Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2008

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in August 2008. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/July 2008 or Project:Votes for deletion/September 2008 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Scotland National Scenic Areas edit

I originally started this page as there was an article for United Kingdom Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the equivalent designation in England and Wales), but not one for NSAs. After reading, and taking part in, some of the discussions on other vfds above, I think this information should be moved into Scotland and/or the appropriate regions, and am happy to do the work. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep. I understand Tarr3n's logic, but I believe the original reason for establishing such pages was to avoid long, straggling lists on the main articles. This has not changed. At the same time, they make it easy for people to locate national parks in a country they are visiting without having to check every regional article. However, pages such as these should serve only as pointers to the main articles. They should not be developed into fully fledged articles in themselves... (WT-en) WindHorse 05:58, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Merge into UK national parks. One article can cover everything here. (WT-en) Pashley 08:00, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
(WT-en) Pashley's idea of merging seems a good one, with a redirect on this article to United Kingdom National Parks, which should be able to happily incorporate the lesser designations. This discussion has been up for more than 14 days and I'm happy to do the work unless anyone objects to the idea? (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I have carried out this merge, and the relevant redirects. (WT-en) Tarr3n 07:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Merged

United Kingdom Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty edit

As with Scotland National Scenic Areas, I don't think this needs its own article. The information on the Welsh AONBs is already duplicated in Wales, and I would suggest that the English AONBs be listed in England and/or the relevant regional articles. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep. I understand Tarr3n's logic, but I believe the original reason for establishing such pages was to avoid long, straggling lists on the main articles. This has not changed. At the same time, they make it easy for people to locate national parks in a country they are visiting without having to check every regional article. However, pages such as these should serve only as pointers to the main articles. They should not be developed into fully fledged articles in themselves... (WT-en) WindHorse 05:58, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Merge into UK national parks. One article can cover everything here. (WT-en) Pashley 08:01, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
(WT-en) Pashley's idea of merging seems a good one, with a redirect on this article to United Kingdom National Parks, which should be able to happily incorporate the lesser designations. This discussion has been up for more than 14 days and I'm happy to do the work unless anyone objects to the idea? (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I have carried out this merge, and the relevant redirects. (WT-en) Tarr3n 07:36, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Merged


United Kingdom National Parks edit

Same argument as United Kingdom Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Scotland National Scenic Areas, I just don't see a need for this to be a Travel Topic in its own right. I suggest the information should be listed in England, Wales or Scotland as appropriate. (Wales already has it.). (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep. I understand Tarr3n's logic, but I believe the original reason for establishing such pages was to avoid long, straggling lists on the main articles. This has not changed. At the same time, they make it easy for people to locate national parks in a country they are visiting without having to check every regional article. However, pages such as these should serve only as pointers to the main articles. They should not be developed into fully fledged articles in themselves... (WT-en) WindHorse 05:58, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
I have carried out this merge, and the relevant redirects. (WT-en) Tarr3n 07:36, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep and merge the two articles above into it. (WT-en) Pashley 08:04, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
(WT-en) Pashley's idea of merging seems a good one, with a redirect on the other 2 articles into this one, which should be able to happily incorporate the lesser designations. This discussion has been up for more than 14 days and I'm happy to do the work unless anyone objects to the idea? (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I have carried out this merge, and the relevant redirects. (WT-en) Tarr3n 07:36, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Merged

Rafting in trisuli river edit

Complete copyviolation with total disregard to WT article templates. --(WT-en) Nick 12:00, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Speedy deleted. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted on 2008/08/12 and again on 2008/08/20 after it was recreated --(WT-en) Nick 15:17, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

All images uploaded by User:Sal edit

I meant to do this a while ago but forgot... he uploaded quite a few images, that are clearly not all taken by the same photographer... some I believe are copyvios from Guide360.com, though I can't get that website to load now... but a google search for 8718201a0abeffee2.jpg turns up the same Faisal Masjid pic, and I saw it there originally when he uploaded. I think we should delete all images that he's uploaded. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 21:24, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete A good call (as usual). --(WT-en) OldPine 08:51, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, if an uploader misrepresents a copyrighted work as his own, that seems to me a good reason not to trust any of the user's other uploads. (WT-en) JYolkowski 21:44, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome:

I'm going to leave this here for now. Some of those images are also on wikipedia and I'd like to try and confirm the copyvio's so that I can remove them from both wikis. Just don't have the time to do it right now. --(WT-en) Nick 03:46, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 15:29, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Image:Mulu park map.gif edit

Copyvio, listed here rather than speedy so that the uploaded can see why we are deleting --(WT-en) Nick 17:33, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 15:35, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Live from Jordan: Letters Home from My Journey through the Middle East edit

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:34, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Matlock edit

There is a town called Matlock in Derbyshire. I've never been there, but I know it bears no relation to this farrago of fantasy and b/s.(WT-en) Jnich99 05:09, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep and delete erroneous info. (WT-en) WindHorse 05:34, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep all of the info - its all valid and useable info —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 203.9.151.30 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2008 July 30
    • In that case, perhaps you could provide a link to the Matlock International Airport, for starters? (WT-en) LtPowers 08:53, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Matlock International Airport (MIA) is currently updating its communication streams. There will be a relaunch of the website in the coming weeks. Please try and keep your emotions under-wraps... i know its an exciting time for everyone involved with MIA. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 203.9.151.30 (talk • contribs)
      • Uh-huh. Delete and start over. We don't even need this stuff in the page history. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:53, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Amusing in places but this is not the place for it. At least this might be the catalyst for a real article about Matlock, which I believe is an interesting spa town. (WT-en) Tarr3n 10:03, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
  • did you really find it amusing? maybe i should get a career in comedy writing... —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 203.9.151.30 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2008 August 3
    • So, anonymous editor 203.9.151.30, how about you turn that talent to writing a real destination guide to Matlock? It does look like an interesting spa town. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
      • to be honest, the guide is pretty much accurate... there are a few minor discrepancies... they are all minor tho. —The preceding comment was added by 203.9.151.30 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2008 August 6
  • To be honest, "minor discrepancies" is stretching it to describe statements and references such as "oldest conurbation in England", "earwax in the atmosphere", "Cherbourg to Maidstone ferry", "Matlock International Airport" and the "M1.5" motorway. Enough... joke's over, we've all had a laugh, so maybe you can either make the changes required to turn this into a proper guide, or it should be deleted at the end of the month. (WT-en) Jnich99 10:52, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep, this portrays an accurate picture of Matlock although some information on the former site of Europe's largest subterranean brothel would also be nice.
  • Keep the page as there is a real town by the name of Matlock. Delete the info(WT-en) WindHorse 23:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
  • OK, I've made a start.... (WT-en) Jnich99 05:18, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:39, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Image:TourismSearch-99.jpg edit

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:43, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Pyramids of Egypt at Giza edit

Created today, filled with text that is not very coherent, has a copyright notice and thus is likely a copyvio, and does not match WT:MOS. I blanked the page, but I think it should be deleted too. Note that we already have a real destination article at Cairo/Giza. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:47, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 03:32, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Abby, Lara edit

Created today as vandalism. I've blanked them. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 03:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 03:32, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

User talk:(WT-en) Glasses2 edit

  • Delete. Not a valid travel article topic - advertising. (WT-en) Nrms 11:24, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
  • In general, with user talk pages made entirely of advertising, it's best just to blank them, as someone has done. User talk pages are valid on Wikivoyage, even if their contents are not. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:06, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted content

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2008&oldid=2010258"