YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel:Votes for deletion"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
(Uno: Archive)
(Grossglockner Hochalpenstrasse - Outcome:merge and redirect ==> done ==> archive)
Line 131: Line 131:
'''Delete'''.  These images already exists as [[:shared:Image:Ja-map.png]] and [[:shared:Image:Ks-map.png]], but for unknown reasons someone has re-uploaded them on the English language site. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] • ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) • 01:23, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
'''Delete'''.  These images already exists as [[:shared:Image:Ja-map.png]] and [[:shared:Image:Ks-map.png]], but for unknown reasons someone has re-uploaded them on the English language site. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] • ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) • 01:23, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
===[[Grossglockner Hochalpenstrasse]]===
Is a road, so doesn't warrant an article. Besides that, there's not much info here of use to travellers. Could potentially be an itinerary, but I'm not convinced there's enough information for that. -- [[User:Tsandell|Tim]] <small>([[User_talk:Tsandell|writeme!]])</small> 08:50, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
: I do not think there is enough to do to make a good itinerary from it. '''Merge''' into [[Hohe Tauern National Park]] and '''Redirect'''. --[[User:Flip666|Flip666]] [[User_talk:Flip666|<sup>writeme!</sup>]] &bull; 10:00, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
* '''Merge and Redirect''' as per [[User:Flip666|Flip666]]'s suggestion seems to be the best action --[[User:NJR ZA|NJR_ZA]] 18:04, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
===[[St._Andrews,_Scotland|St. Andrews, Scotland]]===
===[[St._Andrews,_Scotland|St. Andrews, Scotland]]===

Revision as of 12:40, 23 August 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:


The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:

* 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.


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

* '''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


  • ,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)

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. 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. --
  • 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)

August 2007

Public transport lines in Australia

I am not sure what to do with this page... Seems like a list of some (all?) major bus lines in Australia, without any comments. Difficult to keep up to date. But on the other hand it might be handy, because the company running the respective line is listed. What do you think? I am unsure. --Flip666 writeme! • 05:35, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Maintaining that list will be next to impossible. List (full listing, url, email, phone fax etc) the the bus/train services listed there that operates nationally to Australia#Get_around and list the ones that operate locally in the appropriate region? Then delete the page? --NJR_ZA 18:13, 20 August 2007 (EDT)


Image licensed under GFDL, and not CCbySA, upon looking at source website, it appears not to be even GFDL... -- Tim (writeme!) 04:53, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Ja-map.png and Image:Ks-map.png

Delete. These images already exists as shared:Image:Ja-map.png and shared:Image:Ks-map.png, but for unknown reasons someone has re-uploaded them on the English language site. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:23, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

St. Andrews, Scotland

Two (different) articles on the same place: St. Andrews, Scotland and St Andrews. Content from the first has now been merged into the second. Delete or Redirect? I would say delete, but it was fairly significant content, so I'm not sure. WTDuck2 15:43, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

  • The norm in situations like this is to merge and redirect. The "St. Andrews, Scotland" title is formatted the way Wikipedia (among others) handles place names, and while we use a different formatting, people used to Wikipedia would do searches using this format. A redirect to St Andrews (which itself might need examination for a possible disambiguation) helps us be responsive to their needs, and costs nothing. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:19, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
OK, that makes sense. And the disambiguation is probably a good idea, because there's also a St. Andrews page (with .), which is a different place in Canada. WTDuck2 06:22, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll leave this up for a day or two, but given your agreement, I've gone ahead and done the redirect. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 14:33, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Mung Lai Stream

per Wikitravel:What is an article? ~ 01:12, 17 August 2007 (EDT)


per Wikitravel:Image policy#People in photos ~ 16:50, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete --NJR_ZA 18:00, 20 August 2007 (EDT)


I'm guessing this is a copyvio, on the presumption that whoever created the actual map (i.e. whoever painted the "original work" that this is a photograph of) has not licensed it. ~ 17:14, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete --NJR_ZA 17:59, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Category:Daytona Beach (Florida), Category:Cities in Volusia County, Florida, Category:Daytona Beach (Florida)

Mistakenly created here instead of on Shared. Should all categories be added to the "shoot on sight" list for speedy deletion? Jpatokal 22:55, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Hong Kong Culinary Tour

Great information and well written, but in the wrong place. I think this should be merged into Hong Kong#What to eat and then deleted. --Peter Talk 03:06, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Neutral. It's an awkward cross between an itinerary and listings as it stands, but it might still be salvageable... Jpatokal 03:35, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Hmmm. Typically, I would be hostile toward this type of itinerary, but as I've never been to HK and if and when I do make I'd want to jump-in and try to get a full dose of culture shock. Thus, I think there could possibly be a venue for this type of information. I'll make an official vote after a couple more days as I see the article progress. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 00:32, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Im the original author. This was just a first draft, with the idea to add more places later, and some more details on each type of food (typical ingredients, level of spiciness, recommended dishes etc.). The idea was to give more than just a list of restaurants - actually a reason to try each one over a period of time. I'm out of town for the next couple of weeks though, so I wont be able to work on it further til then.
  • Seems less like an itinerary than a private 'Eat' section. It's capably written, but if the author has a vision for it beyond what's there - but doesn't intend to do anything on it for a few weeks - well, that's what a sandbox is for. Don't premiere itineraries until they're ready. Gorilla Jones 00:52, 23 August 2007 (EDT)