Archive for Wikitravel:Votes for deletion acted on in December 2011. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/November 2011 or Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/January 2012 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.
It is obviously an attraction and not an article. It is not even an especially important attraction and should be deleted according to policy. I guess a merge and re-direct to Tha Khaek would be OK though.--burmesedays 10:23, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Result: Merge notice added. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:27, 3 December 2011 (EST)
- Delete. See Cleethorpes for the current usage of this image - it's a pretty image, but at 7199x367 the aspect ratio makes it nearly impossible to use in a web-based travel guide. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
- Modify and Keep. Unless we have a better image, this one is an excellent perspective on Cleethorpes, showing the mudflat, the tide out, and the tacky English seafront attractions along the waterfront. In fact the image says everything about the town, such that the rest of the article text should in fact be deleted, and just replaced with this image. --inas 20:44, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
- Delete - I'm not a fan of using panoramas in the first place, and this one is beyond extreme, such that even if we trimmed off 3/4 of it, it would still be unwieldy at a comfortable viewing size, and it would lose most of the advantages Inas mentions. Plus, at a comfortable viewing size, it's pretty grainy picture quality. I'd say it's better to dump this and find 2 or 3 reasonably framed shots from Flickr or something. texugo 22:40, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
- Keep, at least until we have a better image to replace it with. Pashley 02:13, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
- No comment on how to make it useable? At a size where it fits on the article page, it's microscopic, not even viewable-- you can't tell what anything is.texugo 07:53, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
- On the article page it is unviewable, but one click, and it is a really descriptive image. Took me a couple of seconds to have a look at it, and most people using WT can click on a image and have a monitor that can view it. It needs replacing, and the article needs development. Once that is done the image can be orphaned and removed easily enough. --inas 18:17, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
- That completely ignores the goal of having a printable guide. Everyone so far has admitted it needs to be replaced, but if we don't do something right here and now, if we let this just go to "Keep" despite its poor fit with our goals, then it's back to being out-of-sight, out-of-mind, and it could actually be years before anyone gets around to replacing it. On top of that, this image is uploaded here on en:, and without any source.texugo 21:49, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
- No it doesn't. It reaffirms that having a printable guide is a goal. I just think that this image has potential to be chopped up and used in the guide in preference to having nothing. So, I think it would be a bad thing to remove it before we have something else, because for all we know this may be the best we have. There may well be better images out there, and when we find them we move another step towards our goal. I've been to Cleethorpes twice, and I really, really don't want to go back there to take a picture of it. --inas 18:23, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
- I'd honestly like to see us set an upper limit on aspect ration. Nobody should have to click through to the image page to view anything.texugo 22:22, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
- Keep. Its initial aspect ratio made it unusable, but I have cropped it to make it viewable in the article. --Peter Talk 11:25, 14 November 2011 (EST)
- Any further comment? The image is still somewhat unwieldy, but with Peter's change it's no longer completely unusable so I'd be OK with keeping it until someone adds more appropriate images to the article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:56, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Result: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:27, 3 December 2011 (EST)
- Delete. This is a very nice article about a single geothermal bath. Although it's extremely popular and they do offer some limited accommodation, by no means can this be considered a resort or a destination in its own right. The information belongs either in the article for nearby town Grindavík or simply as an activity in the Southwest Iceland region. --sterio 06:28, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
- Create Grindavik and merge there. Blue Lagoon is a loose term and very widespread. There are two Blue Lagoons in Bali for example, and I am sure heaps elsewhere. Therefore I propose that Blue Lagoon is not redirected to Grindavik.--burmesedays 06:55, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
- This seems like a borderline case - the Blue Lagoon is one of the most popular destinations/attractions in Iceland, so it seems important to have decent information about it in Wikitravel, but it also isn't something that would typically get its own article. The information needs to be somewhere, but I'm not sure that putting it in Southwest Iceland makes sense and Grindavík may be too far away to be an obvious solution. If there isn't a place to put the information that makes it easy for travelers to find then I'd say keep, although if it can be included in another article in a way that makes sense then either a redirect or a disambiguation page would be fine. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
- The more I think about it, the more I agree it should not be in Grindavík. Not because of the distance (it's just a few km outside the town) but because tourists would generally approach Grindavík for very different reasons than the Blue Lagoon. But it fits perfectly in the "Do" section of Southwest Iceland: It is an activity in this region, and usually done either during visits to other sites in the region (Reykjavík and the international airport), or as an extention of the Golden Circle in South Iceland. It should be mentioned in the Iceland, South Iceland and Reykjavík articles, but the listing belongs in the Southwest. And it should not be a separate page because all that needs to be said is what it is, where it is, how to get there, and how much it costs as well as a few lines on how good/bad people think it is. That's what the page does now, only in a somewhat elongated form. I can understand that people feel this attraction needs more info than just any other swimming pool, though. Maybe a special box on the Southwest Iceland page would be a good idea? --sterio 11:09, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
- Keep. It cannot be solely in Southwest Iceland as that is a region article. Region articles give an overview of the region, but do not include any listings. The problem, then, is how we deal with small villages and outlying sights like the Blue Lagoon. This has been a point of contention on Wikitravel for a while, and I don't think we have found a compelling solution for this yet. However, the Blue Lagoon is a major natural attraction with 400,000 visitors annually , so I think it could be a separate park article, just like Angkor Archaeological Park and Borobudur. I agree it's a borderline case, but I wouldn't know how else to deal with it. --globe-trotter 13:31, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
- Keep Pashley 20:51, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
- First, is there a WT policy that says an attraction cannot be listed in a Region article only? Second, I think it is very notable that our only regular Icelandic contributor does not think this is an article.--burmesedays 21:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
- It's definitely questionable whether the Blue Lagoon merits its own article based on Wikitravel's standard criteria, and were it less popular there probably wouldn't need to be further discussion. However, I would hazard a guess that the Blue Lagoon is the country's second most visited spot (behind Reykjavik) so it's important that Wikitravel cover it and definitely worth considering whether it merits an exception under existing policy. Most people going to the Blue Lagoon will do so as a day trip or half-day trip and will need info on how to get there, what to expect, whether food is available, etc. If that can be adequately covered as a listing in a region article then that might be the best option, but it seems like it may just make more sense to keep the info in its own article rather than trying to wedge it into something that looks more like a standard Wikitravel attraction. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:34, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
- I have to admit, I'm slightly perplexed by this discussion. The Blue Lagoon doesn't fit any of the loose criteria there is for exceptions for article status: It's not remote, it's not large or complex. It's not a park of any kind, or an independent destination in its own right. For the visitor it functions much like any other pool: You get there (driving yourself or by bus), pay, shower, swim, shower again, maybe eat in the café, and leave. In addition, there's a restaurant and a gift shop. And that's about it unless have psoriasis, in which case your doctor can recommend you go there for treatment. The only thing that makes this place possibly warrant a separate article is that it doesn't fit in the Reykjavík article (it's not in Reykjavík) or the Grindavík article (very few who visit the Blue Lagoon actually enter the town). The fact that many people go there isn't, in my view, reason enough for a separate article. In fact, apart from the introduction, there is very little content in the current article other than what I just mentioned. Some of what's there is even slightly silly and shouldn't be there, in my opinion (taking a taxi and making it wait outside is just stupid, and this article lists the rules that apply to every single swimming pool in Iceland).
- However, this rule globe-trotter mentions about no listings in region articles is highly problematic in the case of Iceland. Most people come their not for the urban areas, but for the stuff in between them. People come to experience nature, towns are often only where they go to eat and sleep. The sights and activities do in many cases belong better in region articles than city or town articles. If this is a rule, I would see much more use in getting an exception from it rather than the rule on what is an article. --sterio 05:24, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
- That means the cities in Iceland should cover a broader area than just the city itself. For example, Kanchanaburi is a city that covers a huge surrounding area, as travelers use that as a base for all the natural attractions in the area. Bali gives a good example how to divide a whole island. About the Blue Lagoon, maybe an article Reykjanes Peninsula could do it? Or we could include it in Reykjavik, as that is where most travellers come from. --globe-trotter 07:23, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
- Sterio's latest comment is very telling to me. This is clearly not an article.
- I ask again if there is really a rule that an attraction cannot be described in a region article and nowhere else? If that is the case, just stick this in the nearest city article as the attraction that it is.
- As an aside, I don't see anything wrong with the regional split of Iceland. The plan was actually re-done quite recently with extensive local input from User Sterio.--Burmesedays 09:52, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
- I have not proposed re-doing the regions of Iceland, I just proposed a new article at the lowest level of the hierarchy, similar to Bukit Peninsula in Bali. But I don't know Iceland well enough, it was just a suggestion. Regions only give an overview, no listings, as written at Region article template. I agree that it is an attraction, but wouldn't know which city it should be placed in. --globe-trotter 11:30, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
- Attractions definitely can be listed in regions, but I'm pretty certain our practice and discussions permit them only in "bottom level regions"—"region" articles containing no separate articles beneath for cities or other destinations. They essentially serve the same purpose as a city article, but do so for an agglomeration of rural areas and towns that do not warrant their own articles. This discussion has the most information on this topic, but is going to just confuse anyone not very familiar with the topic to begin with. I'm going to whip up a blurb in Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy, and see if it's acceptable for those involved in the evolving discussion.
- I do think that this article does not meet our article criteria, and runs afoul of our Wikitravel:Bodies of water policy, so ideally, I vote merge and redirect, but only if we can come up with a good place to which we would merge and redirect (I do not know Iceland enough to help with that). Otherwise, I'd vote keep as an exception on the pragmatic basis of not having a better option. --Peter Talk 11:32, 30.September 2011 (EDT)
Keep it! It is nice guide to this destination and helps a lot to the tourists! Helped to me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
- Weak Keep, unless someone can come up with a redirect that makes good sense. I agree with Peter. --inas 18:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
- Any further comment? It seems like the right move is to keep this article for now, and continue discussion on the article talk page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)
- I agree with your resolution. --Inas 17:07, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Result: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:27, 3 December 2011 (EST)