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

Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel:Votes for deletion"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 147: Line 147:
  
 
* '''Merge and delete/redirect.''' There's not much here that's actually specific to LA (rush hour is more than an hour? people speed? slower traffic keep right? use a map or a GPS?) --[[User:BigPeteB|BigPeteB]] 15:44, 10 January 2012 (EST)
 
* '''Merge and delete/redirect.''' There's not much here that's actually specific to LA (rush hour is more than an hour? people speed? slower traffic keep right? use a map or a GPS?) --[[User:BigPeteB|BigPeteB]] 15:44, 10 January 2012 (EST)
 +
 +
* '''Merge and Delete''' the purpose of a redirect should direct people to articles with pertinent information NOT just articles sharing names. Does our Los Angeles County article really have such great information about driving that a redirect would make sense? There is nothing more frustrating than links and redirects to articles that don't give the information that the redirect implies is there. If it is redirected, then those Google people who really want driving tips will be mad at our misleading redirect. No reason for us to redirect. [[User:ChubbyWimbus|ChubbyWimbus]] 06:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)
  
 
=== [[Windsurfing]] ===
 
=== [[Windsurfing]] ===

Revision as of 12:00, 12 January 2012


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 - images that are located on Wikitravel Shared must be nominated for deletion 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. If you are in favor of redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. 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.





December 2011

Daqin pagoda

  • Merge/Delete. An article about a pagoda is not a Wikitravel article, per Wikitravel:What is an article? - with the following exceptions: "Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article." Large and complex wouldn't seem to apply to what's described as "the oldest known church building in China," and it is clearly a viable day trip away from Xian. I'd suggest taking the essential information from this article and appending it to the "Get out" section of the Xian guide. Ikan Kekek 05:39, 2 December 2011 (EST)
    • "Get out" is for links to other destinations. It can't be both deleted as a destination article, and placed in a "Get out" section. LtPowers 14:32, 2 December 2011 (EST)
      • I didn't realize that all "Get out" items had to include a link to another article. In that case, the info could be inserted in the "Outside the city" subsection of Xian#See, though I find that problematic because I think a day trip taking a couple of hours or more each way should really be in "Get out." Ikan Kekek 18:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)
I've never heard such a rule, LtPowers. As far as I know, the Get out section is for things that would be good as a daytrip, whether they actually have their own article or not.texugo 00:37, 3 December 2011 (EST)
Wikitravel:Big city article template says Get Out is for "Information about nearby destinations that would serve as a good 'next stop.'" I've never seen any case made for allowing non-destination listings in the Get Out section. Think about it -- if it's an attraction, it belongs in "See" or "Do"; why make the reader check both places for something to do? LtPowers 20:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)
Because it's 62 km from Xian and the trip from Xian to there takes 1-3 hours by bus. It's not an attraction in or even that close to the city. That's why it makes sense for it to be a "Get out." Is your alternative to put the information in the "Outside the city" subsection of Xian#See? What would your distance limit be for that kind of subsection? Ikan Kekek 00:06, 5 December 2011 (EST)
I agree with LtPowers. Attractions that are commonly visited from a destination should be in the See/Do sections of that articles. Get out is a what comes next in the journey section, and not for attractions that lie further afield (no matter how far). The confusion in the heading has been discussed before, including here --Inas 00:25, 5 December 2011 (EST)
Going by that linked discussion, we really ought to revisit the confusing "Get out" subtitle. However, in any case, would any of you like to weigh in on whether or not you support deleting the article in question and merging the information as appropriate into the relevant section of the Xian article? Ikan Kekek 01:02, 5 December 2011 (EST)
I think it is an obvious candidate for merging. There are only a handful of attractions which justify their own article. Doing the merge is the real issue. If this was just merged and redirected I think no one would have raised an eyebrow on vfd. --Inas 21:21, 7 December 2011 (EST)

Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux

A seemingly unnecessary region article. We already have articles on two of the towns (Houma and Thibodaux), the Acadiana region, and even some of the parishes within it. I would delete this, or at most, redirect it to Acadiana. Eco84 09:13, 12 December 2011 (EST)

I would recommend redirecting both this article and Thibodaux to Houma. It's more useful for travelers to just subsume the surrounding areas under Houma (most people refer to the whole area as Houma, anyway--if I'm not mistaken). --Peter Talk 13:37, 19 December 2011 (EST)

La Torre

  • Delete. Purely advertising article about a private hamlet that is apparently solely and completely occupied by an agroturism property which is appropriately listed in the Reggello guide as being within walking distance of Reggello and cannot in any case be listed in more than one article, per don't tout. Ikan Kekek 21:59, 21 December 2011 (EST)
  • Redirect real places. LtPowers 12:10, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Good point. Redirect is a better thing to do. Ikan Kekek 12:28, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Per further discussion below, I am changing my vote back to Delete. Ikan Kekek 17:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. Agree with Ikan Kekek. Not a common search term for redirect. --Inas 14:41, 22 December 2011 (EST)
One problem with a redirect is that "La Torre" just means "The Tower" in Italian and Spanish and could refer to any of thousands of towers in Italy and any number of other countries. So there would have to be a doozie of a disambiguation page if a redirect is approved. Ikan Kekek 14:50, 22 December 2011 (EST)
So, why would you vote for a redirect? Change your vote back to delete, and lets convince LtPowers to change his :-) Every time we create a redirect, we block the default search action, which find the term in each of the articles which they are mentioned in. --Inas 17:07, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Could you please have another look at this? I think you are coming to the wrong result.
There are also many places with this name. All with more significance than the article in question.
The way I see it, someone created this article for what is a completely private attraction. It is a farm stay, and olive farm.
If we redirect this private attraction article to a nearby town, at the expense of the many other places with the same name, I think we are truly going against the spirit of the VFD policy.
Lets just restore the status quo, and when someone actually comes along with an interest with clarifying the destination, they can do so. Attraction articles should be deleted. --Inas 17:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Ah, this is actually just a business, which the linked policy above does recommend to delete. As an aside, I don't see how this is an attraction, a farm stay seems like accommodation. --Peter Talk 18:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)
  • Page contributor reply Hi guys , just for explain : "La Torre" is a real suburbs of Reggello , it's the name of a place,an ancient hamlet on top of the Reggello hills. Anyway is right your comments below, a name "La Torre" is disambiguation, there are many words and many places called "La Torre" . Maybe i can change the name to : "Località La Torre" or " Località La Torre - Reggello" , think it's better. For the content i will delete what i wrote regard the agritourism , the olive farm, private house and link to , and write only a description of the place and maybe the history, when I have translated. Let me know what you think about the new page, and sorry for any inconvenience for my early contributions Martin MisterX 14.4, 23 December 2011 (EST) - Edit : done the modify in the page , but i cant change the name to " Località La Torre "
I really would suggest that if you come to Wikitravel to add information about your property or attraction, that you add it to an existing article where it would be of interest to visitors, rather than creating a new article for the information. It's better for you, clearer for the traveller, and easier on site administration. Of course, if you want to hang around, and participate in organising the geographical hierarchy of the area, you are incredibly welcome to do so. --Inas 18:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)
  • I suggested "redirect" because Ikan said this was a hamlet, which would make it a real place and not just an attraction. If there are other places with this name, then it should be a disambiguation page. If it's not really a community but just an attraction, then I'm fine with deletion. Sorry for not researching further. LtPowers 19:54, 23 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete If the name is too generic then let's just delete it unless those other places are cities rather than other attractions/districts. ChubbyWimbus 06:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

How to buy a diamond ring in Antwerp

Page has vfd template, but I see no listing here. Article strikes me as borderline. Is it a legit travel topic or too far down a slippery slope? Pashley 19:27, 22 December 2011 (EST)

AIRPORT ZAGREB

  • Merge as necessary/Delete - I can't see a good reason why the requisite information couldn't be merged into the Zagreb guide as needed, with the article in question deleted. I don't see a need for a redirect, as "AIRPORT ZAGREB" is not a common search term in English. Ikan Kekek 03:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete - It's not really useful and mostly an ad for taxi company. Jjtk 05:28, 26 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. All the information that isn't an ad is a direct, and uncredited, copy of the text from Wikipedia without any particular travel relevance. -- D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. Is the taxi worth mentioning in Zagreb/Get in? Pashley 02:05, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Redirect per Wikitravel:Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting. --Peter Talk 05:42, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. Developed as an ad. Not an article. Unlikely search term (to that extent agree with Ikan Kekek) --Inas 19:31, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Driving in the San Francisco Bay Area

  • Delete. What information is here should simply be merged into Bay Area, and although we do have a few other "Driving in _____" articles, they tend to be national in scale, with only one exception (below). -- D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. Unless someone can come up with a reason why driving in San Francisco is really distinguishable from other U.S. cities, I agree with D. Guillaime --Inas 19:38, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Driving in Los Angeles County

  • Merge (if any)/delete. Some of this information could move to the Get Around sections of Los Angeles or Los Angeles County, but I don't think an encyclopedic list of numbered LA freeways is too useful anywhere. This article had minor discussion on its talk page about its usefulness back in 2003/4, but only between two people and it never went anywhere. -- D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Merge and redirect. This is an old article that turns up in many searches now, so it should not be deleted per the "delete vs. redirect" guidelines. Merge and redirect seems like the correct approach. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:13, 7 January 2012 (EST)
  • Weak Keep. Possibly U.S. residents view this more objectively, but I think driving in L.A. rates as more than just transportation, and an overview of the freeways comes in handy for a first time driver there. The article itself seems to be more or less readable, and contains useful information to the traveller. --Inas 19:25, 8 January 2012 (EST)
  • Merge and delete/redirect. There's not much here that's actually specific to LA (rush hour is more than an hour? people speed? slower traffic keep right? use a map or a GPS?) --BigPeteB 15:44, 10 January 2012 (EST)
  • Merge and Delete the purpose of a redirect should direct people to articles with pertinent information NOT just articles sharing names. Does our Los Angeles County article really have such great information about driving that a redirect would make sense? There is nothing more frustrating than links and redirects to articles that don't give the information that the redirect implies is there. If it is redirected, then those Google people who really want driving tips will be mad at our misleading redirect. No reason for us to redirect. ChubbyWimbus 06:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Windsurfing

  • Delete. Could be a useful travel topic if fleshed out, but this one-liner dictionary entry has nothing to salvage. -- D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Keep. It is a legitimate topic, and a brand new article just started in the last few days. If the contributor who started it fleshes it out, great. If not, leave it in hopes it will attract a writer or five. Pashley 02:09, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Keep. While possibly the weakest article on the site ;), it is a legitimate topic, and as such, should be given a year to develop per Wikitravel:Deletion_policy#Reasons_to_delete_articles. --Peter Talk 05:39, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. If the bleedin' obvious is removed, the existing article has no content. I thought the keep for a year policy was developed as a sword - to allow us to cut down stub travel topics and itineraries rather than having undeveloped articles hanging around forever. It seems strange to see it being used as a shield to keep otherwise contentless articles. --Inas 19:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)
The deletion policy is quite clear on this—keep stub/outline itineraries for a year. There are 7 reasons to delete as outlined in that article, and this doesn't strike me as an unusual case that would require more thought than just applying the policy as written. "Really bad articles," which this article presently is, are explicitly mentioned as something that should not be deleted (provided they do not fall into the 7 reasons above) so that they have the opportunity to develop, as Pashley says. As you know, I mostly show up on this page to make sure the deletion policy is strictly followed—I have no attachment to the article topic ;) --Peter Talk 23:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)
If someone adds a bad line of text to an existing article, we revert without a second thought. Someone adds the same line to a new article, we keep it for a year, and cite a policy which was developed to help us get rid of underdeveloped articles. Hmmm.
We have a vfd page because these things aren't always clear-cut, and need some interpretation. You're voting in favour of keeping what you said is the weakest article on the site. I'm voting to delete it. In a year, we'll agree :-) --Inas 23:57, 9 January 2012 (EST)
I don't see any room for interpretation, when the policy directly and explicitly defines what to do in this case. Don't like it, start a discussion to change it. --Peter Talk 00:36, 10 January 2012 (EST)
I'm not sure if you don't understand what I am saying, or if you get it and disagree, so I'll try and be clear for completeness, and then drop it.
I understand your interpretation of our policy. However, I think the policy you are quoting guides us what to do with an article which remains an outline after 12 months, but doesn't effect our decision making prior to this point. The policy was created as sword, to guide us when to delete, and not a shield for articles that would otherwise be valid candidates for deletion.
So while I see the basis for your interpretation, I'm not yet convinced by it. --Inas 00:59, 10 January 2012 (EST)
Yes, I understand that the 12 month bit doesn't mean that we shouldn't delete itineraries or travel topics prior to that expiration date, provided there is a deletion rationale. As far as I can tell, the argument for deletion here is that it is a bad article, but the deletion policy explicitly rules out that argument: "Really bad articles. Sometimes articles are a sloppy mess, or just a bunch of notes and ideas. These articles should be improved rather than deleted." --Peter Talk 02:59, 10 January 2012 (EST)
Okay, I'll take it to the discussion page. --Inas 17:11, 10 January 2012 (EST)
  • Keep. Quite apart from the policy discussion you guys are having, look at the article now. Do you still want to delete it? I don't. Clearly, not only was it susceptible to good edits, but some good editing has already occurred. I can see no good reason whatsoever to delete the article, regardless of the policy discussion. Ikan Kekek 08:20, 11 January 2012 (EST)
  • Keep - I've indeed added some info to make it a viable outline article, as I too think it's a legitimate subject. I think it's now fine to stay and hopefully be developed further by other users. Justme 09:10, 11 January 2012 (EST)

January 2012

Image:Louisville-skyline1.jpg

I suspect this was taken from this website. The Wayback Machine shows a version from 2002 that includes the image, predating the upload here by four years. LtPowers 21:44, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Monterey Bay

  • Delete. The Central Coast (California) region is principally subdivided by county. The Monterey Bay article is a hybrid that stretches across Santa Cruz County and the northern part of Monterey County. Anything about Monterey Bay can be covered just as well by the two county articles, and I see no good reason to duplicate it in a Monterey Bay article. The article just clutters the otherwise tidy subdivision of the Central Coast. Nurg 23:17, 7 January 2012 (EST)
    • And what do you propose we show someone who searches for "Monterey Bay"? LtPowers 15:22, 8 January 2012 (EST)
      • Good point. Ryan's idea is better - make it a redirect. Nurg 04:36, 11 January 2012 (EST)
  • Definitely not a delete - this could conceivably become a redirect, but I think a disambiguation page would make more sense. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:13, 8 January 2012 (EST)
It is probably another candidate for Texugo's meta-region article --Inas 19:04, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages

other sites