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
(Wikitravel:CIA_World_Factbook 2002 import/Reference index ''and'' all Factbook 2002 Import pages)
(Wartrail and new england: Merge and redirect + new candidate Ezhimala: previously tagged but not voted upon yet.)
Line 567: Line 567:
'''Delete''' Duplicate page, see[[Wartrail and New England]] --[[User:Rein N.|Rein N.]] 09:50, 17 January 2010 (EST)
'''Delete''' Duplicate page, see[[Wartrail and New England]] --[[User:Rein N.|Rein N.]] 09:50, 17 January 2010 (EST)
*'''Redirect'''.  No need to waste time on a deletion discussion.  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 16:09, 17 January 2010 (EST)
*'''Redirect'''.  No need to waste time on a deletion discussion.  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 16:09, 17 January 2010 (EST)
*'''Merge''' and '''Redirect''' - I have tagged it as a merge because there appears to be partial content that I don't have time to research at the moment. - [[User:Huttite|Huttite]] 08:38, 18 January 2010 (EST)
[[Ezhimala|This page]] was tagged as a VfD candidate about a year ago, but there is no record of the user adding it here to discuss. So I will add it here to discuss. However, I would prefer to '''merge''' with and '''redirect''' to [[Kannur]], since it appears as an attraction there, but wondered if there was any better alternative that anyone could think of. The content is probably of little value, possibly a copyvio... - [[User:Huttite|Huttite]] 08:38, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Revision as of 13:42, 18 January 2010

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. 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.


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. 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.


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.

September 2009

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

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)

The only reason I made this page was because it was a project for Introduction to Tourism and Hospitality Class. We had to chose a place and make a site and I figured no one has ever really heard of Peach Bottom so I figured I would just pick that.—The preceding comment was added by Sarah.Osborne (talkcontribs)

It's not your fault; your teacher should have made sure your assignment was in line with our policies before letting you guys loose here. LtPowers 08:33, 13 November 2009 (EST)
I think we might need a Welcome, students page. Pashley 00:38, 22 November 2009 (EST)
I think that is a very good idea. Clearly Wikitravel is finding itself on more and more student assignment lists. Perhaps we need a Welcome teachers page as well? If nothing else, we should try to make sure that teachers do not irresponsibly set their students loose here without understanding the site themselves. --Burmesedays 01:18, 22 November 2009 (EST)

Pakistani students coming to Finland

Not sure any explanation is required. Speedy I think. Apart from anything else it has been set up as a disambiguation page. --Burmesedays 21:14, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

I do not think it can be speedied. There is at least one valid travel topic that is very close to this. Perhaps "Foreign students in Europe" or "Studying abroad"? I'm not sure of the exact right title or scope. but studying — especially students from "developing" countries going to "developed" countries — is a huge reason for travel. Better to re-name and generalise the article than to scrap it. Some of the advice here, like get a driver's license at home because converting it is cheaper than getting one in the host country, can be useful and is not obvious. Pashley 22:14, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
I'd say it should be changed to Studying in Finland. "Foreign students in Europe" is likely to be too broad a topic, and the current title is too narrow. I certainly don't think there are enough differences to warrant having a separate topic each for Turkish students coming to Finland, Jordanian students coming to Finland, Iranian students coming to..., and every other country... Texugo 22:39, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
Yes, but then do we get Studying in Finland, Studying in Germany, Studying in France, Studying in the UK, ... ? Pashley 23:04, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
Studying in Finland makes sense. Anything more specific than that then a can of worms is well and truly opened with thousands of permutations. Also, I must say that it had not occurred to me that students formally moving overseas to study would look to Wikitravel for logistical advice; hence my suggestion for speedy. There are surely far more appropriate places? Do we really think that students will use Wikitravel as a source of such advice?--Burmesedays 23:06, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
Business travel and studying overseas (all those Learn sections) are well-established reasons to use Wikitravel. I agree that the original article is kinda ridiculous, but wouldn't oppose a Studying in Finland article. Jpatokal 00:52, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
We might, Pashley, if there is information to impart that would not fit comfortably into a Learn section. LtPowers 09:01, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
Rewrite is needed to fit the Studying in Finland proposal. The current article is not really helpful and more a list of commonplaces. I suggest we redirect first and then see how the article develops. jan 09:15, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
I'd prefer a single Studying abroad article with the suggestion of looking at the "Learn" section of destination articles. We don't have "Working in Finland", Working in Thailand", etc., just Working abroad and the Work sections of destinations. I think the same applies here. Pashley 01:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
How about starting things off with a Studying abroad article, and letting it expand from there? The original looks like it may have been written by a Pakistani student now in Finland, who found these things out the hard way and wants to help. This is good in principle, unless Wikitravel is going to limit the scope of its content to exclude this sort of information. If there is not an issue of space, why not provide this service? Those hints look moderately useful to someone with no travelling experience planning to go to a very different climate and culture. The format will probably have to differ from the norm to make sense, but as a possibility, consider a main article Studying abroad, with sub-articles for region specific hints like Studying abroad/Pakistani in Finland if/when there is enough content to justify the split. Pbsouthwood 02:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
I like the idea of starting off with a Study Abroad article and splitting as it expands. I think that's much more reasonable than beginning with a random Studying abroad in Finland article that will be likely to fall into obscurity, since there really isn't any place right now to link to it. It would just be a floater. Having an established Study Abroad page would provide a base for creating more specific articles relating to study abroad. If the information here is decent information, perhaps it could be moved to the the Talk Page of the study abroad article once it is created. That way we wouldn't lose content. ChubbyWimbus 02:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Only problem is, I'm not sure there's all that much to say about studying abroad in general? The Pakistani guy studying in Finland is going to be facing a very different set of hurdles from the Finnish guy studying in Japan... Jpatokal 06:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Saratoga County

Looking at the New York regional structure, a county article is not really appropriate. There is already a reasonably developed Saratoga Springs article so if anything, maybe a redirect there? --Burmesedays 13:08, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Keep. The regions of New York are not, themselves, well-divided into subregions. Counties seem to be the default option until someone comes up with a better organization. LtPowers 13:59, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Hudson Valley. It's a problematic county, as it is split across two parent regions. But more importantly it's not yet necessary, nothing links there, nor does it have any content. --Peter Talk 15:11, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
    • As you say, it's split across two parent regions, so why redirect to one? LtPowers 16:21, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
There's almost nothing northwest of the park border (to this we owe the beautiful views from Saratoga Springs!). I'm pretty sure miniscule Corinth is all there is—everything else is on the Hudson Valley side. --Peter Talk 17:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep and disambiguate or redirect - I am not sure why there is such an aversion to creating US counties but to me it would seem reasonable to have county pages, simply because Wikipedia has them and there is a risk that someone will link to Wikitravel and expect to find a county organised the same way. It could be a disambiguation page at this stage that points to all the places you want to redirect it to. - Huttite 06:22, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Kattoor kerala

No useful info, wrong title format, wrong capitalisation. We might eventually want an article for Kattoor, which WP lists [1]. Pashley 00:40, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • I think the solution is obvious. Move to Kattoor, add an outline template, wikilink to the Wikipedia article and keep it. - Huttite 06:28, 3 November 2009 (EST)


Seems like a load of bull to me --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:38, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • a point or two for humour (vibrant night life in Tollesbury is an amusing concept). --Burmesedays 11:48, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Blank and Outline. LtPowers 17:33, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep and add a destination template. It is probably worth a mention as a destination in Essex, so that it is no longer an orphan page. Then again the vibrant nightlife reminds me of Peter Sellers Belham with its beautigul flashing lights - green - orange - red and back to green again! - Huttite 06:44, 3 November 2009 (EST)

False Bay

Body of water, not a destination. One does not go to "False Bay" as such, one goes to the destinations on its coast specified by name. Most are part of Cape Town, but some are not, making a redirect inappropriate.

Scratch that, should have looked at it first. It's a valid region article, and is about the cities in the bay area, not the water itself. --Peter Talk 02:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
This article should be kept and updated. False Bay is the marina destination which makes all the surrounding cities of the bay relevant. False Bay is one of the better destinations in the West Cape for water activities and viewing of marine animals. --Daniel Talk 02:29, 10 January2010 (EDT)

Atlantic Seaboard

Not a useful name. So many places have an Atlantic seaboard that disambiguation is not an option

  • Merge and delete Pbsouthwood 02:22, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep — ditto what I said above. If there is a naming conflict with other articles, then it can be disambiguated. Or if you have a better name in mind, we can use that. But otherwise this seems a perfectly valid region article and subdivision of Cape Peninsula. --Peter Talk 02:31, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
So, is this one just going to have links to countries in South America, North America, Africa, and Europe that touch the Atlantic Ocean? ChubbyWimbus 02:37, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
There's no need to disambiguate yet, as there is only one article. And no, that would be a pointless disambig—it would only need to disambiguate region articles that actually bear that name. Mid-Atlantic is a similar case. --Peter Talk 02:57, 20 October 2009 (EDT)


Now that ko: has been launched, it's time to delete the articles in Category:위키트래벌. Deletions can be done speedily after it's confirmed that they've been transwikied (= check if English original has a link to ko and whether the article is there). Jpatokal 11:08, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Isn't this a bit premature? It might be better to explain what to do about these article as part of the expedition, rather than simply VfD the the whole category here. Perhaps VfD later once we are certain the articles have all been created in ko:. - Huttite 06:50, 3 November 2009 (EST)
  • Delete All Korean, it's bogus translated and unusable. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 14:49, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Phrasebook International

Getting rid of this has been discussed before; see its discussion page and User_talk:DenisYurkin#Some_questions. I thought it time to broaden the discussion.

It seems to me the basic premise that there's some sort of "international language" (words or phrases likely to be understood more-or-less anywhere) to be documented is just wrong. Given that, I do not think the article is salvageable, or at least not under this title. On the other hand, could we move it to Tips for coping with language problems or some such? Certainly this is a problem many travelers face; that's a valid travel topic and parts of this article might be a good start. Pashley 08:36, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

What sections/aspects could an article like Tips for coping with language problems include? --DenisYurkin 05:29, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
I mean that if there's any idea of what this article better become a part of, why vfding it at all--why not start with an outline of such a more-general article? I absolutely admit that it's impossible to have a complete phrasebook (complete in the sense we have other phrasebooks here)--and this article was never considered for that goal--. Yes, it's a helper in communicating when you can't find a common language--so if it's only a matter of renaming, let's just do it. --DenisYurkin 16:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
I like this idea better. An international phrasebook is too limiting, I think, because there is no such thing as an international language (although people like to say that English is the international language). Tips for getting through language issues seems easier to add to, as well as to forgive things that apply to many places but not everywhere. ChubbyWimbus 02:16, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete though Jani's idea of a sign language phrasebooks seems good if someone can come up with an idea on how to make it work, I learned booking whole railway tickets in China (before mass tourism arrived) using nothing but sign language and a LP guide (city names in Chinese) - See the talk page —The preceding comment was added by Sertmann (talkcontribs) .

  • Keep. I think it's useful to have a list of English words that are likely to be widely understood. LtPowers 14:33, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Based on discussion at Wikitravel:Travellers'_pub#Image_for_Travel_topic:World_languages, I've started a Talk article using some, but by no means all, text from this one. Pashley 21:23, 22 December 2009 (EST)

November 2009

News articles and category in Korean

These are useless for en: since they are written in Korean. And they are also useless for ko: since ko: has no travel news section now. That language version is still translating policies and guidelines.

  • Delete. -- Tatata7 04:50, 4 November 2009 (EST)
  • Ask a Korean to delete. Only they can be sure if this is actually useful. They may be able to move it somewhere useful. Or they may be able to explain it, ask for a short-term exception that allows this oddity on English WT. I'd be inclined to say no since other versions have been started without visible problems on en:, but there is a precedent (see above) so perhaps we should just live with it for a while. Pashley 06:21, 4 November 2009 (EST)
Can't we just move the info to ko, and it can be sorted there? --inas 14:16, 4 November 2009 (EST)
  • Keep until the Korean language version has the equivalent articles, then ask someone on Wikitravel/ko: who is a go-between to nominate articles here. I would rather these articles hang around here until we are certain they have been translated and created correctly on ko:. And yes there are precedents for doing this. A few years ago, I recall one of the other language versions was set up on Wikitravel/en: until they could get the language version setup file translated. Huttite 08:45, 6 November 2009 (EST)
  • Delete Everything Korean, it's completely bogus and unusable for the guys over there, as it's all very poorly translated by a robot thanks to our "dear" mkPaolo. They're not going to use it, and we have even less reason too. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 14:45, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Are any of the above opinions changed by Stefan's information? Despite the lack of interwiki links, it's clear that most (perhaps all, I didn't check every one) of those articles have already received translations on ko, and even without reading Korean it's obvious that they're not direct copies (e.g. Wikitravel:Deletion policy/koko:Wikitravel:삭제_정책). - D. Guillaime 16:49, 10 January 2010 (EST)


It looks like someone attempted to make a regional article out of a city. This is listed as a city in Hokuto when it is actually part of Hokuto City. There is a Takane here, but there is also one in Niigata, and it's part of at least 2 other place names from what I found. I don't know whether it would be a useful redirect or just better off deleted. ChubbyWimbus 04:15, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Not really sure what to do here. Takane was merged into Hokuto in 2004, and while I'm unfamiliar with the area, quite often the old towns are actually much more coherent destinations than these sprawling administrative "cities" like 600 km2 Hokuto.
There's been a whole bunch of these lately (see also Kishine, Hamadayama, etc), it appears we've got another English class in Japan on our hands... Jpatokal 11:06, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Yeah, I don't know this area either. From researching it, the city seems to encompass most (all?) of the Kiyosato Plateau, which was also created by the same user. Kiyosato returns a lot more travel information about this area, such as: [1], [2], [3], etc. Maybe redirecting Hokuto to the Kiyosato Plateau would be better. As for Takane... I still don't know about redirect or deletion. It seems to be as obscure as the one in Niigata, and disambiguation sounds pointless. ChubbyWimbus 13:35, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Ariel Lickton's images

All of these have duplicates currently on Shared. Admittedly, they're up for deletion there, too, but even if they're kept on Shared, we don't need the duplicates here. See also #Image:Sages.jpg LtPowers 20:22, 8 November 2009 (EST)


This one was uploaded to shared as shared:Image:Community flair.jpg by shared:user:Ariel (who appears to be the same as en:User:Ariel Lickton, see also #Ariel Lickton's images) but here on :en it was uploaded by User:WikiTravel. Hmm! Anyway, since it's duplicated on Shared, we don't need it here. See also #Monticello Railway duplicates LtPowers 20:22, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Monticello Railway duplicates

These are all smaller-size duplicates of Image:Monticello Railway.jpg and thus unneeded. Image:Monticello Picture.jpg is the one in use, but I see no compelling reason not to switch it out for the larger image. These were uploaded here by User:WikiTravel, but a duplicate that exists on shared (shared:Image:Monticello 2.jpg) was uploaded by shared:User:Ariel. See also #Image:Sages.jpg. LtPowers 20:22, 8 November 2009 (EST)

  • Delete. I get the feeling we should just wait for the assignment due date, and then clean up Monticello --inas 22:24, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Agreed. Since they still seem to be at it, I let these slide for today's cleanup pass.

Monticello map

All three are copyvios from [4]. More uploads from User:WikiTravel. LtPowers 20:24, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Monticello Railway.jpg

Another one by user User:Ariel Lickton‎, no licensing information, and no responses of any sort on talk page. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 10:11, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Technically User:WikiTravel, but appears to be the same person based on uploads. If we delete this one, though, we should delete all of her images; this one is no more or less suspicious than any of the others. Lack of licensing information is hardly a barrier; as Jani has pointed out several times, all image uploads are licensed CC by-sa 1.0 by default. (I'm not a fan of this policy, mind you, but it seems to be established convention.) LtPowers 14:01, 17 November 2009 (EST)


Looks like a probably copyvio to me. LtPowers 20:30, 8 November 2009 (EST)

  • Delete - It's far too small to be legible anyway. Texugo 22:04, 8 November 2009 (EST)
On shared, can't take any action here. - Dguillaime 00:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)


Another one from Huntingdon Valley. I guess there is a WT school project in the Philadelphia area at the moment? The image is from The page seems to have been taken down but you can see the identical thumbnail in a Google image search here. --Burmesedays 11:02, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Also on shared. - Dguillaime 00:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)


  • Delete - According to Google, this appears to be the name of a Japanese company, not a place. - Huttite 03:33, 24 November 2009 (EST)
There is now some content in the article. As it is only 15 mins from Hakodate airport though, my guess is it should be covered in that article? I have found a ref to Kameo School in Hakodate and this implies Kameo is a district of Hakodate I think? --Burmesedays 10:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)
and a map here. --Burmesedays 10:36, 25 November 2009 (EST)

Let's keep it... I appreciate the need for oversight and realize that this action had good intentions, but obviously this deletion recommendation has jumped the gun. I worry that this action and others on the Wiki Travel Japan section recently (such as the editing of Sugamo and Komagome) are being influenced by a narrow perspective. Are we trying to make Wiki Travel Japan into a Lonely Planet type guide book? At this point in our project, I would prefer that we give more leeway to locals trying to introduce their cities... That means leeway with language use (correct errors but respect phrasing - No need to describe the price of Soba in a sarcastic way - although I did think it was funny) and leeway with the way things are categorized (there's no need to lump Sugamo into Toshima Ward, is there?). In short, let's err on the side of caution when we see an entry by a non-native speaker. This will allow more and more Japanese to take part in Wiki Travel which seems necessary, especially at this point in its development. By black turtleneck

This is a town of Hokkaido, so this isn't a company. By Mi

I can support keeping this while people add the info, but there are way too many Japanese destinations being created for places that don't need articles. I think this, as well as others, need to be merged. How long do we wait though? ChubbyWimbus 20:43, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I understand your idea. However,Kameo has many good things. I think Hakodate has a lot of information.So,people don't have rection to Kameo. What do you think? By Mi —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

  • Merge - Kameo is still a relatively small neighborhood of Hakodate, which is not big enough to have its article subdivided. I don't see any point at all in waiting till people add more information here before merging it. I doubt if there is too much more to add anyway, and the redirect will just help people realize they should add any info to the correct place, in the Hakodate article.Texugo 23:22, 14 January 2010 (EST)
  • Merge - If Kameo should have its own article, it would be a district of Hakodate, I guess, but Hakodate is not ready for districtification (and might never be), so there is no need for this article and its content could just as well be merged into Hakodate, ClausHansen 23:56, 14 January 2010 (EST)

I read everyone opinion,I felt it is good to be merger. by Mi

Fueda park

An attraction, not a destination.

  • Merge with Kamakura and Delete - Texugo 00:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)
  • Merge, and possibly redirect, as this would stop a future creation of the same attraction article. Peter (Southwood) Talk 06:09, 26 November 2009 (EST)
  • Merge and redirect. The capitalisation is wrong though so I guess a redirect should be there for Fueda Park as well. --Burmesedays 06:21, 26 November 2009 (EST)

A bunch of JR station/ward articles

Perhaps a university class is creating these articles the last few days, I'm not sure. Most should probably be merged somewhere and deleted or redirected, though in some cases it is not clear where, unless someone wants to take the time to nicely districtify Yokohama.

  1. Keio horinouchi - a station in Hachioji
  2. Center-minami - a station in Tzuzuki ward, Yokohama.
  3. Mizonokuchi - a station in Kawasaki, Kanagawa prefecture.
  4. Kouhokuku, better written Kouhoku Ward - a ward of Yokohama.
  5. Kikuna - a station in Kouhoku Ward (above), Yokohama.
  6. Hiyoshi - another station in Kouhoku Ward, Yokohama.
  7. Kounandai - a station in Kounan Ward, Yokohama
  8. Kamoi - a station in Midori Ward, Yokohama
  9. Sakuragicho - a station in Naka Ward, Yokohama.

There may be others I've missed, and there may be others created soon, if my hunch is correct. Texugo 00:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)

Districtifying the second-largest city in Japan might be too much to tackle at once. However, all of those station names seem to be unique, so redirecting all of them to Yokohama shouldn't cause confusion for other destinations. - Dguillaime 16:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)
I was wondering why the number of orphan pages dropped suddenly, then I find them listed here! I would suggest that each of the articles be tagged with a Merge notice pointing to Yokohama and the list of articles to be merged then merging and districtifying be discussed on the Yokohama talk page. When districtification of Yokohama reaches a point where merging and redirecting these articles makes sense then redirect the articles to the appropriate districts. - Huttite 05:30, 30 November 2009 (EST)
I would probably delete at least Hiyoshi. Someone looking up Hiyoshi will most likely want to find Hiyoshi Taisha in Otsu rather than Yokohama. I'm not really a fan of creating redirects for every station name in Japan. It just seems like a rather fruitless task. For ward names and districts within cities (like Kouhokuku), I honestly think it's better just to delete them, with some exceptions (like Shibuya, Harajuku, etc.). This one appears to be unique, but so many of them are generic and found in more than one location in Japan. ChubbyWimbus 00:58, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Speaking of Kouhokuku, the only thing unique about this name is that the creator chose this particular way of writing it. It is better written Kōhoku-ku, and when speaking about it people often drop the -ku part. In addition, I can guarantee there are dozens of places named Kōhoku, including a community in eastern Osaka-fu, an area in northern Tokyo, and Kohoku, Saga-ken. Given that, I think a redirect would be pretty useless. Texugo 22:51, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Hello Texugo & other editors. Thank you for starting this discussion. I am part of the small effort to introduce more local places by locals on this nice web resource. I / we may need to apologize on one hand for some obvious errors. On the other hand(as I wrote above for Kameo), while I appreciate the need for oversight and realize that the suggestions have good intentions (such as making the site easier to use and navigate) and may adhere to larger Wiki standards that were not followed, I worry that the locals' efforts and then editing actions on the Wiki Travel Japan section recently (such as the editing of Sugamo and Komagome) may not be in the best interest of the larger Wiki Travel development. Are we trying to make Wiki Travel Japan into a Lonely Planet type guide book? I hope we can do better than Lonely Planet, etc. and introduce more and more local places... properly. To do this, the students / volunteers certainly need help, but at this point in this Wiki Travel project, I would prefer that we give more leeway to locals trying to introduce their cities... That means leeway with language use (correct errors but respect phrasing - No need to edit and then describe the price of Soba in a sarcastic way - although I did think it was funny) and leeway with the way things are categorized (there's no need to lump Sugamo into Toshima Ward, is there?). In short, let's err on the side of caution when we see an entry by a non-native speaker here. This will allow more and more Japanese to take part in Wiki Travel which seems necessary, especially at this point in its development. Sorry for the long memo & thanks for reading & considering. Looking forward to hearing back. By black turtleneck

We welcome contributions from all users, but the issue with these are that they are not cities: they are stations and parts of cities that already exist. Generally, wards do not get articles. If the district or ward is in Yokohama (for example), then you can add the information about that district or ward to the Yokohama page. There is no need to create a page for Kikuna, Sakuragicho, etc. We only split articles when they become too large and after discussion has taken place.
There is no limit on what local places can be added, so the locals of these places are welcome to continue adding content. We certainly do hope to provide much more information than Lonely Planet! The information simply needs to be put in the correct place. Most (or even all) of the locations they are adding already have city articles. If you know these locals, it would be greatly appreciated if you could tell them to add their content to the city article rather than creating new articles. It's good to know what is going on. Your response is appreciated! ChubbyWimbus 22:59, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Hello ChubbyWimbus. Thanks for the reply. I think I understand your point about local places. There should be a reasonable limit, I agree, but I wonder how that applies to the Tokyo Metro Area? I think this might be a special case warranting consideration, especially given the nature of the way Tokyo and other cities have developed as "station/cities." Are you saying that Wikitravel Japan is a collection of pages about "Cities" - is it referring to 市 Shi - as an official determination, which requires a certain population and designation? I'm not sure if I am entitled to make this counter-point being a very new user without any history or recognition by the Wiki Organization, but here are a few things on my mind... When a visitor (or a resident wants to use Wiki Travel, some may start with a large city and look around in there, but I have a feeling many others would enter the name of a specific station or town. If Wiki redirects them to a larger city, the feeling would be one of disappointment in that case, wouldn't it? Or maybe more satisfaction if the city is actually covered in Wiki. Thus, I do feel that many more areas should be given their own page and ask that Wiki loosen the devoted page requirement. Obvious examples are Kourakuen or Sugamo in Tokyo from the perspective of a "guidebook." Aside from those major areas, I see some value in devoted pages for many other areas as well. We know that "cities" arise around stations. Examples abound in Tokyo (Machida, Shin-Yokohama, Shimokita, Kanazawa-Hakkei, Kichijoji, Sangenjyaya, Futakotamagawa...) In one of the largest metro areas in the world (the largest?), these "station/cities" seem to merit their own page. When we get down to the small station level, I can understand the discussion on merging. One deleted was Hamadayama, for example. Even though this does not have a "city" designation and is, as we know, not a major train station, I wonder if Hamadayama's sheer population and number of restaurants, parks, temples, etc. would merit its own page. More to the point, I ask this: if we can't search for these "cities" (towns? urban areas? stations?) on Wiki Trvel, then where can we search for them? As far as Tokyo Metro area goes this seems the obvious route to making Wiki Travel a tool that surpasses Lonely Planet and can position Wiki as the go-to tool for English info on Japan. Thanks again for our talk as we collaborate. BT

I would begin by checking the Tokyo article to see if the area you are adding information about is already covered in one of the district articles. I was not part of the Tokyo districting discussions, but I think every area is covered somewhere. Once you find where it belongs, then add the information to that district.
If you know the area and feel that there is a need to separate sections, there are ways to do that without creating new pages. See Takahashi: The Fukiya area is separated from the rest of the content, yet it is still in the Takahashi article. I did this because it is often visited as a separate destination and there is enough distance between the inner city and Fukiya to warrant giving it a subheading. If so much information was added to Takahashi that the article became too large, then I would consider creating districts, and Fukiya would get an article. I don't think that will happen in this case.
I think that's the best way to show districts without dividing the article into districts. If the article grows, having these subsections will make it easier to divide it, but if it does not become large enough, they still serve a useful purpose for travellers. Other examples of these types of city articles in Japan include Kurashiki, Hiroshima, Okayama, Shimonoseki. All of these cities only have one article but important districts are identified. Every city/area is different, but the process is basically the same. If you think that Hamadayama should be identified, perhaps this is the best way to do it. The article that it is part of currently (Tokyo/Suginami) does not have many attractions listed, so things to do, see, eat, etc. from the Hamadayama area would be good to add to the article, if you know the area. ChubbyWimbus 02:29, 3 December 2009 (EST)

I looked up some more of these, and the more I think about it, the more I think they should be deleted after the merge. The following all have at least one other location with the same name (and of equal unimportance):

  • Kouhokuku (at least one more exists. Neither are important enough for disambiguation)
  • Hiyoshi (There are more famous places with this name)
  • Kounandai (There is at least one more in Chiba Prefecture, neither important enough for a disambiguation page)
  • Mizonokuchi (there is one in Wakayama Prefecture, neither important) ChubbyWimbus 23:19, 5 January 2010 (EST)

Image:IMG 1228.JPG‎

Recognisable person in photo, uploaded as advertisement. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:09, 27 November 2009 (EST)

The River Tuul Nomad's Sacred Valley

The whole page is a copyvio and marked as such and it could well be treated as an attraction with a camp, rather than a destination. As it is only 25 miles from Ulaan Baatar I suggest emptying the page, redirecting to Ulaan Baatar and putting a description of the attraction in that article. The copyvio text also made it to the Mongolia page and I have deleted it there. --Burmesedays 04:54, 29 November 2009 (EST)

On closer inspection, the useful information is already in Ulaanbaatar. So emptied and redirected. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 04:06, 5 December 2009 (EST)

Mémorial Charles de Gaulle

Not an article but an attraction. The whole page is also a copyvio and I have marked it as such.--Burmesedays 06:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

  • Therefore similar content on the contributor's user page must be a copyvio too? The page probably should move/redirect to the location of the memorial, but I cannot tell from the text where in France(?) the memorial is as the location/address is not obvious. - Huttite 07:12, 30 November 2009 (EST)
It's in Colombey-les-deux-églises[5] in the Champagne-Ardenne region. The address is 'Route du Mémorial'. It's a very small town apparently (pop. 650), maybe it should be listed in the Get out section of Chaumont, the nearest town of any size. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 07:45, 30 November 2009 (EST)
redirect to Chaumont. Leave the user a note asking about the apparent copyvio on the user page. He or she has username "Memorialcharlesdegaulle", so may be authorised to use the text. Pashley 01:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

December 2009

Trail guide

Just a list. Where is this article going? There are too many trails in the world. Looks like it will be a long list. ChubbyWimbus 02:47, 7 December 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure a page listing a lot of trails all over the place is useful, but it brings up a question: These trail articles that are linked here, are they essentially itinerary articles? or something else? An itinerary serves as a way to fit in seeing certain things in a certain order and time frame and leaves the descriptions to other articles, typically. An article for a hiking trails essentially exists to give distances and describe things along a set trail. I don't know if trails make good itinerary articles, but I do kind of like the idea of trail articles, since they give a chance to give more detail than a general national park article would.Texugo 09:35, 7 December 2009 (EST)
I wouldnt think of them as Itineraries in the usual sense, and they are a bit sparse on information at present, but they could become something useful if there is enough input. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 13:47, 8 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. Trail articles are good, and welcome. They should be linked to the relevant articles and locations for the traveller to find. Nobody would start looking for a trail at the global level. If this is an administrative list that someone wants to maintain, then it should at least move out of the main namespace. --inas 17:04, 8 December 2009 (EST)
Tramping in New Zealand actually has useful information about long distance walks in New Zealand. It isn't just an index, but an introduction to the topic.
Long_distance_walking_in_Europe limits itself to a handful of well defined walks, where as this list is somewhat arbitrary. The trails are fine, but best linked from the regions and destinations where they are relevant. We should demonstrate a very clear traveller benefit before allowing an article that is just a list.
If we really really decide that an index of these things is necessary - surely a Category is a better way to accomplish it than a manually updated index? --inas 00:46, 9 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to List of itineraries, move the items there, and slap itinerary tags on them. A trail article would seem to be as clear an itinerary article as we could possibly have. --Peter Talk 01:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)
A fine solution, Peter. Why didn't I think of that? Pashley 01:26, 10 December 2009 (EST)


Not an article but a hostel listing. --Burmesedays 01:38, 13 December 2009 (EST)

  • Move anything worth keeping to the relevant article and Delete. --Burmesedays 01:40, 13 December 2009 (EST)
  • Might be worth keeping as a redirect to Seoul? Jpatokal 02:29, 18 December 2009 (EST)


Looking at the article's talk page, it is a few years overdue for a deletion. ChubbyWimbus 17:50, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Keep. It is a valid index, perhaps helpful to some, certainly harmless to the rest. Pashley 17:43, 16 December 2009 (EST)

If this is meant to be an index, though, I think it may need a name change. "Parks" are found in most cities, while National Parks are larger and more manageable. It would also eliminate the overlap between "Amusement Parks", "Skate Parks", or whatever other kind of parks someone may try to link to. ChubbyWimbus 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • Keep, but possibly convert to a disambiguation page for different categories of parks, then have a list page for each category, in which case the content would go into National parks or possibly Ecoparks, as there may be some which are not national parks as most people would expect, such as Marine protected areas, which may be of similar interest. Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:09, 18 December 2009 (EST)


The very similar topic Amusements was deleted a couple months ago, and this one seems the same. The talk page proposes where this article could go, but do we really want it? ChubbyWimbus 17:50, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I personally don't really want it, but that's me. I wouldn't mention Shenzhen's famous theme parks (or, for that matter, any Disney establishment) except to warn people off what I consider overpriced and tacky.
However, lots of people do want to find these, and we obviously have a contributor who wants to build an index of them. My reaction is by all means plunge forward. It seems to me this is a clear keep, a valid travel topic, though it needs discussion on its talk page of what the exact scope should be and whether there might be a better name. Pashley
Delete. We had a contributor who wanted to build another list. Lets just leave WP to build the lists of these things, we are adding no value to the traveller here. --inas 17:49, 16 December 2009 (EST)
Not sure. I don't like the current title, and it could use a lot of cleanup, but there's certainly value to the traveler in a list of amusement parks. LtPowers 08:53, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • 'Rename to Amusement parks? They have to be popular with some travellers or they wouldn't still exist, so I'm with Pashley and LtPowers that they have value.

Theme parks would be a subset of amusement parks. Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:20, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Check the history, this is just going back to where it was. Someome started to build a list a few years ago - the whole idea has failed. --inas 06:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)
Delete No value, will stay messy and when i look for Amusement i look in the specific city article and not an incomplete list. jan 06:28, 18 December 2009 (EST)


Not an article but an attraction.

  • Delete --Burmesedays 09:59, 16 December 2009 (EST). Having read the comments below, reiterate delete. Each relevant destination will come up in searches anyway. --Burmesedays 22:05, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to the appropriate London district - London/Mayfair-Marylebone? Redirect or delete. If redirected then redirect to London/Mayfair-Marylebone. A disambiguation page seems like overkill, and as to redirecting the London location is the original and seems to be by far most famous - see for example Wikipedia which states "Madame Tussauds is a wax museum in London with branches in a number of major cities." -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:27, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • I guess someone might search for it. Yes, London/Mayfair-Marylebone would be the correct re-direct. --Burmesedays 10:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. There are nine Madame Tussauds [6] spanning three continents. We usually redirect attractions, but there's no clear redirect here. We could disambiguate it, but I'm not sure if we've been doing that for attractions. In this case, it should be easier to just delete. --Peter Talk 14:03, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. I see no reason not to disambiguate, as we did with SeaWorld. LtPowers 17:15, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to London/Mayfair-Marylebone. That's the original Madame T's and a significant London attraction. I don't think a disambig is worth the trouble; no traveller will need that list, but many visitors to London might want to find this. Pashley 17:29, 16 December 2009 (EST)
The others are very much significant attractions—google Madame Tussauds and D.C.'s will come up first. I'm sure plenty of travelers would not even realize the original was in London (I do only after living there). --Peter Talk 01:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete or Disambiguate. My first impulse is to agree with Peter to delete. It is just an attraction, and after we delete this a search will return all the articles that mention it, which hopefully will provide the best assistance to the traveller. However, if we are going to redirect, I think it is wrong to assume the traveller is searching for the London attraction. A person searching for the fishermans wharf attraction doesn't deserve to be redirected to a london district, before having to perform a more general search, just to save us some effort writing the disamb. We don't follow the by far the most famous mantra for a disambiguation page do we? --inas 17:45, 16 December 2009 (EST)
    • Even if we did, the one in London is clearly not "by far the most famous" of the locations. Also, the problem with relying on search results is that "Tussauds" is a word very likely to be misspelled, which the search engine doesn't handle well. If we have a disambiguation page, we can set up redirects from likely misspellings (like Madam Tussaud's). LtPowers 08:50, 17 December 2009 (EST)
      • That may have inadvertenly answered a question I posed elsewhere. So WT does set up re-directs for spelling mistakes?--Burmesedays 10:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Absolutely, per Wikitravel:How to redirect a page. --Peter Talk 11:45, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • Merge content with London/Mayfair-Marylebone and Redirect is my first reaction, considering the listing on the page. However, considering that this is a rather famous tourist attraction that is branching out, a disambiguation page would certainly be another way of seeing travel and perhaps put the traveler first. It could even lead into a travel topics about touring London or famous museums and art galleries to visit around the world. The criteria for having at least a redirect probably should be fame. Besides, it will probably come back and haunt us if we delete it now the page has been created. - Huttite 03:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
I'm not sure why, but I feel like making a disambiguation page with links to the relevant districts (and it needs to be districts in order to be useful) in Amsterdam, Berlin, Las Vegas, London, New York City, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Washington, D.C. and Hollywood. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 09:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. I'm basically in agreement with Burmesedays, and would not even expect to find an article with this title on WT because it's an attraction, not a geographic destination. Barring a major change in policy, I think having only a few such attraction articles with no consistent reasoning will be more confusing to WT users, not less. - D. Guillaime 18:27, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Hmmmmm, SeaWorld precedence? --Stefan (sertmann) talk 15:58, 19 December 2009 (EST)
Ouch... this discussion is probably better for Wikitravel talk:Disambiguation pages, but my preference would be to NOT create disambiguation pages for attractions and instead always use redirects, UNLESS the attractions warrant their own articles (such as Disneyworld). In the case of SeaWorld a redirect to Amusement would seem preferable rather than opening a can of worms for determining when an attraction is "famous enough" that a disambiguation page is warranted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:17, 19 December 2009 (EST)
In the case of SeaWorld, how is a redirect to Amusement more helpful to the traveler than a page listing the destinations that have SeaWorlds? LtPowers 19:17, 19 December 2009 (EST)
For me, this is less about "more useful to travelers" than it's about figuring out where to draw a line as to what gets a disambiguation page. If someone bothered to create a page for an attraction it probably makes sense to create a redirect so that a) anyone looking for that attraction in the future will have a pointer to it and b) it won't get created again. If instead we create a disambiguation page it puts us into the uncomfortable position of having to figure out where to draw the line between "useful to travelers" and spam. Does SeaWorld get a disambiguation page? If so, does the Ripley's Believe-it-or-not museum? Does the Hard Rock Cafe? Seems like a slippery slope that we could avoid by just saying "any attraction that does not warrant its own article should not be given a disambiguation page". -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:27, 19 December 2009 (EST)
Ryan hits the nail on the head I think. If the attraction does not warrant an article, then why disambiguate? Except for very few especially large, important attractions WT has articles about geographic destinations and not attractions. And as Dgulliame states, disambiguating an attraction which you would not expect to have an article according to policy, will create confusion. --Burmesedays 23:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)
Wikitravel:The traveller comes first. I understand the slippery slope -- we don't want to become a yellow pages, after all -- but there are certain internationally-known destinations that are specifically sought out by travelers. I can imagine Madame Tussauds being on the cusp of appropriateness, but I think SeaWorld clearly qualifies. LtPowers 08:30, 20 December 2009 (EST)

This ↑ is why I suggested it might be easier to just delete the article. But since we're having this discussion, lets stop having it on the vfd page and move to Wikitravel talk:Disambiguation pages#Non-articles. (The vfd page is for interpreting policy, not deciding it.) Discussion to clarify our disambiguation policies is long overdue anyway (probably because disambiguation is boring). --Peter Talk 15:39, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Poland Articles

So what should we do about these, it's all various long lists of places, what to do about them?

  1. Could not find IsPartOf or IsIn in Poland:Lakes and Coastlines
  2. Could not find IsPartOf or IsIn in Poland:Metro Areas and Little Pearls
  3. Could not find IsPartOf or IsIn in Poland:Mountains
  4. Could not find IsPartOf or IsIn in Poland:National Parks
  5. Could not find IsPartOf or IsIn in Poland:Spas
  6. Could not find IsPartOf or IsIn in Poland:UNESCO World Heritage Sites

- --Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:00, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Delete All Does Poland need all these lists? 17:04, 18 December 2009 (EST)
Poland:UNESCO World Heritage Sites should just be redirected to UNESCO_World_Heritage_list#Poland, perhaps with some of its text copied there to improve the main list.
I'm not sure about the others. We do not usually build such lists. Trying to be a "yellow pages" listing everything is a non-goal, something we explicitly avoid. However, given that someone has taken the trouble to build those lists, it strikes me as foolish to just delete them. Can anything useful be salvaged from them? Pashley 08:11, 19 December 2009 (EST)
It seems like these lists came from the main page under Cities. Someone moved them from the list there, as it made the Cities list too long. But I think some of them could fit under an "Other Destinations" header. Some others could be moved to their regions. Globe-trotter 08:37, 19 December 2009 (EST)
  • Merge and delete is, I think, the appropriate action per policies. But the merging will be a significant task... Mountains should probably be deleted outright (the ranges it links to are mostly redirects, anyway). National Parks should be spread among the OD sections of the Poland article and its regions. Pashley is right about the UNESCO list. "Metro Areas and Little Pearls" should be re-merged to the cities lists at Poland and its subregions. Lake districts to OD lists for Poland/regions (delete the rest). Spas... travel topic? --Peter Talk 11:30, 19 December 2009 (EST)
I merged Poland:Metro Areas and Little Pearls with the cities lists on the corresponding regions. --globe-trotter 11:31, 31 December 2009 (EST)
  • Merge and Delete Does not make sense to keep them separate. jan 07:04, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Yokohama city kanazawa ward

Obviously a district of Yokohama, but as that city is not districtified, I moved all the content to Yokohama and think this one can be deleted. Globe-trotter 16:08, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Delete (far too awkwardly titled to be a useful redirect), and thanks for doing the merge work. - D. Guillaime 18:12, 21 December 2009 (EST)
So did we decide that attribution is unnecessary when it comes to merges, or that some other mechanism of attribution is more important? LtPowers 19:38, 21 December 2009 (EST)
Delete I hate to sound mean, but these Japanese pages are obnoxious! ChubbyWimbus 02:20, 22 December 2009 (EST)
  • Seems like policy is clear, so I made it redirect to Yokohama. Globe-trotter 20:25, 23 December 2009 (EST)


Anyone familar with Chile? would Cochamó or Cochamó Valley make most sense to keep? --Stefan (sertmann) talk 13:05, 25 December 2009 (EST)

Keep and merge the 2 articles. This question should probably be discussed on the article talk pages using merge tags, rather than here, as a VFD. A page under both article names can exist, even though the same article is served; that is what a redirect page is for. - Huttite 14:53, 12 January 2010 (EST)

January 2010


This has had a seemingly unresolved query since 2006. Looks very like a copyvio. --Burmesedays 05:21, 9 January 2010 (EST)

TinEye found an almost identical map at although that one has a logo that is missing from our version, so it's impossible to know which came first. At any rate, the uploader admitted that he didn't create the image, and that he didn't know the copyright status of the image; that makes the likelihood of a copyright violation extremely high. Delete. LtPowers 10:54, 9 January 2010 (EST)
Delete. If we don't know the proper licensing information, it's best to discard it, regardless of which of those two files came first. - D. Guillaime 16:27, 10 January 2010 (EST)
Delete. Images are guilty until proven innocent. Unknown copyright status is a criteria for deletion. The submission standard is your own work or explicitly licenced. - Huttite 14:44, 12 January 2010 (EST)


  • Delete - This was tagged as a Vote for Deletion a month ago but has apparently not been listed or voted upon. As far as I can ascertain from a quick google search a Dhaba appears to be a structure where food is consumed, that is owned in India. The word does not appear to be defined in English and the top ranking page is the Wikitravel article itself. The page is orphaned and not linked from any other Wikitravel article - Huttite 14:44, 12 January 2010 (EST)
  • Delete Since I Vfd'ed I think I would want it deleted. Came to much the same conclusion. Sorry about forgetting to add it here --Stefan (sertmann) talk 14:48, 12 January 2010 (EST)


Gibberish. Intro seems to be about the Qormi Bread Festival in Malta. The rest is rambling info about Nicaragua.--Burmesedays 23:49, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Speedied. Spambot creating multiple nonesense pages. --Burmesedays 23:56, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Japan/World Fact Book

I'm not really sure what this page is supposed to achieve, but Japan is the only country with such a page, and it doesn't look useful. ChubbyWimbus 23:49, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Ah, I see I'm mistaken. Other countries are listed as Talk pages. But what is the purpose of Wikitravel:CIA World Factbook 2002 import/Reference index? Is it (still) useful? ChubbyWimbus 23:53, 14 January 2010 (EST)
Wikitravel:CIA World Factbook 2002 import provides the background information. It seems that it had some use in the very earliest days of Wikitravel before there was even a complete set of country articles, but (1) the last factbook-based article was removed in 2006, and (2) I can see no good reason to keep a 2002 mirror around when the real thing [7] is online and continuously updated. - D. Guillaime 00:13, 15 January 2010 (EST)
... in fact, I'll go one step further and submit for discussion:
Keep - reason moved to discussion re all factbook pages - Huttite 18:54, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Wikitravel:CIA_World_Factbook 2002 import/Reference index and all Factbook 2002 Import pages

The reference index describes itself as "This page exists to keep track of how far de-factbookizing has progressed" -- a task that was largely completed six years ago, and fully completed in mid-2006. Mirroring the factbook wasn't particularly popular at the time, judging by the discussion, but it's even less so now: the import is severely out of date, the CIA World Factbook itself is still freely available and routinely updated online, and I simply see no value in maintaining pages that are unused, unusable, and can't productively be edited. Additionally, since the Wikitravel_Talk: namespace is indexed by search engines, these pages do show up in search results, which is needlessly confusing. I'm only proposing deletion of the factbook import itself, not any of the discussion pages.

( I personally think this is also a problem, but it's a broader issue that can only be resolved by the tech team.) - D. Guillaime 16:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

  • Delete. It's an artifact & unnecessary for today's site. I also don't think there is anything or any record lost in the delete, since the basic info remains available through the CIA World Factbook. --Peter Talk 16:37, 16 January 2010 (EST)
  • Keep - The factbook pages are an archive of source factoids. Besides, it is not policy to delete these factbook archive pages, rather great care was taken to preserve them - Japan's one was preserved as an article sub-page rather than a talk sub-page, because it was one of the first to be done. They are doing no harm and deletion would not save space because the deleted pages are still retained by the server. The purpose of Wikitravel:CIA World Factbook 2002 import/Reference index is to stop these pages being orphaned and keep track of what articles were defactbooked. Also, the factbook pages provide the original context for maps and flags as well as some useful documentation about how countries are administered. In the last few days I consulted the Puerto Rico factbook article to understand how a country is best regionalised. I dare say that many other factbooks still are useful for similar reasons, so they should be kept. - Huttite 18:44, 16 January 2010 (EST)
I'm not saying that the factbook itself is not useful, but only that our unofficial, eight year old mirror is not useful. The factbook source is the same place as ever [8], and unlike our copy is still up to date. There's no need to keep track of what articles were defactbooked any more, because it's "all of them". - D. Guillaime 22:36, 16 January 2010 (EST)
  • Delete. Huttite hits the nail on the head, saying that that all history is maintained anyway, if there is any reason to ever go back to this info, it can be recovered easily. The active pages on the site should be kept current, keeping this stuff around is confusing to new users, and unnecessary. --inas 17:16, 17 January 2010 (EST)

Thomas Read

Delete this article in German about a club, as it is too fine grained. - Huttite 18:00, 16 January 2010 (EST)


Delete graffiti --Rein N. 09:40, 17 January 2010 (EST)

Speedied. --Burmesedays 09:45, 17 January 2010 (EST)

Wartrail and new england

Delete Duplicate page, seeWartrail and New England --Rein N. 09:50, 17 January 2010 (EST)

  • Redirect. No need to waste time on a deletion discussion. LtPowers 16:09, 17 January 2010 (EST)
  • Merge and Redirect - I have tagged it as a merge because there appears to be partial content that I don't have time to research at the moment. - Huttite 08:38, 18 January 2010 (EST)


This page was tagged as a VfD candidate about a year ago, but there is no record of the user adding it here to discuss. So I will add it here to discuss. However, I would prefer to merge with and redirect to Kannur, since it appears as an attraction there, but wondered if there was any better alternative that anyone could think of. The content is probably of little value, possibly a copyvio... - Huttite 08:38, 18 January 2010 (EST)