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 211: Line 211:
  
 
*'''Keep'''. It is a possible destination for some travellers. It does need a rewrite, tone down the political comment without completely trashing it. [[User:Pashley|Pashley]] 06:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
 
*'''Keep'''. It is a possible destination for some travellers. It does need a rewrite, tone down the political comment without completely trashing it. [[User:Pashley|Pashley]] 06:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
*'''Keep'''. It is not a possible destination for most travellers. Because of that, we can afford a joke. It's funny, I hope someone expands it. --- 11:29, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
+
*'''Keep'''. It is not a possible destination for most travellers. Because of that, we can afford a joke. It's funny, I hope someone expands it. --- [[User:Fridday|Fridday]] 11:34, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
  
 
===[[San Francisco/Parking Meter 568 47610]]===
 
===[[San Francisco/Parking Meter 568 47610]]===

Revision as of 15:38, 12 September 2007


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. If the article or image appears to meet the deletion criteria, do any preparatory work (like orphaning an image, or combining the article with one it duplicates) prior to listing it here.
  3. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 copy the deletion discussion to the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.

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.

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, copy 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).

July 2007

Talk:Germany/Racism

  • ,Delete. The only relevant part of this conversation is from 2004, and totally outdated. It (obviously) is only serving as a breeding ground for accounts of racism in Germany and random comments, which continue to be added despite the warning at the top of the page that advises to only discuss the improvement of the Germany article. I know we don't generally delete discussions, but I don't think this one is serving us well. If we don't delete the entire page, I propose at least deleting everything beyond the 2004 conversation that has nothing to do with updating the Germany article or Wikitravel. – cacahuate talk 03:21, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete for all the reasons given by Cacahuate -- WindHorse 09:45, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete --NJR_ZA 16:56, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep the original discussion, but nothing else. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 17:41, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I am less comfortable with selectively deleting comments than just getting rid of the whole page. If someone tries to recreate this page, let's agree to speedy delete it as it is a slippery slope and not an article. --Peter Talk 22:12, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Pashley 04:40, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Gorilla Jones 10:53, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Ha!:) OldPine 13:33, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. Let's just keep everything from the original discussion and then protect the page against further edits. Typically talk page discussions are never deleted, and while I agree this one is a special case I don't think we should delete it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:40, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree with Ryan and Sapphire after some more thought... let's keep the original discussion and protect the page – cacahuate talk 00:11, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I can go with that, and add my support to keep with protect. WindHorse 00:23, 24 July 2007 (EDT) Another idea: as the page is quite full, how about archiving it. Hopefully, placing it out of sight will bring the debate to close. However, if it does start up again on the new page, then we still have the option of protect. Personally, I prefer not to protect articles unless absolutely essential, and in this way it would be a final option, rather than a first.
  • I still think this "discussion" (I actually didn't see any discussion about the topic: whether Germany/Racism is a valid or useful travel topic) is a special case and should be deleted. Protecting might actually call more attention to the page, and also alert readers that administrators have noticed the page and didn't delete it. But if I am in the minority on this, I will gladly bow to the general opinion. --Peter Talk 01:33, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
What about protecting, with a banner note at the top saying something like "This is an archive of a past discussion. If you've got something to say about improving the Germany article, say it at Talk:Germany"  ?? – cacahuate talk 02:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Peter, we're not discussing it as a travel topic... it definitely isn't a valid travel topic... the page was created in the first place to discuss updating the Germany article... and whatever they were originally discussing I think was changed long ago. So the only reason for this discussion to come up again is if someone has a problem with something that is currently in the Germany article, or wants to add something to the current article. And if any new changes to Germany need discussion, it should just happen at Talk:Germany. – cacahuate talk 02:26, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
I see I did not quite understand the intended point of the page. Still, I'm not a huge fan of permanently protecting pages. Right now the only "extreme case" for which we are doing this is the main page (see Special:Protectedpages)—I'm not sure that this particular case qualifies. I prefer to delete because I don't think the page is serving a purpose and its largely irrelevant and borderline inflammatory content reflects poorly on Wikitravel IMHO. But I understand the aversion to deleting discussions, so if we keep, I would prefer to use our everyday tools (reverts) to prevent the page from being further used as a group therapy board for victims of "German racism." This will be easy to do now that we are all aware of the page. --Peter Talk 18:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
A lot of talk pages don't have a point, but keeping the discussions around provides a glimpse into how decisions were reached and policies developed. We likely have hundreds or even thousands of talk page conversations that may not be 100% relevant to Wikitravel as it exists today, but those pages are all preserved and allow someone who is interested in the evolution of the site to follow the process. For a similar example to the current one see Talk:United States of America#Revert of the day; that thread contains a long discussion of red state/blue state politics in the US that has as much bearing on travel as discussions of racism in Germany.
Just as user pages are special, conversations between users are also something that we only modify or delete in extreme cases (hate speech, trolling), and this article isn't an extreme case. Protect it if people feel strongly that something needs to be done, but definitely don't delete it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Delete this since it serves little useful purpose and attracts irrelevant posts. Summarise the content as a section of Talk:Germany. Maybe three lines. Pashley 23:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
I wrote a summary; it turned out much longer than three lines. It is at User_talk:Pashley/TGR. I'd say make that a section of Talk:Germany and delete the original. Pashley 01:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
If we decide to keep the page, use my summary for that. Pashley 03:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
I understand where you were coming from in making that, but I think paraphrasing other people's comments isn't really so great, and also I think editing it down to a bullet list like that makes it look even more like a breeding ground for comments about Germany's racism. I still think we should keep the original 2004 debate that was really centered around edits to the article, and delete everything after that that just gets into storytelling. I would say everything below Nils March 19, 2004 comment should be axed. And maybe let's not protect for a while unless it still continues to be a problem ? – cacahuate talk 01:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
There was no paraphrase in that summary. Everything was a direct quote, just shortened to what I thought were the main points. Pashley 09:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
  • This is an extremely rare case where I believe that protecting the page may be the right course. Aggravating or not, the discussions did occur, and as Ryan says, we generally try to keep discussions around, if for no other reason than that they will continue to recur. At the same time, the topic is so incendiary that just leaving it open for business doesn't seem to meet our goals either. See also the item I'm putting into the pub regarding the protection of archival pages; if that's adopted as a policy, then archiving this discussion and protecting it may be best. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 15:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
Yet another storytelling comment was added today. As long as we leave comments on there of that nature, it's going to breed more. I think there's agreement to keep the original discussion, and possibly protect it... but what about the latter comments, which aren't part of any conversation related to the improvement of the Germany article? Can we delete those and archive/protect the original discussion? I can't see protecting the page without removing those comments, as that isn't really justifiable... a few people are allowed to leave non-WT related accounts of racism but nobody else can? At least if we revert the page back to the original discussion that was about the Germany article and then protect it we're doing something that should make sense to later contributors. The original contributors came to somewhat of an agreement on the text that they were discussing, and any new discussions on the topic can be started on Talk:Germany. What newer people aren't getting at the moment is that that conversation was about coming to agreement on some text in the article... they see the "I was given a funny look in Germany" comments later on and then think the page is a place to reminisce about racist Germans, which it definitely is not. – cacahuate talk 15:27, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
It really is time this page to be deleted, even keeping the original discussion is a very slippery slope as it might give people the incentive to create similar pages for other countries. I'd really hate to see a Talk:South Africa/Racism page pop up; it would distract completely from the topic of travel --NJR_ZA 15:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I just reverted all of the crap and kept the original discussion. We should not delete this discussion because that's un-wiki, and as we all know, this is a wiki. Anyhow, I'll support protecting the page because people keep adding stories. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 05:37, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
I think that Sapphire's revert was the right thing to do. I still don't see any need to protect the page, for the reasons I gave above and because the disclaimer at the top of the page makes it clear that this is not the place for group therapy. Moreover, I think protection might be a bad precedent, as it is an overly strict way of dealing with problems easily solved by reverts. This page certainly sees fewer unwelcome contributions than, say, Mandarmani, and we dealt with that just fine without resorting to hard measures. If anyone's worried that more story-telling will crop up unnoticed, don't be—I've now got this on my watch list and have my revert trigger-finger ready. --Peter Talk 03:02, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
That all sounds great to me... I've watchlisted it too... and I suspect it won't draw as many new comments now that we've removed the bait. – cacahuate talk 19:54, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

List of ferries

Pointless and unmaintainable. The information should be moved into the appropriate destination articles. Jpatokal 13:15, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Seeing this huge amount of work pop up, and knowing that it would soon show up here, gave me a headache. --Peter Talk 22:44, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Archive. I am travelling over the Mediterranean by ferry (Montenegro to Portugal :) and find wikitravels information really scarce. Id like to make a page Ferries in the Mediterranean, and link to it from every Mediterranean port. Then this page might come in handy. 88.44.122.242 15:23, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
    • Creating Ferries in the Mediterranean and linking to it from every port in the Mediterranean is no more useful than List of ferries. Ferries should be listed in the city and country articles they serve, but why would somebody in Barcelona need to know about Albanian ferries? Jpatokal 06:55, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
    • My plan for making this page has nothing to do with the list of ferries, it was just the first place where I mentioned it. And of course if you want to go from Egypt to Greece, you dont need to know about Albania, so thats why the page is ordered by sea. I was travelling over the Mediterranean, and noticed that the information on ferries was very limited. And for example, the ferry port of Rome is another city. You'd need inside information already if you want to go to Civitavecchia, whereas a page dedicated to ferries of the Med would lead you there automatically. Also some general info about ferries and companies can be gathered there instead of scattered between port towns. -- 86.209.87.197
  • Delete It's pointless but I'd like to see something created like the above user suggested. Ferry lists for specific areas would be more useful than one giant list. Xania 14:36, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree that this isn't an "article" in our usual sense, but somebody did a great deal of work to assemble this information. Delete, but not until it is verified that the information has been moved to the destination articles; there's no rush. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:13, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I want to say keep here, though I think there'll be real problems organising the info well. If I'm in, say, Marseilles and want to visit the Greek islands next, what can Wikitravel tell me about my options? I dimly recall that there's a ferry to (let me think a minute ... Piraeus) from (thinking ... came up blank ... somewhere in Adriatic Italy, anyway), but where is it exactly and are there other choices? I'm not about to search 397 Mediterranean ports to find all the options. An overview page would be great. Pashley 02:47, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
    • And how will you find routes from (any Italian port) to (any Greek port) at Ferries in the Mediterranean if you don't even know what countries Bar, Bari and Bastia are in? If you want to visit Greece, you should head over to Greece:Get in:By boat, which should list all major routes into the country. Jpatokal 03:41, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
    • Right now I cannot find what I want in Ferries in the Mediterranean or List of ferries and, yes, it is in the Greece article. But as I said, I want to say "keep" here. I have a feeling that this could be useful as another way of seeing the available connections, if only it were organised better. Not sure how that could be done, though. Pashley 05:06, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
      • The Ferries in the Mediterranean doesnt pretend to be complete yet. If you know a interesting link which is missing, please add it. The reason why I started it, is because I wanted to go by boat from Montenegro to Portugal, and couldnt find a decent way of wikitravel to provide me with the necesarry info. Boats are one of the most sustainable forms of travel, so I think they deserve some extra attention. -- 137.120.3.252 11:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Just to clarify my delete vote, I actually would have speedy deleted this if there wasn't so much work that had gone into it. A "List of Ferries" is as pointless and unmaintainable as a "List of Buses" and we have determined in the past that we should not try to maintain such lists. Moreover, having lists like this creates serious content overlap between whatever type of article this is trying to be and our actual travel guides. I see no additional value of some enormous list of ferries, nor do I see any potential value.

The only way I would support Ferries in the Mediterranean would be if there was something distinctive and useful worth writing about Ferries in the Mediterranean (i.e., if it were a valid travel topic). I don't think that there is and anyway right now it's just another pointless transport list. International ferry routes should be listed, as Jani said, in the Get in section of country pages. If anything, it would be helpful to merge any content in this list to the destination guides before deleting. --Peter Talk 10:20, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

please Peter, vote only once. Thank you for your clarification. -- 137.120.3.252 11:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
Here's more clarification. There's no such thing as "voting once" or "twice" because this is not an electoral process, articles are presumed guilty until proven innocent and a majority is not necessary for deletion. Nothing is decided on Wikitravel by majority vote, because that kills debate and consensus building. I strongly encourage you to first make your case here, rather than continuing to put work into an article that is up for deletion, as that work may well be for nothing. I also encourage you not to edit my posts, as that is bad form. --Peter Talk 12:00, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Keep, merge the two. As per Wikitravel:Bodies_of_water#Travel topics Ferrying the med is a travel topic. Needs work though. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.64.242.138 (talkcontribs) 16:37, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Agree that we don't need lists that are impossible to maintain. Especially when this info already has a place, in the destination articles themselves. Anything that you want to possibly say on this page can and should be said already in those. If Rome's port is in another city, then there should be a line in the Rome article that notes that and links to that city. I definitely appreciate the work that has gone into this, it should be too much more work to move this info to the appropriate places... but it shouldn't be done pretty soon, articles are usually deleted 14 days after nomination, we're well over that now :) – cacahuate talk 20:09, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

August 2007

Chalkidiki/Greece anon edits

Everything by [1] and [2] seems to be a copyvio, and the articles they've created veer wildly from actual destinations to random Greek kings and philosophies. I've nuked the obvious crap, but this still needs a lot of sorting... Jpatokal 02:23, 25 August 2007 (EDT)


September 2007

Oleta River State Park

Per Wikitravel:What is an article?; it is not a nationally (in the United States) known park a la New York (city)/Central Park and Yosemite National Park, et. al. THE evil fluffyface 18:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

What city/town/county article should contain it? Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Bald Mountain Sun Valley.jpg

Uploader saw that Sun Valley Co. allows users to use some of their images as desktop wallpaper [3]. Uploader thought this meant it was public domain. For a work to be Public Domain, a copyright holder must explicitly release it into the public domain. Since they don't, it isn't. -- Colin 19:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Sun Valley.JPG

Image is labeled as PD-Creator, but clearly the creator did not upload it. -- Colin 19:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Chaolong

Not listed by Getty [4] or Wikipedia [5] ~ 203.147.0.48 03:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Google reveals a village named Chaolong [6]. It is in the heavily-touristed area around Yangshuo and has a guesthouse so "you can sleep there (TM)". Should this become a redirect? Pashley 01:29, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for finding that - I've now redirected it. Keep as a redirect. ~ 203.147.0.48 05:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Greek Restaurant Directory

per Wikitravel:What is an article? ~ 203.147.0.48 11:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

'Delete. At most this might become a link in the USA article. Pashley 01:32, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. I see no need for redirect. Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Pangkor.jpg

Copyvio. See this edit summary ~ 203.147.0.48 05:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Not clear if the owner understood what they were authorizing. Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikitravel:Publicity rights

I don't really get the original intent of this policy, and despite its being around for 2 years, it has no content whatsoever. I think we should delete it and remove the reference to it in Wikitravel:Copyleft. --Peter Talk 10:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:RV River Kwai.jpg

See http://www.cruiseasia.net/index.cfm?menuid=129 and copyright notices at the foot of that page. ~ 203.147.0.48 05:58, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Good catch. And even if there's any doubt, the picture isn't worth the risk. Delete. Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

San Jeronimo, Sopetran and Santa Fe de Antioquia

Per Wikitravel:What is an article? - content is "san jeronimo tunnel" ~ 203.147.0.48 06:38, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ko Pha Ngan

Essentially created in error, would be better to delete it now (and get rid of the confusing history which serves no purpose and has no value) while it still has no content and start again from scratch. ~ 61.7.175.20 14:19, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Golem Grad

Apparent copyvio from a contributor who may be regularly copying content from other sites. The original content is located here. I have left him a notice on his talk page. I'm also not sure that this island meets our "can you sleep there?" test. --Peter Talk 18:20, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Guantanamo Bay

Borderline deletion candidate. Most of the current content is certainly inappropriate, and it's a naval base not accessible to civilians, but if we've got an article for Wake Island then this just might squeak by... and yes, you really can fly "Air Sunshine" to Gitmo! Jpatokal 04:28, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep. It is a possible destination for some travellers. It does need a rewrite, tone down the political comment without completely trashing it. Pashley 06:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. It is not a possible destination for most travellers. Because of that, we can afford a joke. It's funny, I hope someone expands it. --- Fridday 11:34, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

San Francisco/Parking Meter 568 47610

A single parking meter does not constitute an article. Texugo 05:04, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Laugh - Delete This one got me a grin for today. It needs to be archived in our funny section. I am not around much anymore, so I don't know if it is policy to blank a VFD page now, but I wish we could leave the content on this one while we discuss it. Sadly, delete, but I hope the author will stick around. We can use people with a good sense of humor. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 05:58, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Speedy delete, but move the content into an infobox in the appropriate bit of SF first -- it's not your average parking meter! Jpatokal 07:16, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Bundeena

Seems redundant, info for this location belongs in Sydney/Cronulla --NJR_ZA 08:54, 10 September 2007 (EDT)


Image:Ph_regions_and_provinces.png

Copyright issues. Marked as PD, but with comments that it is GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Origional at [[7]] is GFDL only. --NJR_ZA 09:22, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Gangaikondacholisvaram

A temple. Might be a village, but I have no knowledge about the area so can't decide if it should be deleted or templated --NJR_ZA 09:17, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Should that be speedy since the content is an obvious copyvio? Pashley 09:45, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Siviri

A venue for a festival? --NJR_ZA 09:57, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Tamarindo and Playa Langosta

Duplicate of Tamarindo, created by spammer after his edit to Tamarindo was repeatedly reverted --NJR_ZA 12:07, 10 September 2007 (EDT)


All images by User:Arvindsa

Copyright violations --NJR_ZA 14:35, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Linda 9'05.jpg & Image:Crystal-hands.jpg

Non travel related advert (though one might be tempted to use her services to find out where your luggage has gone). --NJR_ZA 14:48, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Reed Mine Panning.jpg

Requires model release --NJR_ZA 15:03, 10 September 2007 (EDT)


3 images by User:Phoenixjade

Requires model release --NJR_ZA 15:07, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Images by User:Kristy

Copy violation (http://www.taroko.gov.tw/TarokoPortalEng/4_1_0/06.asp) --NJR_ZA 15:21, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Infinity.JPG & Image:Yatai.JPG

Requires model release --NJR_ZA 15:23, 10 September 2007 (EDT)


Some new pages in Nepal

    • A recently renovated stone hut does not a grand old hotel make. Is Chobhar a sensible place to merge all this to? Jpatokal 04:12, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages