This seems like a useless disambiguation. Does Wikitravel really aim to list EVERY Chinatown in the world? ChubbyWimbus 19:22, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
No, but we should certainly list the ones for which we have articles. =) LtPowers 20:08, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
Keep. It's an odd disambiguation, but better to have the links than not, both for the odd search and possibly for our own SEO. And actually, this one is a borderline travel topic. --PeterTalk 20:53, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
Delete. The question here is whether this is a true disambiguation, or whether it is just the start of a list of attractions of a particular type. If it is just a list, which I think it inevitably will be, is it one of true interest to travellers, or is it just a Wikipedia style obsessive list making type of list? --inas 21:37, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
I think Inas is right, and Wikipedia already has a list. See here . Our "Chinatown" page is definitely moving to mirror the Wikipedia page as articles grow and are added (I added some myself to see what it would look like prior to the Wikipedia search). As far as helping the traveller goes, maybe we should give the travellers a little credit. Someone searching for a Chinatown would likely put the city in the search with it. If they don't, and they are just searching in the cosmos for any old Chinatown then I would question the seriousness of their travel plans. If it were made into a travel topic, then what sort of information would we add to make it useful? The name "Chinatown" is probably as good of a description as any. ChubbyWimbus 01:01, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
The wp list contains loads of travel-irrelevant junk. (I've heard rumors that a Baltimore Chinatown did at one time exist, but I'm skeptical of even that.) The current page is more useful (and interesting), since it only links to Chinatowns that we actually cover.
Our policy on disambiguation pages gives When destinations share identical names as one of the three cases when such pages can be used. This is clearly such a case—Chinatown is place in NYC as well as a place in Chicago, D.C., etc. I don't see any reason to delete it—a coherent collection of blue links like that may actually raise our search engine profile with people doing vague google searches for "chinatown". --PeterTalk 05:08, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
As long as we keep it to articles that we actually have, rather than any city that could be said to have a Chinatown, I think this disambiguation page is necessary and useful, just like Downtown. LtPowers 10:06, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
I can't believe Wikitravel has a Downtown disambiguation. A little embarrassing... Even the small town I am from has a "downtown" area. That's about as useful as creating a disambiguation page for McDonalds and listing every city with a McDonalds. So the real rationale for having these pages is to get Wikitravel on Google? I don't really consider them to be "destinations with the same name" as NYC and Chicago do not have the same name, and certainly "Downtown" is not a "destination". I agree that the pages aren't hurting anything, but they don't seem useful either. ChubbyWimbus 17:50, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
I agree. The downtown article is definitely useless, and verging on plain silly.
The suggestion of limiting entries on a disamb page to geographies for which we have an article isn't current policy or practice for disamb pages. If we are going to make a list of Chinatown's, then we should at least aim to be fairly comprehensive. --inas 20:21, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
I think districts are a special case. Yeah, we list redlinks for every community with a particular name on most disambiguation pages, but Chinatown and Downtown are clearly going to be districts; I see no reason we can't restrict those to just the ones for which we have articles. LtPowers 21:01, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
Should we then add all of the districts titled with "East", "North", "South", and "West" to those disambiguation pages? Should "Uptown" get it's own disambiguation? What about "San"? These sorts of disambiguations just seem ridiculous. Travellers shouldn't need babied to such an extent that we create disambiguation pages for non-destinations. Just because someone types "ass" into the search, doesn't mean we need to create a disambiguation page to help them find Assisi.
Also, how do we distinguish which we "have articles" for? For example (going back to the Chinatown article): the Philippines entry I added is not Manila/Chinatown however, the page says it's the Chinatown of Manila. The Japan entries are just links to the city pages, because these cities are not large enough for districts, but they have Chinatowns (and they're quite famous). Is this supposed to be a disambiguation page just to list Wikitravel's travel breakdown (aka: city/Chinatown) or is it a list of actual Chinatowns? I feel like you are suggesting just adding the designated Wikitravel category breakdowns, but that seems rather arbitrary, because we would then need to delete all the Japan entries and the Philippines entry. ChubbyWimbus 21:45, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
I'd be interested in your reasoning here. For example Sydney has a Sydney/Chinatown article. This looks like it is going to change to Sydney/City South. However, Sydney still has and will have always have a Chinatown district , regardless of how we choose to district the city on WT. If this article is a disamb, we aim to direct people searching for Chinatown to the appropriate district on WT. Assuming we want a list, why would we want the list to be less than comprehensive? --inas 21:23, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
I didn't read LtPowers as saying that only articles called 'Chinatown' would be included on Chinatown. We have coverage for Sydney's Chinatown, whether it's on Sydney/Chinatown or Sydney/City South, so it would belong on the page. In any event, I think again it's more useful to think of this page as partly a travel topic as well. Chinatowns tell an interesting story about the Chinese immigrant experience, one that can be quite interesting to a cultural anthropologist. The more Chinatowns I've seen, the more interesting I find the next one. Gorilla Jones 21:58, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
I know this is under Chinatown, but concerning Downtown, it would have to work the same way, but that list would be insanely long! Otherwise, as stated for the Chinatown, it simply becomes an archive of Wikitravel category breakdowns rather than a complete list of cities with "downtowns". I don't see how either of them could be used. Although I don't necessarily feel that Chinatown is a "destination", someone is much more likely to use that page than the "Downtown" page.
I certainly don't want to put words into LtPowers keyboard, but As long as we keep it to articles that we actually have, rather than any city that could be said to have a Chinatown, sounds like it would exclude Sydney's Chinatown if there wasn't actually an article for it.
I agree that it could make an interesting cultural travel topic. This assumes that someone is going to come along at take it on. As I (and others) have said before, travel topics work well when someone takes on the initial work of getting them over the usable hurdle, otherwise they will more than likely languish and do the site a disservice.
And yes, obviously none of this reasoning applies to downtown. --inas 22:30, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
Agreed about Downtown. I'd vote 'delete' on that. Gorilla Jones 23:03, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
Since this could be converted into a travel topic, I suppose I will revoke my objections against Chinatown. ChubbyWimbus 00:04, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
Keep. Completely valid disambiguation page or even a travel topic, if curated attentively. Gorilla Jones 18:09, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
Delete. Since it hasn't been receiving attentive curation, it's less useful than simply searching for "Chinatown". If an enterprising user comes along and decides to make it a true travel topic, they can recreate the page. - Dguillaime 14:22, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
Keep. The given reason for nomination, in my opinion, is completely ridiculous. --GnarlyLikeWhoa 19:21, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
Is that a substantive objection? I can see a line reasoning why we would want to build lists of Chinatowns around the world, and I can see a line of reasoning why we would benefit from a travel topic on Chinatowns and how they evolved, and where they are, and I can see a line of reasoning why having an index article to articles we have is a good idea. We don't quite know which one of these the article is trying to be, but there is some logic behind each of them. There is also a line of reasoning against each one. Building lists is best left for Wikipedia obsessives, we don't need it here. Having a travel topic as a long term stub detracts value from the site. There are a limited amount of resources, and an infinite number of travel topics are possible - we can't keep them all. If someone can't push them into usable articles then they should be deleted until someone is willing to step up. Having index articles as disambiguation article is a good idea, but when the name is so generic, it has little value to guide the traveller.
Which of these lines of reasoning do you consider to be "ridiculous", in your opinion? --inas 20:12, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
Inas, your comment doesn't make any sense. I considered ridiculous the reason given for the nomination. I agree there are many many different reasons for keeping it, including all the reasons you gave.
Do you understand how it may be baffling for me to ingest that last question? I didn't consider any of those reasons you gave to be ridiculous, only the thinking that we can't gather all the Chinatowns in the world. As I've stated on this site recently, this should be the most informative and inclusive site on the internet. To have all the information, or not have all the information, that is the question.
Simply deleting an article because it doesn't have all the Chinatowns in the world is not good reasoning.
In addition, I wasn't aware I even had to give a reason for my vote. If I do, sorry! Maybe I should have consulted you before I cast my vote for Obama.--GnarlyLikeWhoa 12:27, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
It does state above that commments should come with reasons under the "Commenting" header. My argument was not that it should be deleted because they are not all listed; I was questioning whether or not the list itself was useful. Also, once it was mentioned as a travel topic, I had asked what people suggested could be added to make it an informative travel topic. Both have been addressed to varying degrees. The comments may be difficult to follow, because upon mention of "Downtown" as an article, many of my comments (and others) were directed at that. Anyways, as a travel topic it has potential to be interesting, but I do question whether someone will actually make it a travel topic or if it will just remain a list. ChubbyWimbus 15:47, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
Gnarly - the votes for deletion page, is misleading, because it isn't actually just a vote, we are trying to reach a consensus one way or another. The only way that will work is if you try to convince others of your arguments, and you are willing, in turn, to be convinced by them. Sometimes, when the overwhelming sentiment goes one way, or you are convinced by someone else's arguments, there is not much use for reasons - they are apparent. But this one is a bit controversial, so substantive arguments and an effort to understand the other points of view get us closer to a consensus.
And your question To have all the information, or not have all the information, is right on the money IMO. I'm certainly in favor of not having all the information. Exhaustive lists is not what I think WT is about. -inas 19:17, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
To revisit this (in the hopes of perhaps reaching a resolution), what is our goal for the Chinatown page? Is this going to list worldwide Chinatowns (which there is a push against) or is this going to be a travel topic? If it is a travel topic, how do you propose preventing it from becoming a large list? ChubbyWimbus 02:21, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
We're pretty far from any consensus on this one, and it is part of a larger unresolved policy issue of when to disambiguate district articles that should not be resolved on the vfd page (it should be resolved at Wikitravel talk:Disambiguation pages). (If the article were curated as a travel topic, then it would clearly be a valid article, but it is not.)
So until we have that discussion, perhaps it would be better to keep for the time being, and copy this discussion to Talk:Chinatown? --PeterTalk 16:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Result: Keep (for now)LtPowers 19:34, 10 January 2010 (EST)
I am bringing this up because of postings on the talk page that were rather unenthusiastic (and posted years ago). Even if it is kept, perhaps calling attention to it here will at least get some other opinions about whether this is a dead idea (which then should be deleted) or whether it is a good idea that just needs more attention. ChubbyWimbus 21:27, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
Even if we do declare it dead, I would recommend simply "deactivating" it rather than deleting the content. We can list it on Wikitravel:Expeditions as defunct or inactive. LtPowers 10:16, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
Delete. I'm not yet a card-carrying member of the everything on the wiki muct be kept for posterity club. This expedition has had no significant updates since it was created, no activity on the actual expedition. It never took off, was probably never a good idea, has no useful content, and we should blow it away, and move on. --inas 00:07, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
Delete. I agree with Inas, and besides the current format obviously is not working, if resurrected, it would need to be reformulated anyhow - besides the only expedition that really sees any sort of activity is the map making one. --Stefan (sertmann)talk 15:26, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
My thought on it is that if we keep it around as inactive, it will better facilitate learning from previous mistakes. If someone goes looking to start a cultural expedition in the future, they can see there once was one and that it had problems, then take steps to avoid them. LtPowers 16:43, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Keep the article. Merely because the expedition failed to take off does not mean that it meets the criteria for deletion. The page documents an idea that someone had for Wikitravel. To delete it means we forget our history and are at risk of repeating it. It may be appropriate to reformulate the expedition at some time in the future, or it might give someone ideas to plunge forward and make it work. - Huttite 05:54, 3 November 2009 (EST)
If the purpose of keeing this is to show others who may wish to start this expedition again that it is not a good idea, then perhaps it should be transferred to a Failed Expeditions page or something. Keeping it on the expedition page as an expedition means that it is still an operating expedition. Most likely, if someone did try to create a culture page as proposed (ex: Jewish Culture Guide, Japanese Culture Guide, etc.), it would end up a nomination for deletion, because everything listed in the Topic List already has a place in the country/region/city articles. ChubbyWimbus 15:03, 7 November 2009 (EST)
Yes, my suggestion of marking it inactive would presumably include listing it as such on the Expeditions page. LtPowers 16:48, 7 November 2009 (EST)
I went ahead and added a section on the Expedition page for "inactive expeditions". Feel free to make changes as you see fit, but there seems to be a consensus that this expedition is not worth keeping, so perhaps this can be archived? ChubbyWimbus 18:30, 7 November 2009 (EST)
Result -- kept, but transferred to inactive and added a warningbox emphasizing that it's dead. - D. Guillaime
Not an article, but an airport, which even redirects to the wrong page (as it redirects to Bangkok/Phahonyothin, the location of the old airport Don Muang. The new airport Suvarnabhumi is officially in Samut Prakan, but is covered in the Bangkok main article). I don't think airports deserve their own articles, with the exception of O'Hare International Airport ? Globe-trotter 12:25, 30 November 2009 (EST)
Delete. Photo of map that is most likely copyright. It is highly unlikely the author obtained permission to re-publish. --inas 23:35, 1 December 2009 (EST)
By placing the map on display in a public place is the copyright owner giving an implicit permission for it to be photographed? Is the photo then a derivative work of the map, in its stand, on the street, with sunlight and shadows on the map and a street scene background. In that case isn't this image an artistic work that could rely on the fair use principle in copyright law to claim a separate copyright by the photographer? That said, I am aware of sculpture artists who had copies of their sculpture photographed and screen printed on tee-shirts that were witdrawn from sale because of the artists objected for copyright reason. My concern is that if we delete this image then it follows that all those other images of signs and maps in public places should probably also be deleted. If it was only a photo of the map, not of the map on the street then I would have said Delete - as it is I am not so sure. - Huttite 06:11, 2 December 2009 (EST)
Hmmmm. It is always nice to keep images rather than delete them, and I appreciate we don't want to go down a slippery slope towards deleting more than we have to.
However, I think this is clearly a copyvio. Under UK law a photograph of a map in a public place is a copyvio, so too in the US. Wikimedia commons has a good coverage of the issues involved. See .
I can't see any implied consent. I think if I made copies of the map by photographing this and started selling them on the high street, the council would probably kick up a fuss. And this is just what I could do under the CC-BY-SA licence the image is under.
In fact most map producers like this in the UK would normally be using Ordinance Survey data under a licence, and they would never give permission for it to be freely reproduced. It may not fall within the council's power to even give consent to copy it.
If we want to maintain a clean site, with no copyright violations, then we have to delete these things and work around the consequences. --inas 21:23, 2 December 2009 (EST)
Delete. I agree with inas's interpretation of the legal situation (assuming Commons has it right). But moreover, I can't imagine how this image is useful to us anyway, even if it was legal. The text on the map is too small to read, making the map pretty useless. LtPowers 11:35, 3 December 2009 (EST)
Ok - Delete - You have removed my uncertainty by explaining your thinking and providing supporting information and factors I had not considered. However, does this set a precedent for photographs of other sorts of signs? - Huttite 04:10, 4 December 2009 (EST)
I would say not, as that precedent already exists. Of course, different countries have different rules. LtPowers 09:45, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Outcome: Deleted. - D. Guillaime 18:14, 11 January 2010 (EST)
Delete or Move to talk pages. - Appears to be a clone of Stockholm. I would have speedily deleted it but for the discussion about districts. Suggest it could be used as a planning tool. - Huttite 15:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Outcome: Deleted. Couldn't figure out why it was there at all.... - D. Guillaime 18:14, 11 January 2010 (EST)
Not an article but an attraction. The whole page is also a copyvio and I have marked it as such.--Burmesedays 06:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)
Therefore similar content on the contributor's user page must be a copyvio too? The page probably should move/redirect to the location of the memorial, but I cannot tell from the text where in France(?) the memorial is as the location/address is not obvious. - Huttite 07:12, 30 November 2009 (EST)
It's in Colombey-les-deux-églises in the Champagne-Ardenne region. The address is 'Route du Mémorial'. It's a very small town apparently (pop. 650), maybe it should be listed in the Get out section of Chaumont, the nearest town of any size. --Stefan (sertmann)talk 07:45, 30 November 2009 (EST)
redirect to Chaumont. Leave the user a note asking about the apparent copyvio on the user page. He or she has username "Memorialcharlesdegaulle", so may be authorised to use the text. Pashley 01:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Delete. If we don't know the proper licensing information, it's best to discard it, regardless of which of those two files came first. - D. Guillaime 16:27, 10 January 2010 (EST)
Delete. Images are guilty until proven innocent. Unknown copyright status is a criteria for deletion. The submission standard is your own work or explicitly licenced. - Huttite 14:44, 12 January 2010 (EST)
Outcome: Deleted. --Burmesedays 23:01, 30 January 2010 (EST)
Lohame has a restaurant and a hotel, so it might be ok, ClausHansen 11:40, 10 February 2010 (EST)
Keep. I don't see any reason why this page should be deleted. Maybe its a bit bit sparse but its a Kibbutz and not a cosmopoliton city, it's still nice to visit and trust me, people do.
There are pages on here which have nothing, for exmaple Day and Grozny.
Geva is an idyllic little kibbutz, in a scenic valley surrounded by other kibbutzim, moshavim and even historical sites.
Its inbetween the two cities of Afula and Beth Shean(with that the roman site) and about and 45 minutes from Haifa. The kibbutz has been taking volunteers for decades, some of who have remained, starting families, and visitors are always coming to the kibbutz.
Not only this but Geva is something of an odity now, having not been privitised. Everything is as it was intended to be, they have not sold out to any companies and still look after their residents. Anyone who has visited the area understands that you would come to visit the valley so wouldnt avoid visiting somewhere just because there is no where to sleep, when theres a chance of seeing something interesting. Roshi08 07:56 22 February (GMT+2)
Redirect/Merge with either Alufa or Beth as it is not a valid listing per our policy (no hotel). jan 10:31, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Redirect. No need to waste time on a deletion discussion. LtPowers 16:09, 17 January 2010 (EST)
Merge and Redirect - I have tagged it as a merge because there appears to be partial content that I don't have time to research at the moment. - Huttite 08:38, 18 January 2010 (EST)
Merged and Deletedjan 08:11, 25 February 2010 (EST)
Ok its close to Afula and Beth Shean but its not close enough to justify merging it into one of their articles. But I think it is a real shame that people want it deleted. Anyone travelling in Israel is probably going to stop off at a kibbutz at some point and I think that an original kibbutz such as geva reminds people of the kibbutz movement and the shaping of the state of israel. There is one other kibbutz article, it has a hotel i think, but apart from that the article is bare. Give it a chance.Roshi08 06:37 23 February (GMT+2)
Keep - make an exception. It is a decent article, an interesting place, and you can sleep there, via volunteering (I am also guessing you could find informal accommodation if you just turned up). In any case, we have made exceptions before, for example we have park articles where there are no organised sleep options. --Burmesedays 01:05, 23 February 2010 (EST)
There are 2 guest rooms. These can go months without anyone staying there, and people won't stay long. Often organized groups (notice given) come and alternative accommodation in the kibbutz is arranged if there are no rooms. As i have said before families often visit, and even families of volunteers are not just expected to sleep in the volunteers rooms. If the vote for deletion is dropped I intend to add more to the article, maybe expand the history for example. I also considered taking a trip to the neighboring kibbutzim and moshavim to investigate further into nearby hotels, guest rooms, bed and breakfasts etc. I'm sure no one would disagree with me when I say that this is not the worst article on wikitravel =) ---User:Roshi08 09:43, 23 February (GMT+2)
Delete - This was tagged as a Vote for Deletion a month ago but has apparently not been listed or voted upon. As far as I can ascertain from a quick google search a Dhaba appears to be a structure where food is consumed, that is owned in India. The word does not appear to be defined in English and the top ranking page is the Wikitravel article itself. The page is orphaned and not linked from any other Wikitravel article - Huttite 14:44, 12 January 2010 (EST)
Delete Since I Vfd'ed I think I would want it deleted. Came to much the same conclusion. Sorry about forgetting to add it here --Stefan (sertmann)talk 14:48, 12 January 2010 (EST)
Keep. The main problem is the conflict with the can you sleep there? policy. But the recent addition of a useful sleep section should, especially in light of the fact that it is a well written and useful article, allow us to keep it. I also generally hate to discourage promising new editors ;) --PeterTalk 12:54, 23 February 2010 (EST)
Keep. As I posted already, if the Votes for deletion thing is taken off I'm going to add new sub categories on alternative sleeping arrangments. There is a Moshav and another Kibbutz ten minutes by foot either way! They both have accomodation and I would add these into the article. I appreciate the positive feeback, but I would rather know if the article is going to be Kept before working on it in more detail. Plus I would be happy to expand the current articles on the North of Israel (where I live) and Scottish Borders (Where I grew Up)! ---Roshi08 07:32, 24 February 2010 (EST)
Keep. It appears that the problem with the sleep section will be solved, so I am no longer against keeping it, ClausHansen 07:06, 24 February 2010 (EST)
Keep. Ok so it is ok for me to remove the VDF off of my page? Or does it need to be discussed further? Roshi08 07:36, 24 February 2010 (EST)
Roshi: The consensus is in favour of keeping the article, so you can remove the vfd tag on the article. Could you please extend the sleep section with valid accomodation options? I will archive this discussion. jan 07:47, 24 February 2010 (EST)