Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.

Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel:Votes for deletion"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
(SNUBA)
Line 180: Line 180:
  
  
===[[Downtown]]===
+
 
Please see the discussion which began above under [[#Chinatown]].
+
* '''Delete''' - Ridiculous. Embarrassing. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 23:43, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
+
* '''Delete''' - Indeed --[[User:Inas|inas]] 23:50, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
+
* '''Delete''' - I think I already layed out my reasons in the Chinatown discussion. [[User:ChubbyWimbus|ChubbyWimbus]] 00:04, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
+
* '''Delete''', as above. [[User:Gorilla Jones|Gorilla Jones]] 00:50, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
+
* '''Delete''', for the sole reason that it looks silly.  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 00:59, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
+
*'''Delete''' - Nonsense. --[[User:Jtesla16|Jtesla16]] 07:01, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
+
*'''Delete''' - no wait, I'm gonna ad every single conceivable major city we have on wikitravel, and a few extra to the list... --[[User:Sertmann|Stefan (sertmann)]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Sertmann|Talk]]</sup></small> 07:43, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
+
*'''Keep'''.  If our articles were titled Downtown (Pittsburgh) instead of Pittsburgh/Downtown, would the need for this page be clearer?  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 13:39, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
+
:I think the issue is that "downtown" is part of most cities, and the destination is still [[Pittsburgh]]. It's not the same as a redirecting the Taj Mahal to Agra. "Downtown" is quite an abstract sort of destination; typically just the biggest concentration of shops, theaters, bars, etc. in a city/town. If someone is planning a trip to Pittsburgh, I imagine it would lead them to search for Pittsburgh. I just can't fathom that a traveller would simply want to go "downtown" without already knowing the city they will be in or travel to. If you wanted to go "downtown", would you really look over this list and say to yourself: Pittsburgh, Cairo, or Bangkok? It's just too farfetched to imagine that someone would say "I'm going downtown." and then hop on a plane to Cairo. I am curious to know what situation you think someone could use this for? [[User:ChubbyWimbus|ChubbyWimbus]] 16:07, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
+
::I just don't like to assume something has no use, when it's doing little harm and fits our guidelines.  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 17:11, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
+
::: The district "Downtown" makes no sense without the Pittsburgh.  Downtown is a generic name for a city centre, and we should not be attempting to disambiguate it to a geography.  Downtown, City, Town, CBD, are all generic names for the central area of cities, and they make no sense without the location qualifier.  --[[User:Inas|inas]] 19:09, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
+
*'''Delete'''.  No value.  - [[User:Dguillaime|Dguillaime]] 14:22, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
+
*'''Delete'''. Heh, I added to the list way back when. Hoo, that's embarasing... I see no point in it, especially with more and more cities getting divided up into districts. [[User:PerryPlanet|PerryPlanet]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:PerryPlanet|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:55, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
+
*'''Keep'''. Really, I don't see what the big deal is. It's just a disambiguation page, though not complete I don't think it should just be outright eliminated.
+
* '''Delete'''.  This is clearly too broad a term to merit its own article, and it serves no use to the traveler.  ChubbyWimbus states the case quite well above. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 15:10, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
+
* '''Delete'''.  Too broad -- most every place has a downtown.  -- [[User:Cjensen|Colin]] 17:17, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
+
* '''Delete'''. [[User:Pashley|Pashley]] 08:31, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
+
* '''Delete'''. [[User:ViMy|ViMy]] 17:35, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
+
  
 
=== [[Amusements]] ===
 
=== [[Amusements]] ===

Revision as of 01:59, 10 October 2009


This page contains lists of articles and images which are recommended for deletion. Any Wikitraveller can recommend an article or image for deletion, and any Wikitraveller can comment on the deletion nomination. Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations.

See also:

Contents

Nominating

The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:

===[[Chicken]]===
* Delete.  Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion. If you are unsure, bring up the issue on the talk page.
  2. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion. The {{vfd}} tag must be the very first thing in the article, right at the very top, before everything else.
  3. Add a link to the article or image at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article or image per entry.
  4. If you're nominating an image for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikitravel... many images are located on Wikitravel Shared, in which case they should be nominated for deletion over there instead.

Commenting

All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
  2. You may vote to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If your opinion is that the article should be kept or redirected, please state why. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not

After fourteen (14) days of discussion, there will probably be consensus one way or the other. If the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikitraveller can do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If the result is delete, then only an administrator can delete. Check if any article links to the image or article in question. After removing those links, delete the image or article. However, if the image is being deleted because it has been moved to the shared repository with the same name, do not remove links to the images, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the shared repository.

Archiving

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root Archives page has a directory. 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; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted).

If the nominated article was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.


June 2009

Cruising the Baltic Sea

  • Delete. I don't see any reason to split this type of information out from our destination guides. Also, much of the article appears to be a copyright violation [1]. --Peter Talk 20:32, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
    • Hmm, but we don't really have an article on the Baltic Sea. That title currently redirects to Baltic States, which you linked, but the sea borders other countries as well. Of course, if it's a copyvio... LtPowers 20:57, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep, for time being. I actually told the user to try his hand at creating this instead of his original attempt at "Baltic Sea", which is clearly a no-no. Jpatokal 23:15, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
  • There is no copyright violation although some of the stuff was research elsewhere the sentences are my own. Baltic states is only 3 small states and the cruises seldom stop at any of them. The current redirect to baltic states from baltic sea actually makes no sense in my estimation since it is based only one the word being the same so far as I can tell. Baltic states is only a minor destination of three countries and have very little tourist value while the Baltic Seas cruises are quite popular and getting more so. You guys can, of course, do whatever you want. My intent is to provide a resource that can be used to springboard into other articles on the site and easy reference for a person going on the cruise. Of course there are many cruises and they don't all hit the same ports so the general nature is to provide references to all possible ports for the user. --DaleDe 01:20, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Just for the record, the two times I have checked, I get exact matches for copyrighted text (this last time: "sea temperature which, in the late spring is dependent upon the melting of the Winter"). My personal experience has been that cruises on the Baltic Sea that do not feature stops in the Baltic States rarely refer to the sea's name at all. Whenever I've seen "Baltic Cruises" or something of that sort, there is at least a stop in Riga. But my point above is really about content—there's no overwhelming amount of travel content that needs to be split out of the guides.
All that said, I disagree with Jani—I think it would be perfectly acceptable to have a Baltic Sea region article. But the copyvio text has to go. --Peter Talk 02:30, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Perfectly acceptable doesn't (to me) convey the gist of Wikitravel:Bodies of water. While I know there have been numerous discussions on this, so far the policy still reads that a destination guide (which includes a region guide, in my understanding) on a body of water is not acceptable. --inas 02:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
That would contradict my reading of Wikitravel:Bodies_of_water#Regions. The point of that policy is that we don't create articles to write about the bodies of water, and that is not what Dale has set out to do. --Peter Talk 02:52, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
I've been reading it as we don't make articles about bodies of water unless that's the natural name for the region in which they are located. LtPowers 10:44, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
This is beside the point -- in this particular case, it's quite obvious that "Baltic Sea" is not a sensible or necessary region grouping, since a) the countries around are dissimilar (compare, say, Kaliningrad and Denmark) and b) all the countries around it are already slotted in elsewhere.
However, I do agree with the original creator that the Baltic Sea is much larger than the three Baltic states, and that many cruises on that body of water don't even visit them. Eg. of the 7 cruises listed at [2] (#1 hit on Google for "baltic sea cruises"), only two actually stop in any of the Baltics. Jpatokal 13:13, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep, it would be a sub page for all neighbourhoodpages of Northern Europe so I dont see the problem of joining all that into one page (this) and linking it from the get in, get around, do sections. -- Eiland 14:32, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Mar Menor

Presumably should be merged into Murcia (region)? Jpatokal 01:13, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Merge - as suggested by Jani, based on the policy on bodies of water. Tarr3n

July 2009

Omkareshwar

A Hindu temple, all text copied from the Wikipedia article. ChubbyWimbus 15:21, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

  • Keep. I reverted it to the previous version, which isn't a copyvio. It's been up for VfD before, with this resolution. - Dguillaime 21:25, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
It seems the previous discussion did not quite resolve the issue of whether or not this destination should be redirected to the island or city name... I don't suppose anyone knows anything more now? ChubbyWimbus 21:58, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

"Rhino Camp"

If this is a real destination, it should be redirected to simply Rhino Camp and then delete this page. ChubbyWimbus 20:50, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

Chinatown

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. --Peter Talk 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 [3]. 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". --Peter Talk 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 [4], 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)


Wikitravel:Cultural Expedition

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)



Amusements

Did you know that portable CD players let you listen to CDs that you buy while you're traveling? That books are a great source of entertainment while traveling? This travel topic stub, created and last expanded in July '08, has that wisdom and more. Gorilla Jones 23:50, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete Redirect per Inas. No useful content, abandoned travel topic, which probably couldn't sustain a good article even with attention. I can't think of any good redirects (Wikitravel:Attraction listings would be a bit of a stretch). --Peter Talk 00:10, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge and Redirect to Packing list. Good idea to bear remember that book and mp3 player when packing. Would only see the entire article taking up one line there, though. Happy to do the hacking. --inas 00:13, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete I think the title "Amusements" is too ambiguous to make it a redirect. "Amusements" doesn't bring to mind "packing list" in my opinion. ChubbyWimbus 00:35, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
The info currently in the article will currently fit in Packing list, but you may be right that the travel topic name itself cannot be redeemed. Let me have a go at the merge/redirect, just to preserve the info, and then see what you think. --inas 17:01, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
For me it seems more appropriate to redirect to Wikitravel:Where to stick it? --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 15:35, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
A redirect from the main namespace to the Wikitravel namespace? The cheat shortcuts we have are bad enough at the moment, but we shouldn't redirect travel topics that way. --inas 18:58, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
All the info is relocated. If anybody finds the small stub of a redirect offensive, speak again. I admit it isn't the best of redirect names, but to keep our history, acknowledgements, etc in place, I think it is best that the redirect points where the info went. --inas 00:07, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
With both of these redirects, I definitely see how it can fit into them once they are suggested, but I am still wondering if it is not better deleted, since it's rather ambiguous? ChubbyWimbus 00:13, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
I think it is a highly unlikely search term. The only reason I can see for retention is the simply the general philosophy that we should keep the history, and try not to break any permanent links that may exist to the articles. --inas 01:02, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
I agree with Texugo — unless we really believe that someone is going to search for "Amusements" when they were trying to find "Packing list", we should not have a redirect. If you kept the original contributor's phrasing during the merge, I'd be happy to write "Bring a book and perhaps a CD player" and offer it up myself. Gorilla Jones 08:12, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
Okay, I've given my best reasons for retaining a somewhat pathetic article. There was no phrasing retained. Blow it away.. --inas 08:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Nice try, Inas, but delete. Pashley 08:37, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

It seems that there is concensus to delete this, so it can be archived as soon as it is deleted. ChubbyWimbus 03:01, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

August 2009

SNUBA

Unlikely to merit its own travel article.

  • Merge and redirect to Scuba diving. Texugo 23:51, 2 August 2009 (EDT)
  • A lot of work is being done on this page right now. I'd say inform the user and/or wait until that user has finished editing before making any moves. ChubbyWimbus 03:46, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
I agree. Best to give active new users a chance to make their contributions before making a decision. --Peter Talk 14:43, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
  • I lean toward keep since there seems to be quite a bit of info, enough for an independent article. However, I would not object strongly to merging instead. I would like to see more explanation: how does SNUBA work? What are the advantages over normal snorkeling? Can you SNUBA on your own, or does it require expert guidance? What depth range does it apply for? etc. Pashley 09:49, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. I agree with Pashley. --inas 19:03, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Pashley, if you read what is there, it is evident that the airtank stays above on a boat and you have a 7 meter tether. I still feel very strongly about a merge/delete, especially since this is a single company promoting their service, and it's not all that terribly unique in my opinion. Texugo 23:25, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

  • Merge into Scuba diving. What is relevant to say about Snuba already exists in this article, and can easily be condensed into a 1 or 2 paragraph section, I don't see a need to wait and breed more content into the wrong place, in this case. All that's notable about it is lack of carrying a tank on your back, lack of freedom since you're tied to a 7 meter cord, and that you don't need to be certified as a diver. I can't see anything else that distinguishes it enough to make it worth repeating all the similarities with scuba and snorkeling. Listing where it's offered, IMO, is not necessary, as I can't picture anyone planning a trip based on wanting to Snuba, it's simply something to point out as an option if you ever come across it. And per Texugo, we don't allow articles for companies – cacahuate talk 18:47, 7 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep Snuba is a completetly unique form of diving that has taken the unregulated form of diving called Hookah diving and applied standards and proceedures to it. Throughout the world there are operators that try to pass off hookah diving as a safe alternative to scuba diving. These operations are not licensed, insured, Do not provide professional instructors and are responsible for promoting irresponsible diving practices (ie. not recieving proper training

There are many factors that make Snuba unique from scuba diving. 1. The raft itself acts as a diving platform, meaning people that are already nervous about their first experience diving are not just bobbing around in the ocean. 2. The raft is highly visible and provides a measure of safety to prevent against boat traffic accidents. 3. The limited mobility of the 7 meter hose prevents descending deeper than 7 meters, prevents people from straying off and not following instruction, virtually eliminates the problems of Decompression Sickness "the bends" as the depth of 7m for a maximum time of 25 minutes is not deep or long enough to absorb enough nitrogen to produce enough bubbles in the blood to cause the bends (not one case of bends through SNUBA in over 20 years). 4. No certification - yes, uncertified divers can try DSD scuba courses. However, there are many people that have an unnecessay aversion to diving through stereotypes and myths. After experiencing a truly soft approach to diving they are more likely to feel differently about scuba and proceed or allow children to proceed with scuba diving. 5. No tanks to wear - just as innovative as scuba was to those who wanted more freedom, removing the tanks allows another entire range of participants to try diving. Many people have been given the chance to dive that never would have if the option was not available. The handicapped, obese, elderly, children, people with weak knees / backs. 6. Overall attention to safety - soft weights instead of hard to prevent injuries out of the water and damage to coral should a weightbelt be dropped. Padding on the underside of the raft to prevent head injuries, harness attachment to prevent accidental regulator removal underwater, specialized training in addition to scuba diving theory and training. 7. Planning a trip - you would not believe the number of "family men" that have not been able to scuba dive for years as they respect their wifes belief that scuba is dangerous. There are many such people that are either aware of Snuba or seek out Snuba to provide an avenue to opening their family up to the wonders of diving. Many people want to scuba, but are put off by the cost of training and time involved, especially if they live in an area where there is no diving or only recieve limited holiday every year. Snuba gives them the chance to dive and tehy will seek it out. 8. Scuba is not snuba plain and simple. Other than the tanks and the regulator everything is presented and done in a different manner to provide a unique experience that can be translated into education of the ocean and environment, a chance to bring someone into scuba that previously would not have, and provide memories for a lifetime.

I am writing this as a PADI Open Water Scuba Instructor and also a Snuba Guide. From my position as a professional in both areas - they are different and equally noteworthy as holiday activities that should be sought to participate in. Just as scuba and snorkeling are different - Snuba is a seperate regulated activity that has gained quite a lot of recognition in America and Japan as such. With continued development and exposure as a holiday activity it is hoped that more people will become educated about our coral reefs. Some people will go on to become licensed scuba divers, some will remain snorkellers and some will seek out a repeat SNUBA adventure on their next holiday.

Lastly, according to the Goals and non-Goals section of Wikitravel.org this article would be useful for: - travellers still planning - what activites to do (when seeing Snuba as an available activity in a destination it will allow them to read more about the activity within Wikitravel.org without having to exit to try to find possibly false or misleading information) - Inclusion in other travel guides as the information for all contacts and destinations is up to date. - For travellers on the road - for anyone who sees a brochure or hears from other travellers about Snuba it will give them a source of information to research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlohaMatt (talkcontribs)

  • Looks to me (non-expert, I only snorkel) like the article should be kept, re-titled, and generalised to cover all "hookah diving". SNUBA is just one company's version; cover that too. but with less touting of that company's service. Pashley 05:54, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge & delete Keep. My mind's open, since I don't totally understand what this is (wikipedia:Snuba was not helpful, since it is an unsourced promotional piece...). But our Wikitravel:Deletion policy is pretty clear—no articles for individual businesses. Should this be merged into a Surface supplied diving/Hooka diving article, or just back into the Scuba diving article, I'm not sure. It clearly will have to be both reduced and rewritten to avoid being an advertisement. And Matt, your vfd comment reads like an advert—please read the deletion policy, and explain (succinctly) why your page qualifies for an article. --Peter Talk 11:41, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
    • A merge and delete would interfere with the attribution history of the text, wouldn't it? LtPowers 13:25, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
Not hardly. It's certainly not policy to keep redirects from articles for businesses (the deletion policy states the opposite), and we don't have any consensus behind keeping them around to preserve attribution history. Even if we did, the vfd discussion clearly shows who the author of the article was, and therefore where the content came from in a potential merge. --Peter Talk 10:24, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
The similarities with Scuba are far to vast for this to warrant a separate article, even if there were multiple companies offering it. It will fit perfectly as a paragraph or two in Scuba diving. If somehow enough non-fluffy and non-repetitive content is added at some point, we could assess then if it needs to be split out for size reasons. But it isn't even close to that now – cacahuate talk 17:57, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
Firstly, I don't think the similarities with Scuba are sufficient to merge the two. Scuba requires proper training and qualifications. If you are not interested or have the time for this, then you won't read the Scuba article, but may still well do this stuff. There is a very different demographic who would be interested in this. I think we just need to find the right article title if we think SNUBA is too linked to one commercial organisation. We just call the article that, and then reference the commercial organisation within the article if required, and de-tout the article. --inas 02:19, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
Note: Wikipedia's Snuba article has been improved; while the name "Snuba" is trademarked and the process is patented, it does seem to be growing as a vacation activity. LtPowers 08:03, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. Snuba has introduced more non-divers to scuba diving than any other organized and affiliated effort. And, was done so inadvertently. Snuba does not offer scuba or is promoted as an alternative to scuba. The name and program is proprietary and unique only to Snuba. If this page were to be considered for merging with a generic category it would be "snorkeling" or "water activities." Snuba is not scuba. The Snuba market and programs are directly specifically at non-divers and snorkelers. I know this first hand. The dive industry should embrace any efforts to promote Snuba. 69.224.222.179 18:47, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
The name and program are as proprietary and unique to Snuba as KFC's recipe is to KFC. We are not the dive industry and we have a policy against promoting commercial enterprises. Texugo 03:06, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
The issue is not whether SNUBA is promoting a commercial company, but if having an article on it is of interest and benefit to the traveller. We don't exclude the possibility of commercial promotion - after all every private enterprise we list has that possibility - we just put it behind the priority of giving benefit to the traveller. If we were wikifood, KFC would probably at least rate a mention. --inas 06:55, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
We're not Wikifood, but a search on "KFC" gets many pages of hits. Our China article, for example, has "As everywhere in the world, prices for food and drink at Chinese airports are vastly inflated. Coffee that is ¥25 in a downtown shop is ¥78 at the same chain's airport branches. KFC seems to be the one exception; their many airport shops charge the same prices as other branches. Paying ¥20 or more for a KFC meal may or may not be worthwhile when there are ¥5 noodles across the street, but at the airports it is usually the best deal around." Pashley 11:27, 23 August 2009 (EDT)
If the SNUBA article is seen as promoting a specific company, it is largely because they are leader in a field of one. They dont really operate in a field where there is much competition, so the article must necessarily promote the only participant. Not much one can do about that. I think that the differences from SCUBA are more important than the similarities. It really can be seen as an alternative to both SCUBA and Snorkelling. Some of the safety aspects and advantages claimed are debatable, but I dont think that is the function of this forum. I could expound on this topic to drive a non diver to distraction, so I won't unless someone really wants me to. Pbsouthwood 17:17, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. There may be some issues about whether SNUBA is promoting a specific company, but the term is probably becoming a generic for a mode of diving that is significantly different from recreational SCUBA. As one who has been involved in Recreational, Technical, Scientific and Commercial diving, including instruction in all four of these categories for about 25 years, I dont see where else the information would fit in. It is definitively not snorkel, It is debateably SCUBA, in that it is self contained, but equally it is surface supplied, which in commercial diving is seen as a major distinction fron SCUBA, and similarly in recreational SCUBA where it is generally not used at all by the major diver certification agencies. If it were to be merged with SCUBA it would probably be necessary to rename SCUBA to Recreational Underwater Diving, which would not be particularly user freindly. Another option would be to rename to Recreational Hookah Diving. I would accept that without liking it very much. I have some issues with the claims made by the author of the article, but they are issues of fact, opinion and policy, not whether the article is appropriate as a stand alone. To close off, I would comment that I am very new to Wikitravel in spite of the number of words I have uploaded, and do not consider myself to be in any way knowledgeable on Wikitravel policy. This contribution is in response to a request to comment here an the basis of my background in diving. I hope this helps. Pbsouthwood 17:17, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
I have been back to the SNUBA article and my second impression is that the explanatory sections read a bit too much like an advertising brochure for my taste. There is a constant repetition that the equipment is safe, but nowhere is it mentioned that there is a risk of a lung overpressure or drowning accident, just as for Scuba, and that these are probably the greatest hazards for novice divers. I dont know if this is sufficient to violate Wikitravel policy, but I would advise toning the hard sell down a bit. Linking to places where it is available seems acceptable, as it is unlikely that this information will be available elsewhere in Wikitravel. These issues could be corrected easily. I am willing to do them if necessary, but feel that it would be more polite to let the author make the adjustments. Pbsouthwood 18:07, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
Related questions: We do not seem to have an article on snorkelling. Should we? My guess would be it is at least as common as scuba, let alone snuba. Currently diving is just a redirect to "scuba diving". Should it instead be some sort of overview/disambiguation page with links to snorkelling, scuba and snuba, plus perhaps a brief mention of the deep diving with full suit & a statement that we do not cover that because it is almost never recreational? Any volunteers to write either page? Pashley 22:26, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
I will add them to my 'to do' list. Just to check we are on the same wavelength, Diving is to be a disambiguation page directing to options of Scuba diving, SNUBA, and Snorkelling. Possibly also Free diving which is deep breath hold diving, whereas Snorkelling is often considered to be mainly surface swimming with a snorkel. I am taking it that the consensus is to keep SNUBA? Cheers, Pbsouthwood 15:35, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
Diving converted to disambiguation page, with brief explanations and links to Scuba diving, SNUBA, Snorkelling and Free diving. The snorkelling and Free diving topics are a bit outside my expertise and interest, but I will keep an eye on them if anyone else writes them, or may put in a couple of outlines at some stage if no-one else is interested. Cheers, Pbsouthwood 16:15, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
Looks good, although I'm still wonder if the SNUBA article should be moved to Hookah diving. I'll leave that question for the divers. Pashley 12:00, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
As one of the divers, I dont have particularly strong opinion either way. SNUBA would be a subset of Hookah, as Hookah is usually surface supply from a boat or shore, often from a compressor, whereas SNUBA is surface supply from a compressed air cylinder on a self contained and unmanned float, and I dont know of any conventional recreational Hookah operations. I would say leave it for now, and merge with hookah if it ever becomes appropriate. If someone ever writes an article on Hookah then SNUBA could and probably should be included in it. Pbsouthwood 15:40, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

La Candelaria

A standalone district article for the otherwise-undistrictified Bogotá article.

La Candelaria is Bogotá's primary tourist destination, the location of many hotels and hostels and of most of the city's historical and cultural attractions. This is a travel website, and La Candelaria is Bogotá's primary tourism travel destination. In contrast, Bogotá in general is primarily a business travel destination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.27.235.247 (talkcontribs)
  • Merge & redirect. The article definitely should not (and may not) be deleted per Wikitravel:Deletion policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting. I think we should eventually district this city of 8 million, and La Candelaria might make for a good, self-sufficient article, but a districts discussion needs to happen first. See Talk:Bogotá There is not a lot of content in either this article, or the main Bogotá article, so a merge should be fine for right now. --Peter Talk 19:34, 7 August 2009 (EDT)
Looks to me like Peter has it right. Merge & redirect. Pashley 21:58, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

I'd like to add that La Candelaria is qualitatively different from the rest of Bogota, which is known as a business city, the capital of a narcostate, etc. In contrast, La Candelaria is a colonial, artsy neighborhood. Merging it into the rest of Bogotá wouldn't do it justice.

No one is disagreeing with you on the notability of the neighborhood. The point is that a districts discussion is needed before district articles should be created. Ad hoc schemes create real messes, that are really hard to clean up—take a look at how awful this one got. If and when we do improve the Bolivia article enough, and complete a districts proposal on the talk page, then we can start creating district articles, and the content you created for La Candelaria will not at all be lost—it will be easy to use it as a base for a new district article. --Peter Talk 00:54, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

Image:4Vancouver 2010 logo.svg.png

  • Delete. While I would love to have this image on our Vancouver 2010 page, our current image policy makes no provisions for fair use. LtPowers 18:35, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Personal protest against stupid-looking abstract 5-colored olympic logos (and what LtPowers said). --inas 23:43, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Hey - that's not abstract, it's an inukshuk [5] :) But I do agree we shouldn't be using it. One of these days I'll take the photo of the Olympic clock I've been meaning to take to replace it... Shaund 01:00, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
Is the inukshuk supposed to be skiing, or something? --inas 01:52, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
Nah, it's pretty lazy. Just standing around and being friendly (it's a symbol of cooperation and friendship). Shaund 00:59, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Six days hiking on Moskenesøy

  • Delete. The trail description is not exact enough. To follow this route you need a detailed map, and a key to the cabin - you can not get either key or map nearby. It is a diffcult and long route, there are better options in the same area. Tofola 09:14, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
Why wouldn't we just add this info to the article, and let the traveller decide? --inas 19:20, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
Keep Yes, the information is currently insufficient, but it has enough of a layout to allow someone to add to it. If you have more information about this hike, like where to get the key and such, then why not add it? ChubbyWimbus 04:04, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. As I argued above. --inas 22:45, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

McGee Creek

This appears to be nothing but a creek or trailhead named after a creek near Bishop, California. Any useful information, if there were any, should go in that article. I might suggest a redirect to McGee Creek State Park in Oklahoma, if there were such an article. I don't think redirecting it to Bishop makes any sense given the "McGee+Creek&btnG=Search Google results I got.

  • Delete or Redirect to Antlers, the nearest town to the OK state park for which we have an article, and add a listing to that town's Get Out section. Texugo 02:54, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
  • The place in California is a real destination, but it is small. I'd suggest a disambig page so the State Park in OK is reachable. The place in California should probably be folded in to Tom's Place. In other news, I'll go through the Mono County article and remove a bunch of too-small destinations. -- Colin 12:23, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
It is a community? I could find any evidence on Google, Google Maps, or Wikipedia. Texugo 23:34, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
I was confused. Some of the other Canyons in the region are destinations with multiple sleep options, but this one is just fishing plus one campground. No need for an article for the California McGee Creek. -- Colin 14:42, 30 August 2009 (EDT)


Lake Shikotsu

Per Wikitravel:Bodies of water.

Lake Toya

Per Wikitravel:Bodies of water.

Talk:Cape Town/City Harvest Festival

See Talk:Cape Town#Lost festival for where this page came from. It's no longer useful (never really was, for that matter) and possibly a copyvio. LtPowers 14:54, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

Medjumbe

I don't know what I think about this one. It's a private island visitable only through the proprietary resort company, which I think makes it kind of like XChalet or some of those other resorts in the Mexican Carribean coast, destinations for which we have decided against allowing articles for. The See and Do options are already admittedly few, and any Get in, Get around, Eat, or Sleep sections are all going to end up being things provided by the same resort company (and indeed what is there now reads like touting). The only thing going for it is that it's an hour flight away from the next closest destination. I'm still leaning toward merging it into the Get out section of Pemba and making this a redirect to that section. What do you guys think?

  • Merge and Redirect Texugo 22:59, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. If the only way to get there is a one-hour flight and you can sleep there, it's a destination of its own, even if there isn't very much there. See eg. Layang Layang. Jpatokal 12:06, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. Agree with Jpatokal. --inas 22:44, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

September 2009

Andes

  • Delete, it is not used as a sub-region of South America, so why would we have an article for this region? Globe-trotter 11:28, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Note: article was missing VFD tag; I've added it. LtPowers 15:35, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete Wikitravel doesn't cover entire mountain ranges. Information about specific mountains should be placed on city pages or given their own page, if there is enough to see/do on a specific mountain within the Andes. ChubbyWimbus 16:12, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep, change format to disamb. The text that currently exists in the article seems reasonable to me. It directs the traveller to the regions they will get information. Lets remove the current template, and put the info there currently into a disamb format. --inas 22:42, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. I can't say I care much whether the result is a disambig or an actual region article, but I don't see any reason to get rid of a valid, coherent region article, regardless of whether it is part of the hierarchy. --Peter Talk 00:29, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep Wikitravel actually does have coverage for the Alps and Himalayas, so unless there is consensus to get rid of those, as well, the Andes are legitimate. ChubbyWimbus 00:38, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
Would you care to comment on whether you think the full region template or a disamb is more appropriate? After all, the Alps contains the far too useful advice to eat fondue, so we have much to look forward to in the Eat section of the Andes. --inas 01:57, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
I feel there may not be much to say about the entire mountain ranges that would make them useful articles beyond Wikipedia-type facts. I think a disambiguation page with links to more specific articles (either mountains within the range or cities in the mountains or cities where tourists can access parts of the mountain) is likely to be more helpful. Itineraries that include the mountains are also good to link from the disambiguation page. Stating where/what to eat, where to sleep, etc. are just not practical, because there are too many places from Peru to Chile. It seems impractical, as a guide. ChubbyWimbus 02:26, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
I'd say the Andes have a distinct cultural heritage from the Incan and surrounding civilizations of yore, as well as from the realities of high altitude living, which could lend to a good region article. There's certainly more of interest to write about than for South Central Nebraska. Our region articles are almost universally terrible, but that's a different issue to work out, I think. --Peter Talk 02:39, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
True enough, but when you see the opportunity to have one less, why not take it!? --inas 05:42, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
Do you think this type of article warrants a sort of half-disambiguation, half-article page? I mean, I agree with Peter that there are things you can say about the culture and history of the area, but I still think that when it comes to sleeping, eating, see, do, etc. it is more helpful to have links to places within the range. If it doesn't have such links, then it's sort of a hollow, dead-end article. ChubbyWimbus 14:12, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Change to disambig - And hey Pashley, you just voted to keep on the basis of Rocky Mountains which is only a disambiguation page. What gives? Texugo 00:46, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Campsite

I think this is a bit of an overlap, since we already have a Camping travel topic. Also, I believe that creating a list of worldwide camping sites with a map that displays all of them is not practical (maybe even impossible). What do you think about this? ChubbyWimbus 14:05, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Speedy redirect to Camping. I was about to vfd it myself, not realizing that we do have a Camping article. The map idea to me sounds clearly impossible, and should anyway be discussed elsewhere (Talk:Camping). --Peter Talk 14:34, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Ebbsfleet International

  • Delete. Railway stations don't get articles. --Peter Talk 20:37, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge into Ebbsfleet Valley. Whatever the consensus, the same thing should happen to Ashford International as well. - Dguillaime 21:22, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge and Redirect into Kent#Get in. We should have the info in WT on this station, as it is significant to travellers, but where should it go? Merging into the closest town just seems wrong to me, as lots of people are going to go through that station with little or no interest in the town being built around it. It is like airport info for a city, we don't usually put it in the small town that has the airport, but in the city the airport serves. --inas 21:35, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge and Redirect both into Kent#Get in and makes sense to me as well. Note though that England#By_train currently links to the town of Ashford_(England) and not to the county of Kent.--Burmesedays 21:54, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge and Redirect into towns Ashford_(England) and Ebbsfleet Valley. England#By_train linking to each town is better. Thanks--Webextra 17:54, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Skopje/Šuto Orizari

  • Merge and redirect to Skopje. This is a single district article for an otherwise un-districtified city of under 600,000 people. Texugo 22:55, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Edakkal caves

An attraction, not an article.

  • Merge with the pre-existing listing on the Wayanad page. Texugo 09:31, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect A redirect may discourage people from recreating the article, but no strong feelings on this. Pbsouthwood 15:22, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Lake Bolsena

Per Wikitravel:Bodies of water.

  • Redirect after merging any relevant info with Bolsena or Montefiascone. Texugo 23:53, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Retain as is. Wikitravel:Bodies of water states that Lake Tahoe region is an acceptable article. Apart from size and importance I don't see any difference in approach here.Shep 02:08, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
Lake Tahoe's article is allowed not because it is an article about a lake but because it is set up as a valid region article, fitting nicely into the hierarchy without overlap, etc., and listed in the parent article as a region. This is not the case here, nor with the two below. Texugo 04:22, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Retain all and improve Trasimeno. Neither Bracciano nor Bolsena are articles about lakes but about the areas around them. I don't see any overlap. I think what is relevant is how the area is perceived. In Reno they might say " let's go to Lake Tahoe". In Rome, people say "Let's go to Lahe Bracciano". For me the important thing is that, as individual cities, the towns around the two lakes don't really rate individual articles but as groups they come together nicely. Shep 06:43, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Lake Trasimeno

Per Wikitravel:Bodies of water.

  • Merge and redirect Texugo 04:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Lake Bracciano

Per Wikitravel:Bodies of water.

  • Merge and redirect Texugo 04:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep for all three lakes discussed above. I have just done a quick check. Lake Louise, Loch Lomond and Lake Garda are all on Wikitravel. I think they, and surely many others, establish a precedent.Shep 08:49, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep all three. None of these articles violate what WT:Bodies of water was designed to combat—they are not encyclopedia articles about lakes themselves, rather they are destination articles, with plenty of overnight options. Bracciano and Bolsena each group the villages ringing a lake into one valid "city" article, akin to how we use a city template for small, inhabited islands. There are thousands of such lake-resort/lakeside community destinations around the world, many of them much smaller than Tahoe, and the majority of them deserving a travel article (like Lake Placid). Trasimeno seems clearly a valid region article, and I'm not sure that it conflicts with the existing hierarchy in any way. And even if it did overlap other regions at the same level of the hierarchy, that is allowed, and is very often a sensible way of organizing travel content. The Chesapeake Bay and Navajo Nation articles clearly overlap all sorts of regions, but it would not be sensible to omit such well-known and coherent travel destinations from Wikitravel out of a desire to keep the geographical hierarchy more simple—a certain amount of complexity is necessary and IMO not a problem. --Peter Talk 14:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep - but review the region.

I disagree with much of the reasoning above for keeping the three lake articles.

  1. If the the reason for the bodies of water guideline is that we don't want encyclopaedic articles about bodies of water, it would be extremely simple to just put that in the guideline. There are many people who contributed to the guideline, and trying to assess their reasoning rather than following the text is the wrong way to proceed. The text of the guideline is quite clear, and we should follow the guideline, or fix the guideline.
  2. I also don't agree that because there are other examples of a type of article, that we have established a precedent. There are lots of things that slip through the cracks for want of attention, and other articles which we just keep even though they are against policy (some just because they are good articles and useful to a traveller). I don't think that means that a precedent is stronger than a policy or guideline. We shouldn't let Wikitravel documentation descend into unwritten policies, precedents, and conventions. If we think an article is good enough to establish a precedent, we should change the policy or guideline. To do anything else means that new users who want to follow the guidelines, don't have a clue where to look, and discussions here and elsewhere become excessively complex pointing to other examples, rather than building better guidelines.
  3. I don't think the fact that we allow regions that don't fit into the regional hierarchy, means that we should assume we keep regions that don't. Sure, we allow regions that don't fit into the hierarchy, but there should be a strong presumption against them rising to any more than just disamb articles. We should make new regions that don't form part of the hierarchy redirect/disamb articles, unless there really is additional information significant to the traveller that can't be sensibly placed anywhere other than the region. I see bare and poorly developed regions are a significant problem on WT, and we shouldn't add to it by encouraging other full regional articles. In this particular case, isn't clear whether the articles are going to end up as regional articles, containing towns, or city template based articles in themselves.

That said, this article seems to me to describe a land region named after the lake, rather than the lake itself, and Shep's arguments that it is a common name for the land region seem convincing to me. However, we should be careful that this article doesn't end up just a bare region. If this is a real grouping for a number of smaller towns, perhaps the towns themselves could be redirected to this region, if they all have something in common, and are close together? Or perhaps we could rethink the regional hierarchy in this area? If it is a clear region that the towns belong to, perhaps it should be part of the hierarchy? --inas 20:26, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Ian, your rebuttal is borderline incomprehensible to me. 1) If the text of the guideline is quite clear, then why were we having this discussion (where I made it clear that I disagree with your reading of the policy, for that matter). Anyway, I've updated the policy in a way that will hopefully make more sense. 2) The examples I cited are hardly articles that slipped through the cracks, they are examples that should make it obvious that we should have destination guides named after lakes, provided (as the policy has always said), they are about the land destination surrounding the lake, rather than the water itself. 3) I have no idea why there should be a strong presumption against region articles just because they are not a part of our hierarchy, which exists for navigational purposes. If a region is a valid travel region, we travelers a disservice to arbitrarily refuse to write travel content about it. Moreover, bare and poorly developed articles are far more likely for regions created out of navigational convenience (like Northern X) than something coherent like a specific resort lake. --Peter Talk 01:27, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
I'm not familiar enough with the Italian lakes in question to be able to comment on the specifics, but I just wanted to chime in my support for Peter's interpretation of the policy. If a lake is a sensible destination/region -- and the pattern of having small communities dotted around a lake surrounded by mountains is quite common -- then there's no reason why the lake should not be a destination/region. Jpatokal 01:30, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Agree much with Inas. For me the bodies of water policy reads that, if at all possible, we avoid having articles about them, instead preferring to redirect. Yes we know there are exceptions to the bodies of water guideline out there, but they all either have reasons to be exceptions, or they need to be re-examined. The ones already mentioned seem to have valid reasons:
  • Lake Placid is the name of the town, so is actually not an exception at all.
  • Loch Lomond is a hierarchically valid subregion article of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park
  • Lake Louise is very remote with no logical nearest town to direct to, yet is a popular destination with its own places to sleep.
  • Lake Garda is a very large lake which borders three provinces, has attractions around it, but no single community big enough to warrant an article, so no logical place to redirect or disambiguate. This is the treat-all-the-villages-as-one-city example that Peter was looking for.
Since even our geographical hierachy states that exceptions need to be made on a case by case basis let's look at the three at hand:
  • Lake Bolsena - Has two town articles (Montefiascone and Latera which is no further away but not mentioned in the current article). Has one town, Bolsena which could probably do with its own article, having a castle, a cathedral with an interesting story, a theater, and several dozen restaurants and places to sleep. Has one small village worth mentioning in the Get out section of nearby Montefiascone because it has a castle and provides access to a small island. I don't see any information that wouldn't fit nicely into another article, given a disambig page, so I don't see any reason to make this an exception from current body of water policy on the basis of anything other than possibly naming a subregion after this lake. On that point, the question as to whether this article should stand as a valid region article can be answered by asking "Can (and should) the province of Viterbo be subdivided into regions, and would this be a logical component of that subdivision without causing overlap?"
  • Lake Bracciano - Currently has no articles of cities around the lake, but Bracciano is a city of 15,500, well deserving of an article, and we can redirect there. We can put info about enjoying the lake in the new city article, with the much smaller Anguillara Sabazia and Trevignano Romano covered briefly in the Get out section. Again, I see no reason we can't follow the disambig and redirect guideline. If, as above, we decide that subdividing Viterbo is necessary, this could possibly make a logical region with no overlap, though I'm not sure it would contain anything at all besides the aforementioned city article.
  • Lake Trasimeno could very well be a valid region article at some point. However, right now Umbria is not subdivided into regions, so, as in cases where someone creates a lone district article for an otherwise undivided city, I think it needs to be nothing but a disambig page, at least until such time as someone justifies and proposes subdistricting. The current article contains nothing but links to cities anyway, and is essentially already the disambig page I would have it be, except that it has a region template.
To respond to Peter's position about overlap, I agree that a little overlap doesn't hurt sometimes, but our guidelines still encourage us to avoid it when possible. So far the few exceptions we have made have been on a very case-by-case basis, sometimes hotly contested, and only about very large and famous regions which cross multiple macro-regions or countries. Many of the exceptions we have made have resulted in what are basically glorified disambig pages with little extra information. I really think what you are proposing is a slippery slope. If we start making exceptions for any little ol' lake with a couple of villages on it, we undermine both the bodies of water policy and the geographical hierarchy guidelines, and we'll end up with hundreds of new lake articles that overlap, confuse breadcrumb navigation, contain little information that couldn't be included elsewhere, and invite further rule-stretching to include rivers, etc. I get the feeling that you essentially disagree with the bodies of water policy, which is your right and we can of course discuss in the appropriate place and possibly make some changes. But as Inas said, the current policy is pretty clear on avoiding such articles if at all possible. In the above cases, I think it is very easy to avoid. Texugo 00:29, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Lake Bolsena: I'm least sure of this one, but WP lists seven comuni on the shores of the lake, so it should be a fine region article. Lake Bracciano is small, as are the communities around it, which is why Shep recommended they be covered within one article. I haven't been there, so I'm happy to trust his judgment—and I certainly don't see a compelling reason not to (other than some arbitrary discrimination against articles with the word "lake" in the title?). Lake Trasimeno is a valid region article already, and is not suggested as a region in a subdivision of Umbria, nor should it be, as it would only be listed as an other destination on whatever parent region article. It's clearly a travel destination, and I'm baffled as to how this undermines the geographical hierarchy, confuses breadcrumb information, or otherwise creates any problems of overlap. It's a coherent travel destination, it can sustain a good travel article, and travelers heading there would be well served by an article for the lake region. --Peter Talk 01:27, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Wow! If I had known that writing for Wikitravel was going to lead to so much debate I'd have read a good book instead. Anyway, I am happy to go along with the consensus, if there is one.Shep 13:43, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

This is a debate we had to have - because the relationship between wikitravel and bodies of water has always been odd, and it is good to see the points of view come out. Please don't feel you have to wait on the sideline for a consensus, a new opinion I'm sure would be valued by all. Hopefully we can get a better guideline as a result. --inas 19:09, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
I wrote the two lake articles thinking that it was a logical way to present the locations in the area. I'm trying to increase coverage of Lazio and as I noted above most places around the lakes do not really merit an article on their own. But I do think Wikitravel should avoid articles such as the present one on Lake Trasimeno, which is not much help to anyone, with no information and listings of cities that have no articles!Shep 01:06, 29 September 2009 (EDT)
This discussion is currently on hold because it sparked a larger discussion here. Please chime in there. Texugo 01:53, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

October 2009

Gelato

  • Please speedy delete as it is an ad. jan 07:00, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Peach Bottom

Village under 4500 people. Practically everything mentioned here is in Lancaster, 30 minutes away. It is explicitly stated that there is no place to stay, no place to eat, nothing to see, nothing to do, and there is only one very vague Buy suggestion that is basically universal to the region.

  • Delete - Texugo 21:38, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge then delete If there is anything that is not already on the Lancaster page, then I'd suggest merging first. If not, just delete it. It has a nice name, though. ChubbyWimbus 23:50, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge & redirect. The name is nice; someone might search for it. Pashley 13:32, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect. Agree with Pashley Pbsouthwood 15:02, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Remote destinations

Basically an advertisement for www.trulyremote.com (which I'll proceed remove the link to per our external links policy), I think it's aptly covered in our excellent Off the Beaten Path section. Delete or redirect there, don't really care. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 22:37, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete I was about to nominate it myself, but you beat me to it! ChubbyWimbus 22:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete and don't even bother with the redirect. - Dguillaime 22:48, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirect. Seems like a useful search term. LtPowers 11:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Speedied. User deleted the content for the second time, and reviving it seemed sorta pointless, we can allways make a new redirect if anyone else sees that as a good idea. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 19:32, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
    • ... you speedied something I'd explicitly recommended keeping? Nice. LtPowers 22:23, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Edit warring over a guide with content it seems like noone, including the author, wanted to keep seemed a bit obsessive to me. And if there is a consensus for a redirect, well, the only changed is whether the link is red or black when it's created. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 02:06, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
The speedy deletion rules are pretty clear, I'd thought. Why did you even bring it up here if you were just going to speedy it anyway? LtPowers 09:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
Exactly because it was a likely search term, but I didn't know it would prompt an edit war when I nominated it, these guys generally don't tend to return once they've gotten their links sneaked in. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 09:49, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
Sertmann, while I agree with the end result, according to Deletion policy, you were out of line there — no speedies if there's any doubt. However, this is actually a bit of a grey area, so I've raised a discussion on Wikitravel talk:Deletion policy#Speedying VFD-listed articles to clarify the wording. Jpatokal 10:29, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
Okay, okay, okay.... point taken, jesus. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:19, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Fiji tours

Same user as above, left a friendly note on his talk page, any non commercial info there could be salvaged to Fiji if anyone would be so inclined, but other than that i root for deletion. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 23:20, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Speedied. Obvious non-article. Jpatokal 00:32, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Kleena kleene

All of the content is a copyright violation from Explore magazine. Either delete or maybe empty and re-direct to Williams Lake. --Burmesedays 22:07, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. Useless and copy-vio jan 06:48, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete, since the capitalisation is wrong as well. Pashley 07:36, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete for the above reasons. Texugo 12:22, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

ChooseName

  • Please speedy delete as it is obvius spam jan 06:48, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Speedied - Texugo 12:22, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Sun Koshi

Empty river article. I hate to vfd another body of water while there is a discussion going on, but this one seems rather clear cut. All previous content was copyvio, now deleted.

  • Delete - Texugo 12:47, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Saddhu in Ramechhap.jpg

Image:Tamang Girl at Khandadevi.jpg

Image:Lama Women at Dhogme.jpg

I rather like these three pictures, but they violate our policy about people in photos.

  • Delete all - Texugo 13:02, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Not sure What about the part that states "Some exceptions might be for particular sports or activities or crowd scenes or illustrating some costume or uniform." These pictures are from the Indigenous Peoples Trail article, which seems to be showcasing various cultures and people of the area... Would these pictures then be examples of showcasing the various ethnic groups? ChubbyWimbus 14:20, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Ymca yelagiri

  • Delete. Does not meet the requirements in Wikitravel:What is an article?. The user who has re-created this article doesn't seem to be reading his talk page so hopefully this vfd nomination will get his attention. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete Not an article and should rather be a listing. jan 13:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages

other sites