Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2009

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in April 2009. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/March 2009 or Project:Votes for deletion/May 2009 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Australian English phrasebook edit

Not sure whether I want it deleted or not, but a lot of this is similar for other English-speakers as well (cheers, yeah, boot, bloody hell, bite to eat, etc.). Not just that, but a few of these would probably bring laughter if a non-Australian tried to use them (Mate, how much a bloody ticket to ___?). Australian isn't really a dialect of English, which would merit its own phrasebook, but rather a collection of region-specific slang which isn't imperative for comprehension & which, in my opinion, doesn't merit a phrasebook. In that case, we'd also need a "British English phrasebook", an "American English phrasebook", a "Southern (US) English phrasebook", an "Indian English phrasebook", and a "Simple English phrasebook". Maybe someone could incorporate a few of the Australian-specific slang terms/phrases in a subsection of "Talk" in the Australia article. (WT-en) AHeneen 04:02, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Delete, or userfy if anyone really wants the article. The point of phrasebooks is to give novice speakers enough grounding in a language to get by. People using this language version of Wikivoyage should already be proficient in English; any English speaker can already ask questions and understand answers in Australia, so no phrasebook is necessary. Variations in slang are not so profound that "Where is the bathroom?" needs translation. The introduction even admits that the phrasebook is just for fun and for interpreting the Crocodile Hunter (who, frankly, wasn't all that unintelligible to begin with). (WT-en) LtPowers 09:08, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. I think that differentiated English phrasebooks for other Wikivoyage versions can be useful, but that is besides the point. I don't think that English Wikivoyage should have English phrasebooks; after all a lot of our contributors and readership are Australian. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:08, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Bugger, I sort of like it --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 16:51, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep, and I feel strongly it shouldn't creep into the Australia article. 1. It is not devoid of use for travelers, it makes a point about Australian English beyond just the words. Even if you think the words are easily intelligible, there is a useful point for travelers being made there too! Many travellers are interested in Australian slang. 2. It does no harm. It is maintained, it is not a spam magnet 3. Incorporating it into the main article Australia article would not be of benefit to that article. Check the New Zealand article and the edit history to see how ugly and how much of a distraction it would be to move it there. 4. Similar information is in many other travel guides, so Wikivoyage should include it for completeness. 5. If it really doesn't fit into the phrasebook set (because it isn't really a phrasebook), we should just make it a travel topic. --(WT-en) Inas 19:35, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
I have much less objection to it in travel topic form. It would be nice to convert it fully away from the phrasebook template, and give multiple "translations" for each slang word into multiple local variations. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:00, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Okay, well unless anyone has a better suggestion, after the 14 day expiry, I'll take on the task of moving it into an Australian slang travel topic, and fix up the links appropriately. --(WT-en) Inas 06:50, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Rename and make travel topic

User:(WT-en) Maj/Sandbox/Lausanne edit

Are you able to have Star Users? haha. I don't know if you want to delete the user, but the star status seems a bit self-congratulatory. THey obviously copied the page for Lausanne and made it... themself. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 10:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

  • Delete - This is an unattributed copy of content from our Lausanne article, and thus violates our licensing provisions. I realize "copyright violation" isn't listed on the deletion policy page for userspace content, but it should be. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:36, 5 March 2009 (EST)
  • Keep - He, erm, first off it's a personal user space, which should mostly be left alone, lot's of users have sandboxes - nothing wrong with that, but I'd have no problems removing the star tag, if it shows up on category list. 2nd Maj is one of the founders of Wikivoyage, so that self-congratulatory thing, might be pushing it a bit :) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 10:40, 5 March 2009 (EST)
  • Speedy Keep - This was a test page Maj created in her own user space, it doesn't violate any Wikivoyage policies, so there isn't any justification for anyone other than Maj deleting it. I've removed the two tags that are causing it to appear in category listings to resolve the issue that originally caused the page's VFD listing. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)
  • Speedy keep. There is absolutely no precedent for deleting sandbox pages for "licensing violations"—this would lead to absurdities, such as not being able to keep (WT-en) this article in progress in my userspace, since others have worked on it. The fact that the sandbox in question belongs to one of Wikivoyage's founders underscores the absurdity. In any rate, if you want to see a policy change, start a discussion. Running vfds that don't have any deletion policy rationale in order to circumvent the basic practice of consensus building and discussion is a misuse of policy. This is something we have had problems with (serious problems) in the past, and we should probably note this at the top of the vfd page to make this point as clear as possible. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:28, 5 March 2009 (EST).
Erm, take a deep breath please. The nomination was done by a new user, who's made some solid contributions, and were trying to help out. No big deal, just the price of wiki democracy. More a matter of removing the star tag, than it has anything to do with sandboxes. LtPowers delete nomination however, is another matter, but let's not scare good contributors away eh? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:39, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Excuse me? There's unattributed content on that page; it seems a clear violation of the CC-by-sa license to me. I have no quarrel with a temporary sandbox page but that page is unaltered in over two years; that's too long to let it stand without attribution. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:20, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Okay, virtually unaltered. Certainly unaltered by Maj. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:21, 5 March 2009 (EST)
The "unattributed" argument is probably best handled as a separate discussion on Project:Deletion policy. If the argument is that copying a file within Wikivoyage (as opposed to using the "move" command) turns it into a copyright violation then all sandbox articles are thrown into question, as are any pages that were merged, improperly moved, etc. That discussion is most definitely outside of the scope of this single VFD. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:29, 5 March 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. The attribution provisions of cc-by-sa require attribution when the work is publically displayed or distributed. I could see an argument that a user's sandbox is just a private working space, and not a public display or distribution in the same way as wikivoyage proper. Perhaps we need to clarify this? In any event, if the decision was to remove this as a copyvio, then every sandbox that contains a copy of wikivoyage content would have to go. The argument that transitory sandboxes are okay, but long term ones are not, doesn't (in my view) have any support in the licence text. --(WT-en) Inas 20:10, 5 March 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. This seems clear. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:25, 6 March 2009 (EST)
  • Speedy keep. Yet another nomination which fails to indicate a reason, per policy, why this nomination exists. Also, the whole point of user space is to let people try stuff, and copying actual content is a good way to do that! -- (WT-en) Colin 00:32, 7 March 2009 (EST)
  • ABSOLUTE KEEP! If anyone should have a copy of an article about Lausanne in the sandbox area off their user page then Maj should. She started the page [1]! Therefore any other versions are based on derivation and copies of her activity. Since the article only exists because she started it, I think she has the right to keep a working copy of the Lausanne in her user area. Also, I fail to see how the Wikivoyage website can be in breach of its own copyright licence. The licence primarily exists to permit third parties have the right to redistribute and republish Wikivoyage content on another website. The reason we, as authors and administrators do not permit copyright violations is because we need to have the permission or licence from the copyright OWNER so that we can republish their content. Finally, where does it say in the policy that we delete copyright violations on sight? I thought the policy was to seek permission of the owner, first, and then delete only if no permission was forthcoming. - (WT-en) Huttite 09:17, 7 March 2009 (EST)
    • PS: If you read the page history you will find the copying was deliberate and performed by User:(WT-en) W66LinkBot - presumably as a test - before releasing the bot on the whole wiki. I would recommend restoring the page to exactly the state it was in and adding a note at the top of the page that this is a test page based on the Lausanne article. That would satisfy any copyright attribution issues. - (WT-en) Huttite 09:26, 7 March 2009 (EST)
  • Having started the page in no way gives her license to copy other users' text without attribution. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:51, 7 March 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. It's a sandbox. They've been around from the beginning, and have been a useful part of many contributors' working methods. If anyone thinks they're being ripped off because Lausanne mentions their name but User:(WT-en) Maj/Sandbox/Lausanne doesn't, they have bigger issues than we can solve here. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:18, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: kept (WT-en) Pashley 10:45, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

The Royal-Imperial Route in Poznan edit

No links to or from it. Merge into Poznan, delete this. (WT-en) Pashley

It has been expanded some and tagged as an itinerary. Worth keeping now, I'd say. (WT-en) Pashley 08:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I don't care one way or another whether it stays as an itinerary or not, but the "The" has to go for sure. Just seems severely anti-wikivoyage style to have that. (WT-en) Texugo 16:05, 20 February 2009 (EST)
  • Keep, possibly rename. Would be awkward to have this in the incorporated in the Pozan article. --(WT-en) Inas 18:55, 26 February 2009 (EST)
  • Keep This is a perfectly valid itinerary that a user is working on. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: kept (WT-en) Pashley 10:57, 22 April 2009 (EDT)


Futami edit

  • This page is about a district/subdivision of Ise. I don't believe Ise has enough to do/see to warrant making districts for the city, and since Meoto Iwa is one of the city's main attractions, it seems to make more sense to put everything on the Ise page and delete/redirect this link. I've written this on the talk page, but I thought I'd call attention to it here and get feedback before merging. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 12:56, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
Ah, I didn't realize I could redirect it myself. Sorry. It has been redirected. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:14, 28 April 2009 (EDT)


Outcome: Merged and Redirected (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 11:40, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

Travelecuador edit

Falls outside the scope of the type of articles we cover. I'm holding off on a speedy delete to let the user figure out our policies. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:54, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. We get a lot of these types of pages, which are most often introduced for SEO, and this article clearly meets the first listed criteria for speedy deletion. Education is better done on the user's talk page, rather than going through this bureaucracy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:18, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Nuked. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:09, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Nuked again — User:(WT-en) Travelecuador recreated it. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:35, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

www.vistazure.com edit

Falls outside the scope of the type of articles we cover. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:54, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Speedy deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:09, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Images by User:(WT-en) Mostroman13 edit

I left the user a message several days ago asking to clarify the source of this image, which I found quickly off-site [2], and which is an apparent copyvio. No response, and I believe the rest of the images he uploaded ([3]) are suspect as well. (Additionally, all images were uploaded to :en, which makes me suspect he was not paying very close attention to our upload messages.) I'd recommend we give the 14 days to allow the user to notice the vfd, after which we should just delete all images uploaded by the user. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:48, 12 April 2009 (EDT) [4]

Agreed — nice detective work. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:21, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Delete. TinEye finds more off them offsite. -- (WT-en) Colin 23:56, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Whoa! That's a useful site! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:14, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I found another copyvio [5]. Two weeks are up — nuke 'em. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:39, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:25, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

All images by User:(WT-en) Ђорђе Д. Божовић edit

From this, it would appear that this user was uploading copyrighted files without permission. I say speedy delete all images uploaded by said user [6]. But I'll hold off on doing it until I see some other support for doing so. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:01, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Delete. Since three of that user's other image uploads were already deleted as positively-identified copyvios, and no further license information for the others was provided in response to earlier requests, I'd consider the remaining images greatly suspect even without a complaint. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 14:32, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Speedy deleted --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:10, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Blood pressure edit

Contains only general advice, which is already covered by Travel Health; no topic-specific content that merits a full separate article. Tends to be a magnet for commercial third-party links, too. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 19:12, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Keep. Until such time as Travel Health page becomes active. Perhaps more research and contribution rather than delete.
    • Oops, miscapitalized. That page is active, but it's actually Travel health. As for more research, what's there suggests that there's not much to do - it doesn't seem to be a topic that requires any special precautions beyond general medical planning, so there may simply be nothing else to say. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 15:37, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge into Travel health.... there's definitely no reason to have a whole article around for this... if it becomes large and unruly at some point, then we can revisit then – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 21:41, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Resolution: merged. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 12:58, 23 April 2009 (EDT) (with assistance from anon. user)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/April_2009&oldid=2091562"