rigid on rules if we are all about consensus? I repeat: Consensus is a moving target.
In short, I fully understand the explanation of why an unapproved template was deleted. I just question the emphasis on preexisting policies, rather than a changing consensus that's always subject to flux. My other issue is on whether the consensus should be required to keep an article, rather than to delete it, but we can discuss that in Wikivoyage:Deletion policy. Actually, we can discuss all of this there.Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
One other remark on the specific, though: There was no consensus that Marriage in China violated policy. So is the necessary consensus that an article does not violate policy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Per "guilty until proven innocent", yes, that was my reading of the policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that vfds can and should spur policy discussions, but that they shouldn't take place here. I say that having seen this page erupt on more than one occasion into a nasty battleground, when people have tried to push policy preferences here instead of working towards consensus in policy discussion. Working relationships soured, long-time users stormed off, and drama took everyone's eyes off improving our site. The more we treat this as a voting page, rather than a page for discussing how policy applies to the cases, the more I expect to see that type of thing. --Peter Talk 07:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] The policy in question, I guess, being whether that was an article under the scope of wiaa. I understand. But it will cause me to think a bit differently about future discussions, knowing that in case of a stalemate, it might be best to give up if I am on the "Keep" side.
Peter, I give considerable deference to your speaking from experience. I'm not really saying policy arguments should take place here, but that consensus to keep an article (or to delete it) should be able to override preexisting policy, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
But then would we not be forced to try to change our policies every time a large number of users decided a particular page or template was "useful"? Whose job is it to try to craft an exception or workaround or circumlocution and write it into the policy? How broad or narrow should that exception be? Should it be explicit or implicit? Can you see what a can of worms that would be? For the record, I don't believe there was a consensus to keep Template:Busy. What we had were a bunch of people asserting that "hey, it's harmless and I like it" without actually making a policy-based argument in favor. If I had to keep something because a bunch of people -- mostly new users, frankly -- said they really like it, we would quickly end up with either a) inconsistent policies with weird exceptions inserted all over the place, or b) useless, toothless policies that have counterexamples and violations in clear evidence throughout the site. I don't think either one is acceptable. (And by the way, if anyone has a question about one of my deletions, I would appreciate being asked directly in the future. Or at least notified of a discussion if one occurs.) LtPowers (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Discussions here should absolutely be based on policy, and this should not become a place where policy gets tweaked, ignored, superseded, hole-punched, shaved, molded, decorated, or otherwise messed with. If we allow that, then we lose our criteria here, and it all devolves into a butting of heads. Texugo (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In a real-world courthouse, there is the concept of "legislative intent". A judge looks at the wording of the law itself, but also looks at what a legislature intended when they created the law. (It's also valid to query whether laws contradict other laws or the constitution in a land.) The "legislative intent" of an arbitrarily restrictive policy on creating templates was to keep the mainspace pages in a consistent format (see, do, buy, eat, drink, sleep) across multiple districts or multiple destinations. The {{busy}} deletion attempts to apply an equally-restrictive standard to user page content. That does nothing required by the "legislative intent" of the original policy, as there's no inherent reason to standardise user pages to the structure used for destination articles. National laws do get "tweaked" by precedent cases in courtrooms, routinely. This isn't a robot script. K7L (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like an argument that should have been brought up in the vfd discussion, but the fact that these decisions sometimes involve interpretation of policies which are perhaps not as clear as they should be does not mean that we shouldn't enforce policies here to the utmost of our ability and discourage use of this page to call for exceptions to or referendums on existing policies. When policies need to be revisited, we can revisit them on their own discussion pages, but using the vfd space to create precedents should be discouraged as much as possible.Texugo (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Besides which, I disagree that this was a case where a guiltless user-space template got caught up in a prohibition that had no intent of applying to user space. The "legislative history" (if we're going to insist on such a metaphor) is clear that templates beyond Babel simply had not been used to any noticeable extent prior to the move to WMF; that is a strong indication that the template policy did indeed apply to userspace.
But more importantly, this is not a court of law, and administrators are not judges. Our policies are not worded with the specificity of legalese, and are never intended to be completely inviolable in any case. LtPowers (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
LtPowers, I'm sorry I didn't notify you that Template:Busy was being discussed. I frankly didn't remember or even think about whose decision it was to delete that template (or the idea that it was one person's deletion, in any case), and the reason I brought it up was that I didn't understand the basis for some recent decisions to delete and keep, and that seemed like a good example to bring up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

When to archive[edit]

I do not think this is either important or urgent, but it seems worth asking.

After the recent discussion Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/June_2013#Superfluous_Shanghai_districts, I saw a consensus to redirect and did the redirects, but I quite deliberately left the discussion on the vfd page because 14 days had not elapsed and it seemed possible someone else might want to comment.

A few hours later User:AndreCarrotflower archived the discussion with a comment indicating that I should have done that when I redirected. In at least one sense, he is quite correct; that is the general policy. On the other hand, I think things should stay up for 14 days.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be done halfway. Either there's a consensus, in which case the discussion should be archived, or there's not, in which case no action should be taken. And the rules say we shouldn't really look at consensus until 14 days have elapsed, though I think most folks would be fine with an early resolution if consensus is clear. LtPowers (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

deleting pages that only have section titles[edit]

As a reasonable number of pages are being deleted at the moment without submission to this page, could someone please clarify to me the rules on deleting pages that are basically just page holders? --Traveler100 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Our policy regarding this was discussed extensively in a previous VfD - see Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2013#Skeleton pages. Additionally, if you see a page deleted without any VfD discussion, by all means bring it to the attention of admins. That is a flagrant violation of policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion spree[edit]

Expounding on Traveler100's comments above, I am indeed seeing on the Recent Changes log that User:Globe-trotter is deleting a large number of articles without putting them through the VfD process. Additionally, I see nothing in our policy that allows for speedy-deletion of pages because they are "non-useful content or [a] test", as his edit summaries indicate. In fact, several of the articles he has deleted were previously put through the VfD process with a consensus of speedy keep, for the very reason that lack of content is not a deletion rationale. Please advise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

See Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy#Deleting empty articles Globe-trotter (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
At the very least, let's take a few minutes to update the policy pages before we start acting on new consensuses. Not everybody follows every discussion on every talk page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not a policy, it's a one time consensus to get rid of the WT attribution on articles that don't need any attribution to that site. I see you're reverting the changes, which makes the WT attribution reappear. Please recreate the article instead of reverting the deletion, else the process loses its purpose. Globe-trotter (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
My mistake, and no antagonism was intended. But again, not everyone follows every talk page discussion. It may have been helpful if you had cited Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy#Deleting empty articles in your edit summary rather than just "no useful content or test". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
In that same discussion too, we decided to not add a notice to the policy page. I would strongly recommend, in any case, that admins add project pages to their watchlist that affect the use of their tools. I'll update Wikivoyage:Administrator's handbook to include that recommendation. --Peter Talk 18:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I have also been doing a lot of deletions, based on related but different criteria. See Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Related_question. Pashley (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleting pages with No useful content or test appears to be breaking breadcrumbs (or is the sequence of events more complex), for example Como (Province) was region for Menaggio, Lake Como, Nesso and Torno. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not a part of the same phenomenon. I am not sure what happened there, but I just restored that page to have a look, and it doesn't look like the page ever existed as anything but a redirect to the correctly spelled version of that page, which has never existed. At the time when I deleted it, there was a user moving things around in the hierarchy around there without discussion, and perhaps I misunderstood what was originally there, so it still needs to be sorted out, but it had nothing to do with deleting empty articles as referenced above ("No useful content or test" is a default option in the drop down menu when you delete, which happened to be valid for deleting a redirect to nowhere, I guess). No articles with "children" in the hierachy are being deleted for the purposes of resetting the WT attribution, at least not that I know of. Texugo (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
OK I will create the page with the correct spelling and correct the breadcrumbs. Cannot add much about the region though, only passed through a few times. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Other "topics in ..." articles[edit]

The discussion now archived at Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2013#Travel_topics_by_country ends with "consensus: deleted", but the thing suggested for deletion were some specific pages "and all the rest". All the rest are not gone; searching for "topics in ..." I still find at least a dozen.

Can I go ahead and delete those? Pashley (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think you should speedy delete them per discussion before they nominated for deletion by someone. --Saqib (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Euh, there was no "consensus to delete". This was not a consensus, there were at least 2 outstanding votes to wait, and 3 to delete, so you deleted it based on a majority vote. Which, to be honest, is a pity. Is it really too much to ask when someone as active as Ryan, backed up by Inas, asks to wait a bit? There's no rush in non-copyvio deletions. They really don't have to be deleted exactly on the 2 week mark. For the record, I have no opinion about these articles, but I think as a tiny community we should be more lenient when no harm is being done, really. JuliasTravels (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Julias, I guess you're not aware of discussions going on here and here. These deletion nominated articles has to be deleted. --Saqib (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of the discussions, although I don't follow them in detail. My main point is that as long as there are outstanding objections, you can't just call it a consensus. Consensus is when participants agree. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You're right that there was no consensus. But our standard is to require consensus to keep, not consensus to delete. If you would like to propose changing that standard, then that's a question for Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy. LtPowers (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't, and I don't want to keep those articles either - that wasn't my point :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm the one that originally suggested deleting all of these, I still want to do that, and my reading of the other discussions is that there is consensus that it should be done.
However, I do not want to do it prematurely. My main concern here is whether taking them out now will mess up efforts to build an alternate structure. Pashley (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

All "Topics in" pages can now be deleted. Reference to these pages have been removed and alternative structure development is no longer dependent on these pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Taking action on non-speedy VfD candidates before two weeks have passed[edit]

Despite numerous previous warnings, some admins in particular seem to be very fond of doing this. No matter how clear the consensus may seem to be after the first or second day of discussion, taking premature action on VfD's is a violation of policy. Please stop doing this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, there are procedures in place to allow ending VFDs early (Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion and Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy keep), but an important caveat in those guidelines is:
"Do not end a VFD early unless a clear consensus is reached. A consensus is not the same as a majority, nor do a small handful of comments in favor of keeping an article constitute a consensus. If you are unsure about whether a consensus has been reached, allow the VFD to continue."
In general, unless something is very, very obviously a speedy keep or speedy deletion candidate then it is always best to let the full 14 day nomination period complete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
And if there is still not a clear consensus after 14 days, it should be left for longer. Texugo (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
@Ryan - According to a strict reading of policy, speedy deletion candidates don't even belong on the VfD page - they should be tagged with {{Template:Speedy}} or simply deleted on sight. Occasionally a user may nominate an article for "regular deletion" on the VfD page that another user may feel is instead a candidate for speedy deletion. In that case, the latter user should vote speedy delete, and the candidate article will be speedied in a day or two barring any objections. That was not true in any of the recent cases.
@Texugo - Not true; articles are presumed guilty until proven innocent, so no consensus after 14 days = delete.
AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Leaving a discussion open longer than 14 days when there isn't a clear consensus has been an unwritten policy for as long as I can remember, but you're right that it's not written anywhere. There was a relatively recent proposal to formalize an additional 14 day discussion period for nominations without a clear consensus, but I don't think anything came out of that. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Page photo[edit]

I realize this page is called "Votes for deletion", but that's more for historical reasons than anything else. I'm just afraid that a picture of a ballot with the suggestion "Cast your vote" is going to encourage thinking of these discussions as majority-rules votes rather than the discussions they actually are. LtPowers (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrecking ball.jpg
Explosive Ordnance Disposal of a bus.jpg
One of these, perhaps? Pashley (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Or we could always give it the Pub / Tourist Office treatment...? --Nick talk 21:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I've gone crazy and done it - please feel free to revert my edit and shoot me! --Nick talk 22:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
No shooting here, but that giant red bar is a little much; large red visuals tend to alarm readers. LtPowers (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad to here it! When I get a chance, I'll try and tone it down a bit. :) --Nick talk 02:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I appreciate the going ahead, but this version gives too much of a negative feel to the page, so I'd rather see something else than a bit of toning down. I like the pictures, also because they are a lot smaller. I like large fun or exiting visuals like the article banners, but these huge err.. "icon banners" or however they're called don't have the same effect for me. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Please feel free to do whatever you'd like with the page - I won't be offended! --Nick talk 19:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad the hear that, but it's obviously far easier to comment on efforts by others than to do a better job yourself ;-) It is in my case, anyway.. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I find the new images here & in pub & tourist office useless and irritating. Pashley (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I don't like the one on the page overleaf. Let's remove it. Nurg (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The image icons and splashes of color give these pages some much-needed visual pizzazz. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The current image is set to match the one used for this page at Wikivoyage:Community portal. Texugo (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with the photo, myself. To those of you who find it irritating: What would you like to be there, instead? Nothing, or some other image? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy with nothing. But thinking about what I most dislike about it – it's the large size. If it was reduced to about 60px, it would be much less intrusive, use much less screen space, etc., and it may even be easier to take in what the image is portraying. Nurg (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Do no harm[edit]

Despite the fact that User:Rschen7754 is convinced no-one will read this page, I think it's probably a good idea to start a thread here. I take no firm position on whether the templates currently nominated for deletion should be deleted or kept, but I do think we could consider a new approach to Vfd, understanding that the more new users there are here, especially those more familiar with other Wiki projects, the more that templates will be brought over from other Wikis or created by users who have no idea they'd be expected to put their templates to a vote and hope for a consensus. I think it's unreasonable to delete templates that are harmless or actively good just because their creation didn't follow procedures that were easier to maintain when this Wiki had a smaller number of users who knew each other. This is a website, not a rigid bureaucracy; am I right? Considering my thoughts in the Pub about flexibility, I think we should apply that not only to unfamiliar types of articles but also to new templates. If it's not causing a problem and someone is using it, let's let it be. Your thoughts, everyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. --Rschen7754 09:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Correct. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • With regard to the main namespace, I think it all boils down to consistency, which is one of the main points on which we differ from Wikipedia. By their very nature, our content articles are categorized into a very limited number of types, 11 to be exact (cities, districts, regions, phrasebooks, etc.), each of which shares the same characteristics, presentation, style, and way of organizing the information, for the benefit of the traveller's ease in locating information in a quick and predictable manner. It has taken a lot of work to create and maintain that consistency over the years, and that is the reason we don't just let people create random new article types and organizational schemes without tagging them, discussing them, and discarding them if they do not present solutions that can be incorporated into the sitewide consistency we have established. If we don't ever clean that stuff up, then we start to step away from the cohesion and consistency we have built and start allowing a creeping jumble of formats and styles. Similarly, allowing people to create and use idiosyncratic mainspace templates which are not appropriate for sitewide use is something we have intentionally avoided because it could mean that a random handful of articles are, without a considered reason, treated differently than the rest, which would again be a step away from our consistency standard. If people do design new templates with the forethought of how they could be used sitewide, we still need to discuss and ensure that the given sitewide change is something we do in fact want to make. This discussion phase is the reason we have the experimental tag. Otherwise these things can start to proliferate and take hold without thought to how they will affect the consistency we have instilled between every article. I for one certainly do not wish to see us do anything to undermine or dismantle the coherence we have worked hard to establish between our articles. Experimentation is fine, but tagging and actually discussing is important, and when the discussion is still fruitless or non-existent after a number of months, at some point we need to say "OK, this didn't catch on, time to junk it." Otherwise we start to lose track, be less consistent, and confuse people who come across them.
  • With regard to the user space, I think we can afford to be more lax about it. There is a current discussion somewhere about allowing more user space templates, in which I summarized my opinion that such templates should be strictly related to travel rather than people wasting their time making "I like cheese" or "I play tiddlywinks" templates, but if they are somehow travel-related I don't mind. Would still prefer we have an approved set of them, but with very loose criteria.
  • With regard to talk space, I suppose I don't mind loosening up somewhat, though it's worth pointing out that we have rejected several tags of the support/oppose/agree/disagree type before for not matching well with our non-voting consensus style, so while I don't think we need tough restrictions in this category, I wouldn't support any system where we are no longer allowed to vfd such templates. Would still prefer we kept these to an approved set based on loose criteria, to prevent people from making garish templates simply to grab attention.
Texugo (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The point of the "experimental" tag was to lower the bar for template creation, but maybe we should make that more explicit. I agree with Texugo that we need to be circumspect about templates that change mainspace and should be less worried about templates destined for use elsewhere, and also believe that a template creator should be responsible for explaining the purpose of the template. Two changes that might achieve that goal:
  1. If "experimental" is too off-putting, let's find some other verbiage that makes it clear that the template needs to be explained before it should be more widely deployed - "incubation" maybe?.
  2. I suggest that we adopt some language comparable to Ikan's "do no harm" with respect to templates - perhaps suggest that if there isn't a consensus not to implement a template after three days of discussion on the template's talk page that the "experimental" tag can be removed. That ensures that every template gets a minimum amount of discussion, but also significantly lowers the bar for creation of new templates.
-- Ryan • (talk) • 15:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think 3 days is pretty short and that allowing anything without a clear consensus against would let through practically anything the proposer is willing to argue for, without full consideration of whether it is something we wish to implement sitewide. And if we used your rules without such discussions being in a centralized place, I think things will be even more likely to slip through, since people are not in the habit of checking every random template discussion. Texugo (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I do like the idea of using the "incubator" language, and perhaps having a centralized incubator page in the WV space where such proposals can be brought up and discussed without us having to monitor every template change in the recent changes list for active discussions of this type. Texugo (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
No-one is suggesting that there should be any category of articles or files that should be ineligible to be nominated for deletion. Instead, my suggestion is that there should no longer be a presumption that just because a template or new article style didn't go through a bureaucratic process most new users will have no knowledge of, that that automatically makes it suspect. I don't think, in other words, that "didn't go through the approval process" should be a legitimate reason for deleting anything, and that, instead, those wanting to delete it should explain how it harms the site. I also think we should be careful not to make a desire to maintain consistency be the enemy of potentially positive change - plunging forward - even if started by "irregular" means. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this, though I am ever slightly closer to accepting this approach to templates than I am to accepting it for article types. With article types, this would mean that every time someone creates an article for an attraction, a body of water, a street, a highway, a district of an otherwise undistricted city, a calendar, a modest regional event, etc., that I would have the burden of proving that it "harms the site". I can already tell you that my answer in every case will be that it harms the site by organizing our coverage in an idiosynchratic unpredictable way instead of a way that is standardized for the reader's convenience, and of course, in every case, the creator will argue that it does not harm the site because it provides information, bla bla bla. These things pop up all the time, and I do not at all wish to start having to justify in each case why it is better to stick to our agreed-upon article models/manual of style. If such new additions do not represent a proposal to change the way things are done sitewide in all similar cases, with the accompanying discussion of whether to accept that proposal, then they should not be allowed to sit around and accumulate. Otherwise you just undermine the basic organization of this wiki by default. Texugo (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
You really thought I could have been talking about articles that are in violation of specific policies? Why would you think I meant that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Because you said "new article style" and I assumed you were referring to the recent calendar experiment, which falls outside of our defined 11 article types. Texugo (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I mean new article types that aren't specifically prohibited or restricted. I don't know of any specific policy that prevents a calendar article, only general policies at wiaa. Articles about bodies of water or attractions are specifically restricted on policy pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
But clearly they aren't. We just bend the rules to accommodate the ones we want, like we do for Disney attractions, and ski resorts. We have lots of body of water articles too, either made into travel topics, or we just pretend they are about the land that surrounds them. Look through the vfd's to see how many bodies of water have actually successfully been deleted, and the arguments over each one.
It think we need a Wikivoyage:Requests to try something new page. You need to list what you are trying and why. It is sort of like a small expedition. That way, people who really want to try something can, but people who are just passing by a copy a template from WP get caught early on. Just a small threshold should be enough. --Inas (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In my view, an article that adds additional article(s) for a given destination and duplicates coverage of something which already has its rightful place within that article is undoubtedly contrary to the spirit of our redundancy and coverage guidelines and WV:WYCSI. Not that I am against adding new article types, as I think the airport and dive guide articles have turned out well, but those were introduced sitewide in a conscious manner and with quite a bit of discussion. Virtually everything else that is travel related already has an assigned place within our guides, and if we are going to change what we cover or where, I think we'd be much better off discussing it broadly rather than setting up a system where undiscussed exceptions can more easily slip through. Texugo (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
WV:WYCSI is not a working link. What policy are you referring to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Wycsi. Texugo (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Re templates, I think they're fairly horrendous but handy hacks, and I include {{mapframe}} and {{marker}} among them. I consider the lack of templates here to be quite serendipitous, since badly coded templates like HTML fragments and odd tables have added to the problems that the Visual Editor is facing. The difference in template policy should actually be pointed out in the Welcome Wikipedians template too. However, the fact is that some templates are very useful, and it would be far better to discuss them on a single page, working out exactly what the template should do and further scope for it, as opposed to spread out on individual templates.
Can I take the above as an agreement that a page like Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/Proposals is needed, as I brought up in Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Some_thoughts_on_flexibility? Especially since the pub is getting fuller and fuller, and space is required for centralised discussion of new ideas. I see it as an incubator, a stepping stone to Wikivoyage:Roadmap. Could User:JamesA or anybody start a proposed layout in that case? -- torty3 (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

PS. I'm also not that concerned with VfDs or MoS issues, because even with consistency issues, there are thousands of inconsistent articles that have not been manually touched in more than a few years. -- torty3 (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've got the Pub splitting discussion rolling at Wikivoyage_talk:Travellers'_pub#Splitting_the_Pub. Please do contribute. James Atalk 11:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"but people who are just passing by a copy a template from WP get caught early on." That's the entirely wrong attitude to have. --Rschen7754 05:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rschen. Let's review some facts that I find salient: The WMF took us under their wing when we were endangered by a SLAPP lawsuit from IB. Wikipedia is, if I'm not mistaken, by far the largest Wikimedia site. So, our response is what? To be reflexively hostile to Wikipedia and deliberately difficult to Wikipedians, or to be openly friendly toward our sister sites and as user-friendly and welcoming as possible to visitors from Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites? I sometimes get the sense that there may be some people here who want to bite the hand that feeds us. I won't name names, but if the shoe fits, please stop wearing it and think seriously about how we should best function as a collegial sister site to the movement that did so much to help and arguably save us. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
To add to that, some English Wikipedians do go over to other sites and act like jerks. But assuming that they all are and treating them that way is not a good thing. --Rschen7754 06:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we "owe it" to individual Wikipedians to accept any and all templates they might want to use, nor do I think that not accepting any given template means that we are treating Wikipedians "like jerks". Sure, when it is something we decide is useful and there is no reason not to do it same way, we should make things easier for those users, but that doesn't mean everything they might want to do is something we want to do, and it certainly doesn't mean we should abolish our whole minimal-template ideal to allow all by default without discussion. Texugo (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally wouldn't Wikivoyage:Using MediaWiki templates be a better place for most of this discussion? Instead of proposing to loosen our deletion policy to include against-policy but ostensibly "harmless" templates, it seems like what is being proposed is an essential change to our process of proposing templates and its fundamental motivation of wanting to keep templates to a minimum to keep things as simple as possible, keep the code clean, reduce the learning curve for new users, and avoid format transfer problems like torty3 mentioned. Texugo (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why being welcoming to Wikipedians who want to edit Wikivoyage necessarily means accepting any and all templates they want to use. LtPowers (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
This isn't all or nothing, we're just asking for "some". --Rschen7754 20:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. And I'd like to think we'd be above "all-or-nothing" arguments. Also, the fact that some people are used to templates and want to use them does not make anyone use any that are purely optional, so I don't understand the learning curve argument. If we want to reduce the learning curve for new users, that would be great, and we can and should discuss that separately. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
You're asking for "some" and you already get "some". I'm not arguing for "nothing" either. I'm just asking that we continue to require prior discussion before accepting them to make sure they are a best practice and are something we want. And I'm asking you not to be surprised when templates that are anonymously imported, not explained or pointed out to anyone, and abandoned for months end up on the vfd page. It is certainly not ideal, but until/unless we have a centralized place for discussing such proposed templates, the vfd page is the only way we can ensure they get discussed and either approved or rejected, so that we can keep things under control. Texugo (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
"we can ensure they get discussed and either approved or rejected, so that we can keep things under control" - so much for a travel guide that anyone can edit. --Rschen7754 21:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
My problem is not with templates being discussed, but with an automatic presumption that templates (or indeed new types of articles) that have not gone through a bureaucratic process of approval that few new users will know about (talk about "learning curve") should be deleted, just because they didn't go through that process. And what I, and I think Rschen are arguing for is for these templates to be judged based not on whether the people who created them or brought them here followed some process they were unaware of, but whether they are, on balance, harming the site in some evident way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
As I said, it sounds like what you actually want is to change the policy at Wikivoyage:Using MediaWiki templates from "prior proposal, discussion, and acceptance, for the sake of keeping code simple" to "we no longer care how many templates are out there, whether they are necessary, or what they do, so do whatever you want and if somebody doesn't like it they have the burden of proving harm later". Either we have a proactive approach that puts the burden on the creator to show the need and usefulness and universal application, or we have a reactive one which puts the burden on everyone else to establish that something is harmful, regardless of the need or usefulness or suitability for universal application. I don't think we can do both and, at least with regard to the main namespace, I think the latter is but a good way to start unravelling our consistent, coherent approach to content building in favor of a more idiosyncratic, individualistic license for editors, at the likely expense of the convenience for the reader. So to me, making sure that the templates we use can contribute to our sitewide consistency is also a case of the traveller coming first, not the editors or template makers.
Rschen7754, that is unnecessarily negative, unhelpful criticism that anyone who doesn't get their way on any wiki could throw out there. Please try to be more constructive and address the points made. Texugo (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Uh, this is certainly relevant, as it treats those who come from Wikipedia like second-class citizens, contrary to the Wikimedia principle that "anyone can edit". Why are we saying that all these new templates "come from Wikipedia"? Would an "experimental" template be treated any differently if it came from an experienced Wikivoyager? --Rschen7754 23:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] Please explain how having an automatic bias in favor of rejecting templates that haven't gone through a formal approval process benefits the traveler, because I don't understand why it would. And please, once again, stop making "all or nothing" arguments, which strike me as disrespecting everyone's intelligence. I won't speak for Rschen, but my proposal is not that templates shouldn't be discussed or ruled on, but that the standard for deletion should be that they can be shown to harm the site. You are caricaturing the proposal, and I don't see how that's helpful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem that I have is that such "discussions" always take place at VFD, and the prejudice is always to delete. --Rschen7754 23:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There we can agree. I think that is the heart of the problem. Can we establish a proposals page, and change the text of the experimental template to let people know they should start/join a discussion there, and see how that goes? I think you are correct in thinking that things will be judged more favorably if presented there instead of on the vfd page. I think part of the problem is that since launch here we had a bunch of templates get started and never discussed according to policy, so without a central discussion page, there has been nothing to do with them except propose for deletion, and let a deletion-biased discussion take place there. You are both right that it is possibly unfair and hasty to delete both of the ones in vfd now, as I can see some validity in arguments regarding their usefulness. If we had a proposals page, we'd have a better place to bring up any other ones which may have slipped through, and new ones in the future. Ikan, if I am caricaturing your proposal, it's not on purpose. I think lowering the bar to "anything that can't be proven harmful" is too subjective and too lax a criterion, and that templates should also be shown to bring some broadly applicable added value to the site besides simply "somebody wanted to use it". But even the two I nominated on the page now might still arguably pass that bar of bringing added value and being broadly applicable, and they were only brought up here because no more appropriate place exists. So, can we go ahead with a proposals page and see if that helps to fight the deletion bias, which you want to avoid, without opening the floodgates on unnecessary, useless, or inconsistent stuff, which is what I want to avoid? Texugo (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's try that and see how it goes. I should add that I think it's usually good to have reasonable liberal and conservative positions represented in discussions, such that there are people who are enthusiastic about changes they think will help the people (in this case, the readers/travelers) and others who counsel against undue speed, lest things that are already working not be preserved and maintained. And the liberal or conservative positions don't necessarily get taken by the same people in every situation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Ikan, you mentioned above that the standard should be whether a template harms the site in some way. Did Template:Ref and Template:Note harm the site in any way, by their mere presence? Or are you talking about using them being harmful, not just their creation? LtPowers (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Interesting distinction. I think the way I'd put it is, the issue is whether a template would harm the site if it were used, regardless of whether it has already been used. And in the cases you bring up, as long as we continue to hold as a specific matter of policy and structure that travel guides like this one should have no refs or footnotes, templates that facilitate them harm the site by creating extra work for patrollers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so the definition of "harm" could be quite broad. Could it possibly extend to "this template unnecessarily obfuscates wikicode and makes it harder for newbies to understand wikitext"? LtPowers (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I see what you're getting at, but that could extend to an argument to abolish templates. I think that if the template in question won't need to be edited and isn't doing anything harmful, it doesn't matter much if a new user has trouble understanding the template's code. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I do get your point, though. I just doubt that optional templates are a major issue affecting the learning curve here, though I could be wrong. I think that things that affect the learning curve here include obligatory article templates, restrictions on location description and other things that smack of touting in hotel and some other listings, avoiding the 1st person, restrictions on external links to Wikipedia and various other unofficial links, and this site's tour policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A friendly reminder...[edit]

Please don't archive VfD nominations we've voted to delete until the article in question is actually deleted. If the nomination is unceremoniously buried in a rarely-seen archive, it's likely that no one will remember to delete the article (even if a speedy tag is placed on it).

Furthermore, if you don't have the sysop privileges necessary to delete articles, it's probably best to let someone else handle archiving.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. --Saqib (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Reconsidering unanimity and guilty until proven innocent[edit]

First part copied here from the vfd discussion about Trouble with authorities, to allow for further discussion.

No consensus to keep

Okay: as we'd hoped, the author of this article has come out of the woodwork and made his (her?) case for keeping it. But Andrewssi2 has been vociferously arguing for its deletion, and from his tone it looks unlikely that he'll be swayed. It's been three weeks since the nomination and, given that we lack a unanimous consensus to keep, policy dictates that it should be deleted imminently. Absent any major sea changes within the next day or two, I'm going to do that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If that's the standard, then any one person alone could get anything deleted, including real geographic destinations, just by nominating it and stubbornly refusing to back down. Ronald Reagan could nominate Russia for deletion and, in the absence of unanimous consensus for or against, bombing would begin in five minutes. Wow. K7L (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Not only are you both right about the current disproportionate "one man on the nuclear button" policy, it's also against policy to discuss it here - as opposed to on the discussion page of this project page... --118.93nzp (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any place that demands unanimity for a keep result. Powers (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Um. Our policy has never been taken to mean we need 100% unanimity to keep something. I seem to remember quite a lot of things being kept despite my personal opinion to delete, and the world didn't end. Texugo (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you that a consensus, while broader than a 50%+1 majority, does not require unanimity, and I thought we had already exorcised that notion in some other decisions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Granted, Saqib is the one who's generally handled VfD's lately, but I distinctly recall that our interpretation of "guilty until proven innocent" has been that all outstanding delete votes have to be recanted before an article is kept. If that's changed at any time over the past few months, I apologize. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
If consensus doesn't require unanimity to block a user, how could it require unanimity to keep an article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I reiterate that I remember this being our procedure, but a) I've been fairly inactive on VfD for a while, b) I see nothing written in policy other than a vague reference to "guilty until proven innocent", and c) I really don't feel like digging through the archives for examples, so I'm prepared to just drop it. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if that was the rule, that's a pretty bad rule. --Rschen7754 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you're all right. The policy is just vague, and various admins have interpreted it in various ways over the years. We should just clear it up, and as far as I'm concerned, get rid of that "guilty until.." sentence. On other wikis, there are (often far too) extensive and well-considered policy pages for these things. Maybe we should just take a few basic ideas/procedures from there and see if they would work for us. That would also bring our deletion policy more in line with the way we handle other discussions and nominations. Adapt the Wikivoyage:Consensus page to better explain that it is not the same as unanimity, and link it here. Officially adopt the Wikipedia and other wikis procedure of an uninvolved admin determining such a consensus based on arguments (which in practice we often already do) and adopt the policy that in case of a lack of consensus, we maintain the status quo, leaving some option for relisting. If others think it's worth reconsidering the policy itself, I'm happy to write up a first proposal on the talk page for further discussion. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the "guilty until..." bit contradicts our infamous "status quo bias," which is policy. In the absence of consensus, a fail-safe approach would err on the side of not nuking Goldsboro. :) K7L (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That it contradicts the status quo bias is intentional. We want articles to have to pass a high bar, and not get a pass just because they went undiscovered for a while. Powers (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see how a vfd with a status quo bias only in the case of no consensus and with an option for relisting is not a high bar indeed? It seems to be fine for many other wikis as well. I'll copy this discussion to the talk page, let's continue this discussion there without cluttering this page? JuliasTravels (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the archives, I also see Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/January_2014#Template:NowCommons, which in my opinion is a problematic close, per the "outstanding vote." --Rschen7754 12:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
See also Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy#Proposed new policy on deletions where Ikan proposed changing the wording for the "consensus to keep" criteria, but that discussion never resulted in any action. -- Ryan • (talk) •
I don't see how status quo bias on 'no consensus' is the same as articles getting "a pass just because they went undiscovered for a while". Articles would only "get a pass" if there is no clear consensus to delete them, rubbish which has been around a while is still rubbish. Agreed that consensus should not mean unanimity, though - a 'no consensus' outcome would be one with comparable support for both sides, like the "{{listing|wikipedia=...}} field which was discussed and deadlocked a year ago. K7L (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Reading through that older thread, as Ikan started it, the main concern seemed to be a shift towards voting. I don't think parting with the "guilty until" principle has to lead to that at all. Not if we adopt the process as some other wikis have it, having a non-involved admin (or user in good standing) see if there indeed is a consensus (not a majority as such), taking arguments into account as well. Surely, all alarm bells would start to ring when several established users would argue for deletion, and only new users would argue against. We can work with that: all wikis do, and if it comes to it, we can always have a checkuser before closing any discussion. I feel we're having this highly conservative policy out of a fear for rubbish articles to pass, when there's no proof at all that that is justified. All wikis are somewhat conservative in nature, and of course that has it benefits. However, we take it too far now, I think, and further than all other wikis I know. We use the status-quo bias as a policy throughout the site, except in the one case where it would possibly, incidentally have a progressive effect (and that only when there's no consensus against an article): there we turn it around. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a balance, really. Straight voting is something that we want to avoid, because of meatpuppetry - which is someone going on Reddit and asking people to vote a certain way, for example (and CU would be useless for such a case). That is bad. But we're at the other end of the spectrum, requiring unanimity. That is also bad. We need to find somewhere in the middle. --Rschen7754 21:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I've started a discussion that addresses the apparent misunderstanding that consensus means unanimity at Wikivoyage talk:Consensus#Wikivoyage:Consensus/Draft. Feedback would be appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Pages VfD'd to remove WT attribution[edit]

It seems like many if not a majority of pages that have been nominated for deletion lately have fallen into this category. Is it perhaps time to create a new Project-space page for these articles so we don't clutter vfd?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as it's skeletons or articles with very limited content, I actually think they could just be tagged for speedy delete. In fact, that has also been done a few times recently. Perhaps we should just agree on that and only bring cases with complications to the VfD page? If it will still clutter we can always create a specific page after all. Just a thought. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy to tag with speedy deletion in future Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
There was a discussion recently at Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Re-creation of articles for SEO purposes proposing a speedy deletion tag {{rewritten}} for articles to be replaced with new, non-WT, non-derivative text. If there's truly no content, perhaps speedy {{delete}} would be best (per Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy#Deleting empty articles) to lose the WT attribution as there's no actual content to replace. VfD is unnecessary unless there's something controversial to discuss. K7L (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't read that discussion, but tagging would be part of a wider effort to single out suitable articles and tag them for people to start working with: they'd still have to be deleted after that, I presume? I think the issue now is rather about editors who have no admin rights and want particular almost-empty skeletons deleted so they can start over. When no copyright issues exist, that should be fine for speedy. I'm not sure tagging is needed now actually. Torty3 once showed me this labs scan, making it easy enough to identify almost-empty articles for recreation based on bytes, in case anyone is interested in doing so. I've been using that, at least. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
A skeleton re-creation list differs from a {{rewritten}} tag as the latter is used to indicate a new version of the article is already ready and waiting on a sub-page, from which it could be moved without redirect once the old version is discarded. The tag doesn't replace the list, nor is it intended to do so. K7L (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects[edit]

Is it really a good idea to delete (without even putting them through VfD!) redirect articles that consist of common misspellings of foreign, easily-misspellable place names, or that represent real places? Specifically, in the latter case, doesn't policy specifically disallow that?

If there was a discussion about this on some obscure talk page that I was unaware of, I apologize.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

See [4]. Only redirects with WT attribution are being deleted as far as I understand, and they can be re-created if desired. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that again. Nevermind. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleting templates[edit]

In most cases, when removing about-to-be-deleted template calls from articles where the templates are in use, these templates should be substed, not simply removed, as was done with Template:Clear. Could I ask those of you who removed the Template:Clear transclusions to please go back through your contributions and add <br clear=all /> where the template was removed? Thanks! Powers (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-admins can delete pages?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Am I hallucinating or did I just see a non-admin deleting some articles??? doesn't even seem to be autopatrolled (which I think a user with a few weeks of good edits should be). --ϒpsilon (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

A non-admin can delete a page during a page move, if the target is a redirect without history that points to the page being moved. Example: move page "A" to "B", then "A" becomes a redirect. A non-admin can then move "B" back to "A", which deletes the (redirect) "A" in the process. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


Just a reminder: when archiving discussions, please specify in your edit summary what the outcome of the discussion was (keep, delete, redirect, merge...). It's very difficult to tell otherwise. Powers (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Another reminder: closed VfD discussions should be moved to the archives subpage of the month of the action, not the month of nomination, as per the guidelines: "Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion". James Atalk 04:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Admins are still not specifying their decisions when discussions are archived. This is very important. I realize discussions can stick around too long sometimes, but if you're going to do it, please do it correctly. Powers (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Vote for redirect[edit]

Given our policy to redirect real places, vfd would only apply for travel topics, as fake places and obvious spam are to be speedily deleted on sight and real places are to be redirected (even in cases where a place us mentioned only in its parent region and redirects to its parent region?). So maybe given the way things often turn out here, we might want to have a "vote for redirect" page to decide whether a real place deserves an article... or we could change our "redirect real places" policy...Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a policy for immediate deletion of "fake places". Sometimes it's not obvious whether a title refers to a real place or not. There are also cases where a valid destination article is purely organizational in nature and could be deleted if it becomes superfluous (particularly if there's no obvious redirect target). Powers (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What is the question or proposal exactly? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The proposal seems to be for a new policy page operating parallel to this one, but dealing only with real places, with the understanding that deletion is off the table and the only options are keep and redirect. Personally, I don't see why we can't simply rename this page. The status quo seems to be working fine; I think most people who nominate real places here already do so with the intent to have them redirected, it's just others get all hung up on the word "deletion" in the name of this page and assume that the "no deleting real places" rule is being ignored. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Possibly. In any case, with current "vfd traffic" I don't think we'd need a second page. It's more about allowing a bit of time for an article and interested editors to work on it, before deciding to redirect or not. But then if not tagged, these skeletons will be forgotten. A tag like suggested on the vfd page seems to fix that, and we could just have a little section on the vfd page to keep track (renamed or not). Obviously, we only need to do anything for cases where an article might be wanted. Tiny places and other articles that don't meet the article criteria (despite being a real place) should still be redirected on sight, with notice to the creator. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need a separate page - it has been a relatively recent occurrence that people have started using the VFD page for redirect discussions, so hopefully we can go back to having those discussions on article talk pages. To address the issue of not biting newbies who create questionable new articles, what about just creating a "whatIsAnArticle" template (better name suggestions appreciated) that can be placed at the bottom of articles to provide a note that the town may not merit its own article and suggests a talk page discussion, has a pointer to WV:What is an article? and WV:How to redirect a page, and also puts the article into a maintenance category? That would be an easy way to tag and keep track of questionable articles without immediately biting newbies, and if the article remained a skeleton for more than a week we could redirect or delete it (in the case of empty skeletons or page creation vandalism) with no harm done. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
That's fine too - I think anything works as long as it provides a tag, a maintenance cat (in the maintenance panel) and a place to discuss. I do agree the talk page is the best place. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem currently is that this here is not the place to discuss redirects, at least technically speaking. And as this is the proposed result of all vfds for real places (at least in theory) the letter of the law correct alternative is to start a redirect discussion on the talk page of the article in question... However, said discussion would be unlikely to draw a significant amount of community input... Hence my proposal to do something Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Ryan - the problem with your suggestion is that most mainspace article talk pages have few if any followers - the exceptions being the very largest and most popular destinations, as well as articles like Buffalo that are or have been the subject of substantial work by a particular editor (in other words, precisely the type of destinations that would be least likely to deserve a redirect). If doing it the way you suggest were the rule of thumb, then in practice most redirects would be unilateral. While I'm not sure that establishing a separate "Votes for Redirect" page is the answer, I do think it's much better to have redirect discussions in some centralized location, so that as many community members as possible can be encouraged to contribute to such decisions before the trigger is pulled. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I see now that Hobbitschuster made basically the same argument above. At any rate, I agree with him about everything except the need to have redirect discussions somewhere other than here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I am fine with having redirect discussions here. But if we do so, we should clearly mention that in some policy page and/or the heading of vfd... Or better yet in the template... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
(reply to AndreCarrotflower) My counter-argument is that redirect decisions for new articles have typically been unilateral in the past. If someone creates a skeleton article for Ladera Heights we've never required a group discussion involving people who are likely to be unfamiliar with Los Angeles before the article could be redirected (or tagged for merging) to Los Angeles/South Central. If there's a question about where to redirect or whether a redirect is appropriate then WV:RFC has been used in the past, and the VFD page has been used in cases where someone feels that there isn't any appropriate redirect target, but I don't think we need to drag out most redirect decisions with an extra layer of bureaucracy. Additionally, if we tag questionable articles then there will be a category that interested people can easily review to see if they are familiar with whatever is in the current queue. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that there is an element of Ttcf to this (and I don't like citing that particular policy).
Basically is a prospective traveler to Alton_(Hampshire) served well with an empty article that suggests we have nothing at all to say about the destination, or is it better to redirect them at least to the region or closest town that would at least provide them with some useful information. I'd personally go for the redirect option every time. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this. The parent article is easily accessible if the information in the destination article is insufficient, and keeping the article serves to prompt editors to place information in the correct article. (And in most cases the information in the parent article won't be particularly relevant to the destination anyway.) Powers (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Said article is not better than the redlink at the moment I am writing this, it is pointless to keep those and similar. Once there is a user or a group of users with enough passion and information about the destination to create a proper guide, they will do so. Our articles rarely follow the coral reef model of being developed by layers and layers of small incidental edits, most of them depend on large bouts of editorial focus which create the bulk of a given iteration of the article and then incidental edits only polish and expand the creation.
Our empty articles generally pertain to quite obscure locations at that point. It is not that they will see much traffic out of which we need to attract as many potential editors as possible to contribute a little bit to accrue content. Those obscure locations depend on passionate individuals with knowledge of the area to come round to WV and create entire articles usually quite singlehandedly. They, or rather we here as we speak, will do so regardless of whether there is a stub or not. Keeping stubs is just making guides harder and more frustrating to navigate - either we have enough content for an outline or we don't. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe we're talking about stubs. Alton (Hampshire), for instance, is an outline. Powers (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
At the moment I wrote the above, Alton (Hampshire) consisted of five words. BTW, I do not think the traveller is served well with its current form at the moment I am writing this in turn - the singular attraction (steam railway) should be promoted to Hampshire itself, as there is no extra info in the Alton guide that would help visit it. It is also covered in Alresford, the other end of the line, which has a proper guide. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I strenuously object to that. Attraction listings do not belong in region articles (with the sole exception of those rare regions without subsidiary articles, aka leaf-nodes). Powers (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
What about the thousand islands approach? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(indent) This discussion is ridiculous to me. Like I said before, what you are suggesting is that we require people to write usable guides or delete everything (or redirect). Part of "putting the traveler first" is also making editors feel comfortable to add the content that the travelers want to read and requiring only large contributions or risk having everything deleted or redirected to some region creates a very negative and punitive atmosphere for well-meaning contributors. The way this conversation is going, I'll expect to see Ghana and every city in the nation become a redirect to West Africa, since none of the articles are developed enough to plan a meaningful trip and for some reason there is this idea floating around that if we haven't covered it by now, it must have nothing...

If Alton bothers you so much, plunge forward and add the Curtis Museum [5], Get in/around, etc. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly, the proposal isn't for all skeletons, it's for places where it is questionable whether or not the article meets the WV:What is an article? criteria or not. In that particular case, and where it isn't obvious we're dealing with a page creation vandal, I think it's completely fair to give the original author a short window to develop the article, and if it remains mostly empty to discuss whether a redirect would be more appropriate. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Is that really the proposal? Parameters of this discussion are unclear except that "Alton" is mentioned as an article that would be affected. I don't personally understand why Alton or other articles like it bother anyone. The way I am reading a lot of the comments, it seems like some people are bothered by articles with little content for some reason and are looking for a way to eliminate them via redirect. But I don't understand this pressing need to create redirects. There are plenty of ways to improve the Alton article and I even provided one "See" site above, but let's say no one cares enough about it to add the content and it remains as it is... What's the problem?
Redirects are not supposed to be created because editors are too lazy or lack the knowledge to add content, but it looks to me like the rationale behind this discussion. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
My comment was unclear. If an article was obviously created by a page creation vandal then it should usually be deleted (a non-vandal can always recreate it later if desired) - that is a separate issue that we already handle fairly well.
I believe that this discussion started as a way to address mostly-empty articles where it isn't clear that the place merits its own separate article. As to why such articles are bothersome, it's an organizational issue - if an area has three tiny towns with little available to travelers besides three hotels, a single consolidated article is a more useful way to present that info to a traveler than three mostly-empty articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
My take is that people are wanting to make redirects a more frequent habit in some way that still seems to be based on how complete the article is when an editor views it. But I think the fact that we're both guessing indicates whatever this discussion about, it's not clear.
If mentioning Alton was brought up to start a discussion about a possible better way to organize Hampshire, it instead threw the discussion way off, because I do not see Alton as a problematic article. I do see that someone has written that only 9 picturesque villages in the region are allowed to be listed, and that certainly is a problem. If this is what this is all about then I think it should be a regional organization discussion rather than a discussion about redirects. Redirects are not going to solve this problem. On the contrary, I think they'll make it more confusing and difficult to navigate as things are now. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Needs improvement[edit]

As a method of keeping track of articles that maybe considered for deletion but giving new users a few days the chance to justify the page I have created {{needsimprovement}}. Will add articles to Category:Articles needing improvement. Comments, suggestions? --Traveler100 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Especially if a new user has created a page that there's something wrong with, this template is a much better one than vfd (and in general, vfd:ing the article may scare the newbie away). ϒpsilon (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I think having a template like this one is a good idea, but the current version seems like something that would dissuade someone from contributing further to an article. Since the purpose is primarily to allow tracking of these articles, I'd suggest putting the template at the bottom of articles and making the appearance far less noticeable - something more like {{stub}} than {{merge}}. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
That sound like a good improvement. The text I create was just first attempt, so please make chances as needed. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


In light of the number of vfd that are extraregions at the moment I feel I need to make a general statement in support of the 180 page of this type. Wikivoyage has a rigid hierarchical structure for its main articles, which on the whole works reasonably well. However unless you only view the world from a political and administrative perspective this is not how things are in real life. People describe many regions by geographical, historical or ethnic methods. Also, although we can influence how this site is structured we cannot influence how the rest of the internet is organized or used. It is not possible to control or predict how people will come to this site or generally look for information on the web. It is therefor important to have landing pages using terms other people may use when looking for information on places. It could be that someone sees the Danube on a TV movie and thinks I would like to go there but is not familiar with specific locations along its route, or a school student has to write an essay on the Hudson Valley. We need to be able to catch these from search engines, or more probably via links from Wikipedia. Maybe some of these article need expanding but other will always be just links to other pages on Wikivoyage, guiding new visitors to this site into the established structure here. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt use for extraregions, especially when they cover something of note or relevance. However, we also have to take into account what "works" within the framework of Wikivoyage. Extraregions just for the sake of having them won't do any good and might end up doing harm. And as to school essays, I don't think that's part of our (primary) mission. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
While I appreciate the effort to clean up some of the messy corners of the site, I share some of the concerns about using the VFD page as the default location for discussions about whether an extraregion "works" - deletion should be a last resort. By the time something lands on the VFD page, other options for handling the article should have already been considered and dismissed, and the nomination should explain why a deletion is needed instead of another solution. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I think part of the problems with extraregions such as Westerwald are that they are low visibility, low traffic pages. It does not have many pages linking to it, if you search for it, you have to type "Westerw" before getting it as your first suggestion and it has been edited only a couple of times since being created in 2013. And the result is a page, that - to be quite honest - does not bring a lot of benefit to me as a reader ion its current state. And unfortunately, vfd (or the pub) is pretty much the only place where a "let's do something about this" catches more than one or two eyeballs... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that the pushback you're getting is because by the time something ends up on the VFD page it needs to be "let's delete this article because there isn't any other good solution", not "let's figure out what to do with this". -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
So I have started a list of articles under discussion at Wikivoyage:Germany Expedition, suggest proposals should start on the talk pages of articles and if they are in Germany listed here. As both Hobbitschuster and myself have the same aim of cleaning up articles in Germany but do not always agree on the method it would be good if other join in the discussions. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Part of the problem seems to be that extra-regions do not find themselves in the article navigation hierarchy (i.e. you can not navigate to Westerwald from Germany), and as such become orphans that no other contributors are really aware of and do not get developed. Any general expedition to clean up Germany will likely overlook them.
If the aim is to harmonize quality between extra-regions and actual regions then we should have a better linking mechanism in both directions. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Good catch, I think some of these regions fell off the lists when we reorganized the top levels of Germany to strictly follow state boundaries and a strict enforment of the 9+2 rule. Some of these extra-regions were part of the main structure but then moved to the side. What we did not do was follow up these changes with links to the original pages. Looking into this now, most will probably be referenced at the state level rather than the country level. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Still after all is said and done, we might have to think long and hard about extraregions. While they can be a great way to describe a recognizable area that is just not covered coherently any other way, some of them seem to just be doubling or even tripling of content. I think there should be a very careful case by case assessment and I don't really think the answer can always be "well, what harm do they do". de-WV got rid of the 7+-2 rule almost first thing after the fork there and they have a lot of overlapping regions, extraregions and otherwise messy (in my assessment) regional subdivisions, including linking a number of "regions" (some of which don't even link to anything) at the beginning of every article. Still (I might be repeating myself here) a well done extraregion can be of great value to both our editors and our readers, but if there are too many of them, we might want to look at the region layout once more to assess whether the extraregions shouldn't be made real regions instead... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
In most cases, extra-hierarchical regions should be little more than disambiguation pages, primarily linking to other guides that contain the actual content. Exceptions to this, like Navajo Nation, should be limited to cases where there's significant value in presenting the region as a travel destination, rather than merely as a likely search term. Powers (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(indent) The Navajo Nation article reads more like a travel topic than an extraregion. I didn't think of it as an "extraregion" at all. Perhaps that why it seems like an exception. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised you think so. It has all of our usual region sections, and it contains destination articles (which, in turn, refer to Navajo Nation in their breadcumb trails). Powers (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It just seems like it's an article for those interested in Navajo culture, history, religion, art, handicrafts, etc. which sounds like a travel topic. Whatever it's called, it's a worthy article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirecting (extra)regions[edit]

In many cases the response to a vfd is "real places should be redirected". However, I don't really think that redirecting an unnecessary child region to its parent always makes sense. And where would Lahn Valley or Rhine have to be redirected if such were the decision? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That is often the repose to empty cities not extraregions. Think of extraregions more like disambiguation pages, directing the reader to the right pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Any likely search term should have at least a redirect on this site. If you have no idea where to redirect, other than Germany, that might be a good reason not to delete the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry if that may sound blunt, but the only page that wholly contains all parts of Lahn Valley that is not itself a redirect is in fact Germany. And it's not like we don't have enough pages redirecting to Germany as is. After all, the abortive attempt to create "regions" like Central Germany ended with them being redirected to Germany. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel like you may have missed the point. The point is, this is a valid region and a valid search term. If the decision is made to redirect to Germany, explain the harm, please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The harm of such a redirect is that it's unhelpful to the point of being insulting to the traveler. It's worse than deleting it, in my opinion. The disambiguation page with some added info is better or a travel topic, like the Navajo sites. Perhaps extraregions that are often seen as destinations should be travel topics... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, actually, I agree with you. But as you say, that's an argument for not redirecting and not an argument for deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually it may well be a case for deletion; if we end up deciding that some (extra)region is not really needed, and there is no suitable place to redirect them to, deletion may well be a valid outcome. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really sure that's the case. If a redirect isn't suitable, then we should at least have a short extra-hierarchical region (like Hudson Valley or Niagara Falls) to direct readers to actual articles. Powers (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So if someone say created an extraregion consisting of New York State, Iceland and Norway, we should not delete it and if we cannot decide where to redirect it keep it as a sort of disambiguation? And please note that my example was deliberately absurd, but absurd extraregions are not entirely inconceivable... Given the reaction towards the current article on Rhine and Danube, I fear we will soon have to deal with "extraregion" articles on the Volga, the Rio Coco, the Weser and god knows which river. Surely in some of those cases deletion should at least an option not inherently prohibited by policy. Or am I getting this wrong? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. Can you please lay out the case for what harm the existence of this extra-region is doing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
These may once again be better travel topics, if the purpose is to see and experience the Volga (or whatever) to its fullest or figure out what places along the river actually offer things to do on the river. I certainly don't think that every body of water needs to have a redirect or disambiguation page. It should also be travel-related. For example, the Ring of Fire is a term that includes countries in its definition, but it's not a destination. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
So if such an article were created would it be valid to nominate it for vfd? And would deletion be a valid outcome? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Assuming there was a recognized term for the union of New York, Iceland, and Norway, I don't see a problem with creating a brief article that points readers to the three relevant articles under that title. Powers (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Replace New York with Newfoundland and add in Greenland and you are getting close to the historical extent of the Vikings. But I really don't think we should be creating extraregions for everything up to and including the Hittite Empire. And I see a de facto policy of never ever deleting them even if they are created empty and never filled with content in half a decade as problematic. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I started this to highlight a general point. Did not mean it to go into theoretical realms of fantasy. Getting a little worries this site is just becoming a debating site and not enough additional content being added. Please do not go the way of Wikipedia projects. (will try and curtail my discussions) --Traveler100 (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, given all the other articles about historical empires, I don't know why you'd single out the Hittite Empire as an invalid one. However, I agree with Traveler100 and would suggest you refocus on clearly explaining the harm in retaining the particular extra-regions currently at issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Is the problem so much with the concept of extra regions, or rather the poor implementation of many as demonstrated by the examples that you have highlighted?
There should possibly be better guidance as to when to use a travel topic or extra region when discussing (for example) Hittite Empire. I'd personally prefer historical articles such as Hittite Empire are defined as travel topics and current geographical regions that do not fall under our hierarchy as extraregions. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. Only if a historical region is still used as a current (though unofficial) designation does an extra-region article really make sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

(starting at the left again) Okay, so I think that when regions are reorganized it might make sense to redirect (some of) them to their parent region. But it does not necessarily make sense to do so for extraregions which we don't want to keep as their own articles any more. And am I really the only one that finds (many of) our current extraregions aesthetically displeasing because of all the empty sections and in some cases the number of redlinks? I mean you can slice and dice many a place over in several ways. Let's take Saxony as just any example. We can divide it by mountain ranges and lowlands (Ore Mountains for instance). We can also divide it by rivers, be it the Elbe (which as the itinerary Elbe Radweg makes sense, but not as an extraregion) or the Pleiße valley or by any other metric that goes counter to that all like Wine growing region around Meißen and Radebeul. Do some of those subdivisions make sense? Yes. Absolutely. Do we need all of them for regions that are themselves often devoid of much useful coverage? No. Remember, the amount of guide or even star regions is woefully low. And somehow we have arrived at a "don't even discuss deletion for regions" de facto policy? I am sorry, but I fail to see the virtue in this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"am I really the only one that finds (many of) our current extraregions aesthetically displeasing because of all the empty sections and in some cases the number of redlinks?" Definitely not! Many are aesthetically displeasing and frankly low in quality and I personally question why many were created with no apparent desire to follow through.
However aesthetically displeasing is (at least for me) is not directly connected to the question of to whether we should delete specific extraregions. I think we could delete extraregions if they are not something a traveler would ever use for navigation purposes. Admittedly that is a high bar for deletion, but not impossible. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
"am I really the only one that finds (many of) our current extraregions aesthetically displeasing because of all the empty sections and in some cases the number of redlinks" Are we still talking about extraregions? Extraregions are almost always just glorified disambiguation pages for regions that don't fit into the existing hierarchy - see Lake Ontario. If there are empty sections, delete them. If there are redlinks, remove them. I think this discussion may be conflating poorly organized regions with extraregions. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Have a look at Lahn Valley, which I btw vfd'ed and apparently a big portion of the replies was: "This is the wrong place to discuss this" and "We don't delete real places". Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to have to say that Lahn Valley shouldn't be deleted. The easy option would be cleaned up and remove empty sections so as to be just a 'glorified disambiguation page', or even worked on to be a travel topic later. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. If it doesn't fit our hierarchy then it should be redirected or turned into an extra-hierarchical region with only the amount of information in it deemed necessary. Powers (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It currently is an extra-hierarchical region. My contention was that it is not needed and does not serve much of a purpose. Much like we don't need articles on Lommatzscher Pflege or Oder. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Lahn Valley may be tagged as an extra-hierarchical region, but the article is still organized as a normal region article using the region article template. As noted earlier, the majority of extra-hierarchical regions should basically just be disambiguation pages with a little bit of extra information included. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Low cost airlines VFDs - this probably also touches upon policy[edit]

So could you please explain this? I don't exactly know about policy, but I thought the idea was to delete unless there is a consensus to keep. I cannot see a "consensus to keep" in any of those cases. In any case, there might have been no consensus with a slight tilt towards "Do something about this, don't just keep it as is". And if my vote was not clear (I don't think I explicitly voted on this) I would have liked to have the courtesy extended to me of being asked before archiving occurred. I think the whole low cost airline stuff is of limited value in its current form. And as evidenced by this whole episode there seems to be very little drive to do something about it. Hence I say: delete it all and leave no redirects except where they make sense. But that is neither here nor there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"I would have liked to have the courtesy extended to me of being asked before archiving occurred". See these comments left almost two weeks ago requesting further discussion. As to why I resolved these without deletion, none of the nominations cited anything in the Wikivoyage:Deletion policy to justify a deletion. As to the comment that "Hence I say: delete it all and leave no redirects except where they make sense", that is counter to Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting, which explains the reasons why redirecting is almost always preferred to deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
That page says "If it's a real place..."; 'low-cost airline' is not a place. (It also neglects to mention that we do delete page creation vandalism, even if it's the bulk creation of pages for real pop-100 villages with nothing to list.) I don't see anything in policy which requires a travel topic be redirected, unless the content has been retained/merged to another page requiring we keep the edit history for CC-BY-SA author attribution. K7L (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, the deletion policy states that "Redirecting non-articles, when possible, is usually preferred to deletion", and also notes that there are SEO benefits to redirecting vs deleting, something that is particularly important for articles that have been around for a while. These articles are excellent candidates for merge & redirect, but based on the existing deletion policy and how we've done things in the past they should not simply be deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed the notice. Probably because I do have vfd in my watchlist, but I don't always see every change in my watchlist, especially if logging on anew after a prolonged period offline. I think tagging users who might have to say something can do no harm. I for one get notified when someone tags my username... Back to the topic at hand. I cannot see how there was any "consensus to keep" which (iirc correctly) is what policy requires for an article to have a closed vfd with the result "keep"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we differ on our interpretation on what consensus means, and whether the the proposal to delete these articles (as opposed to merging/redirecting) was valid given the WV:Deletion policy. Given that none of the deletion votes cited anything in the deletion policy, there wasn't a consensus to delete, and no one was arguing for an exception to policy I'm not sure how else these could have been resolved. From WV:Consensus: "well-reasoned arguments based on existing policies and practice should carry more weight than a "support" comment that is unaccompanied by any sort of reasoning or justification". -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing in our policy that says we cannot delete travel topics that are deemed to have been a "failure" in some way. As for what is wrong with the low cost airlines articles, please have a look at their source codes. Generally the individual country articles (and airport articles) as well as the general series on "flying" do a much better job than the low cost airlines articles who are based on a distinction that is rather hard to make in the first case. I think we should not have an article on Low cost airlines in North America because nobody can actually tell me who is and isn't one. And if Delta or American Airlines isn't one, why do they charge so many fees on top of their fares? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem with your argument is that it doesn't justify deletion - it justifies a merge (if there is anything to keep) & redirect. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Why? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There are any number of reasons why site policy encourages redirects instead of deletion in most cases. Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting calls out some of them, but to list a few: redirects don't require admin rights, redirects don't break internal or external links, redirects don't cause us to lose SEO value for old articles, redirects help users find content they might be searching for, redirects are a tool that (usually) offer only benefits without disadvantages, etc, etc. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well the way I see it in this case is that someone might search something in the search function and then be suggested several "articles", and if half of them are redirects, I can't really see the benefit they are supposed to provide. So if I understand this correctly, in your interpretation of policy there are only very contrived cases that vfd might ever be needed, as clear vandalism or articles outside our scope are cases of speedy deletion and everything that could even remotely be considered a place or a travel topic should be redirected? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Search results don't "show" redirects - if you search for "USA travel" the USA redirect is not shown, but anyone searching for the term "USA", and any link for "USA", takes the user to the right place. Regarding the question about when a deletion is warranted, deletion is the option when there aren't any other reasonable options, and a review of Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/Archives would be the best guide to the types of articles that end up getting deleted. Articles go through deletion nomination far less often now because we allow speedy deletion in more cases than we used to, but it's still used multiple times each month. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unused page on meta[edit]

Swept in from the pub

FYI, if no answer or request for further info in a few days, will ask a meta admin to delete

There is a wikivoyage related page on meta, that probably needs deleting -

It has been pending as unwanted for a few years now. This is as much a FYI, as requesting comment.

If someone want to comment, great, go ahead. JarrahTree (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It is now at JarrahTree (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Short "useless" articles[edit]

ShakespeareFan00 & perhaps others have been VFDing many things lately because they are short allegedly useless articles. In general I think this is a mistake but there is certainly room for discussion on some of them.

See also earlier discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Deleting_NEW_empty_articles. Pashley (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

there is no reason these can't be userfied. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
If the linked discussion is an accurate reflection of the state of affairs, it appears there's a small but vocal minority of users who insist on deleting empty skeletons and simply refuse to take "policy doesn't support that" as an answer. If it's really that important to these users, the thing for them to do is make their case is Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?, rather than engaging in tendentious agenda-pushing on non-policy pages like the pub. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know of a restriction precluding discussion of policy in the pub. Nothing is cast in stone; if we get consensus to change a policy, we change it. K7L (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
There's certainly no gag order on discussing policy in the pub, but it's customary (and documented as such in Wikivoyage:Consensus) that any attempts to gather consensus for a change in policy belong on the talk page of the policy in question. This is for good reason: if whoever was behind the most recent proposal to delete undeveloped articles had raised the issue at Wikivoyage talk:What is an article? (or at Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy as mentioned above, an equally valid place to do so) rather than in the pub, s/he would likely have seen that it's already been proposed and rejected several times. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the reason the discussion was started in the Pub was because there has been quite a few "empty" article pages created where the creator thought the page a "good idea" but only created a "stub" for others. I would have been inclined to write a couple of them but already have a rather massive list of existing pages to work on 1st (and the list is growing, more pages being added than being removed). So if at some point in the future I have time to put to such a page I can create it (which takes seconds) and write it (which is the real work) - at least to a point where it adds to the site rather than giving a "poor impression" to readers and adequate for others to build on. So I think the Pub discussion was more a "please stop creating". PsamatheM (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, my comments above refer to destination articles. Underdeveloped travel topic articles without any real hope of further attention get VfD'd routinely, and Outline-level itineraries are actually prescribed by policy to be deleted absent any meaningful edits in the space of a year. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I don't understand the site/reports enough yet but my contributions to the site are directed when I notice a rather "empty" (outline) page I add to to my list and I'm gradually working down my list filling out pages I think are too "empty" (discovering more faster than filling them out). For destination articles, why not spend the time adding content so VfD is not an issue? For new articles maybe wait to create the page until the author can write adequate initial content to contribute to the site (rather than detract). Collaboration will then build the page but in case it does not, at least what it starts with will be enough to contribute PsamatheM (talk)
Yes. I have done some work to flesh out stub travel topics, but often not because I like that way of working, but because I dislike links to stubs from articles I have been working on and got attached to (or in hierarchies I have tried to sort out). I'm happy to contribute to an an article with a though-out structure or some decent content – but trying to make outlines out of short stubs marked as outlines, abandoned after creation, is often quite frustrating. I'd much prefer working to cover the topics in existing usable articles, and create the odd outline from scratch when I feel like. Redlinks, discussion pages and Wikivoyage:Requested articles can all be used, no need to request an article by making a stub. --LPfi (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It is getting very frustrating seeing many VfD nominations on short or empty articles. Nobody is obliged to comment or vote in VfDs of course but in practice it draws people in to discuss the article when that time could be spent expanding the article or do other work. Maybe a "Request for Expansion" page could be set up, instead of somebody proposing to delete it and then another editor expanding the page to protect it from deletion. There has to be a better way. Gizza (roam) 22:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
It might be more profitable to apply commonsense to nearly empty articles. If the content makes more sense one level up then it can be merged and redirected. If it doesn't make sense (i.e. local listings, etc) then, well, just leave it alone. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that we disagree on what "common sense" is. If we left things solely to Ground Zero's discretion, I'm sure he would agree if I say that he would merge pretty much every currently sparse article with some other article. Most of us don't agree with such a blanket policy, I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The answer is simple. "Short, useless article" is not a valid deletion rationale, and any article VfD'd for that purpose should be speedy-kept without further ado. If others disagree, fine, but for them, the first order of business is building consensus behind a policy change, not trying to force sparse articles through the VfD process based on (currently) invalid rationales. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Ikan, using a w:Straw_man argument is never a good way to advance a discussion as it usually just offends the person whose position you are misrepresenting. I'm sure you don't mean to do that. It's better if you speak for yourself and not for others.
If it were up to me, I would redirect articles for specks on the map whose click-bait non-articles have been sitting around untouched for years (or over a decade) since they have proven themselves to be of no interest or potential to be expanded. I believe that these non-articles diminish Wikivoyage's usefulness and credibilty. That is different from redirecting every sparse article. But I realise that there is no consensus to change the policy. Ground Zero (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No offense intended. I sincerely thought I was accurately representing your position, but I guess I didn't understand it fully. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Ground Zero - for what it is worth, I used to think exactly the same as you. Actually I still agree with your sentiment that 'empty' articles are a bad look, but with Wikivoyage we have to accept that we will never reach 100% perfection. There will always be 'orphan' articles that someone felt like creating on a whim and then left the site forever.
It may be more helpful rather than pick out individual destinations, to rather look at a region holistically and see how articles can be better organized within them. This is the approach I took with Australia Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
People keep saying that Wikivoyage will never reach 100% perfection as if there are people saying that should be our goal. As there is no danger that that will ever happen, I don't think there is any need to discuss it. The question is how do we make this dis-shevelled, rambling, badly formatted, sometimes anarchic project better. Not perfect, but better. Leaving a blank article sitting for a decade achieves nothing. It would be more useful to help the reader find something nearby, or land them into the local district article, rather than maintain the vain and unrealistic hope that someone is going to wander in and click open an empty section of the article to add something. Ground Zero (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Adding content to Outline articles seems to me like a good Cotm, and one I'd participate in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Professional profile pages?[edit]

It appears User:Ellie_Rose was created solely for the purpose of promoting an actress. It is in Wikipedia format, and appears to have been deleted from Wikipedia multiple times a few years ago [LINK]

What should we do in scenarios like this? I'm assuming Ellie Rose won't be contributing any travel content. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

If Wikipedia deleted it, I don't see why we shouldn't. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should just blank it or delete it entirely, but one or the other seems called for. Pashley (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It appeared in "Recent changes", and I deleted it for being beyond the scope of Wikivoyage. I don't think there's ever a reason to think twice about things like this, and I've deleted many of them in the past. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree. If it were about a tourist business, however, one should think twice. They should not write promotional user pages, but they are welcome to present themselves if they also are going to contribute to mainspace content, and we cannot expect them to pick the right tone. --LPfi (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
They're welcome to say who they are on their user page, but not to promote their business, even there. So it depends on how they present themselves. If someone posts a super-long promotional page in two places that's obviously plagiarized from somewhere else, they're pretty likely to be a spambot. After a lot of experience, I think I have a good eye for these things, or at least I hope I do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)