Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2014

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← July 2014 Votes for deletion archives for August 2014 (current) September 2014 →

I'm going to significantly work on Taxila guide and hoping to bringing it up to guide status in upcoming weeks but I would like to start from scratch as most of the material has been simply copy-pasted into this article from Wikipedia. I've started my draft at User:Saqib/Taxila. --Saqib (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. This article has a history going back to 23 December 2006‎. I'd suggest that you go ahead and continue with your draft, substituting at will whenever you are ready, but that the article stay up as is in the meantime. [Edit: See discussion below - I'm willing to countenance deletion under specific conditions.] Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but as I said I'll need couple of weeks to complete the article so during that time, what if someone contributed to this one in main namespace. Don't you think it will make difficulty in later merging that newly added material to this article into my draft? To clarify my RfD, once this article get deleted, I'll eventually move my draft into main namespace. --Saqib (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth dropping some sort of template or {{notice}} on the article to point to the draft, much like w:template:construction or w:template:in use indicate something is in the process of being rewritten? K7L (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pashley (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, and develop the draft in your user space. Once it's more or less ready to go into mainspace, we can decide if it's reasonable to delete the old version and post your draft as a brand new article. I'd be okay with that in principle, since all major contributions are pre-move and mostly from Wikipedia anyway. However, you'll have to make sure to not use the current article at all. A template should help, indeed. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about keeping this article, as others seem to enthusiastically want to do. Keep in mind we're dealing with a copyvio here - regardless of the fact that the source of the information is one of our sister projects, it's not properly sourced per the CC license. I think that's a pretty tough argument to get around. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, an important part of the article has been improperly attributed - but it was attributed, probably in good faith and in a way that was quite common on Wikipedia itself for a long time. Easy enough to fix (I will, for now), but of course we prefer original content, so rewriting and replacing seems a good idea. However, a substantial part was not copied, and considering the effort to attribute, I do think "copyvio" is a rather harsh judgement. There's no harm in leaving the old article up while Saqib works on the new one. Everyone satisfied :-) (But I can't say I'll mind much if we delete it now either). JuliasTravels (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than simply giving attribution, we should completely remove the material in Understand section. I remember IK once said me that copy pasting content from other websites including Wikipedia lower the search results for our articles. I'm planning to travel to Taxila very soon (as part of my journey across Pakistan) and I'm pretty sure that I'll able to bring my draft up-to guide status thereafter but as of now, I also do thinks that my draft is a lot better (though mine was is not complete or even not near usable yet) than current copy in main namespace. Anyways, I would still suggest you guys to please consider moving my draft into main NS. --Saqib (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to move your draft into the article, why don't you go ahead and do so? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but majority of votes above clearly says to keep the current copy. I can go ahead, delete the current copy and replace it with my draft but I just don't want to get into any conflict. --Saqib (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, Ikan is proposing that you merge the text of your draft into the article without deleting it first. Most of the commenters above objected to deleting and then recreating it. What Ikan is proposing essentially does not amount to anything more than simply editing the article. You don't need permission for that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not in favour of it. If I'm getting it correct, IK and Julias have stated above that once my draft is ready or nearly ready, we can delete the current copy in main NS and move my draft into main NS and as I said above "I do thinks that my draft is a lot better (though is not yet completed) than current copy in main namespace" and I think I'm it is almost ready to go live. I don't understand why IK now suggesting me to incorporate my draft text into existing copy. --Saqib (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can do anything you think best, up to and including substituting your entire draft for the current article. All I object to is deleting the article, and thereby deleting the article's editing history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, keep if only so we keep the attribution & history. I see no reason to consider deleting the current article. I do think your draft is better and large chunks of current text should be replaced; I'd say we could start that process now but if you want a bit longer to work on it in user space that is OK too. Pashley (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For an earlier example of copyvio text being replaced, see Talk:Silk_Road#Early_discussion. That rewrite was done in 2006 but article history still goes back to 2004; we did not delete the article, just replaced the text. Pashley (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguably fine to delete and replace a new article that's purely copied from Wikipedia, but one with such a long history should not be considered for deletion and replacement, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strange! after reading above comments, now I realised there was actually no reason to start an article from scratch in my user namespace if now we're not going to delete the existing copy. I could had simply start editing the existing one if I knew the conclusions and it would have been a lot much better. But anyways, can we at-least now merge both the articles rather than simply doing a copy-paste so that Pashley will be credited too in the history since he've made contributions to my draft. --Saqib (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is possible. Delete the existing article and move yours into its place. At that point, it's possible to undelete any old revisions you want to keep - effectively merging them into the edit history of the new article. A couple of caveats: keeping the old revisions raises attribution issues (including that pesky "contains content from other websites" footer that we really want to lose from an SEO standpoint) and, once merged, the two article histories are rather awkward to pull back apart if you want or need to undo this for any reason. Certainly, though, this is valid as WP admins use this approach to repair copy-paste moves. K7L (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm trying to get rid of that annoying footer but can't argue since the community is clearly in favour of keeping it. --Saqib (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will no doubt affect our search engine results. Taxila is the most visited and important site of Pakistan and having an article on it without WT footer will give us pretty good SEO. Many people may able to use our guide. On a related note: I created Mohenjo-daro from scratch last year with no WT footer and so far the article got 10,000+ page hits whereas biggest cities of Pakistan (Lahore and Islamabad) both still have less than 6,500 page hits just because they've WT footer. I think we should delete antique articles (where possible) for the sake of better SEO. --Saqib (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the old version of the article and replace by a new version prepared by Saqib and Pashley (by moving it). The content is completely new (and better and, I believe Saqib will keep improving it), so no reason to keep the WT footer. Danapit (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dana. Ikan Kekek, on English Wikipedia, two among the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is article age and number of editors involved. Other than that, on many occasions, articles repeatedly created and deleted on English Wikipedia, even featured articles I've been told. --Saqib (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, you referenced arguments about notability. We don't deal with such arguments on this site, so the fact that the age of an article is no proof that its subject is notable is not relevant to our deliberations.
I would prefer for the article history to exist somewhere, though I understand the point of eliminating the attribution notice at the bottom of the page, and if others think it's totally alright to eliminate 8 years worth of history and delete the article, I won't stand in the way. However, I would like an explanation of when and why it's OK to do this, before any deletion takes place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I maybe wrong with my referenced argument. I don't understand what do you mean by "why it's OK to do this before any deletion takes place". Btw. If you really want to keep the article history, one compromise would be to rename the current copy in the main NS to Taxila (Pakistan), delete the redirect, rename my draft to Taxila and redirect Taxila (Pakistan) to Taxila. In this which we can keep the 8 years worth of history of Taxila. --Saqib (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Will that work for SEO? I've edited my previous post, so that it's at least a bit easier to understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks for co-operation and yes I'm pretty much sure it will work for SEO purpose. Now back to your question, I'm not in hurry to make move since this one is not a speedy deletion candidate. I prefer to keep open this discussion for 2 weeks as we do usually with VfD's but as I said above what if someone contributed to article in main namespace, their edits will go hidden somewhere behind a redirect. Also in the meantime, I request you to either strike your "keep" vote or change it to "delete" for record. I will continue to develop my draft and ask everyone to make edits directly to it. --Saqib (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, Saqib, I'd like to be cautious. I'm willing to support a form of deletion that maintains the article history, providing that there is a consensus that agrees to this. So I'll strike out "Keep" above, but I want everyone to understand, as you do, that I am not giving blanket support for a simple deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The solution you suggested with keeping the history is an ideal one, I find. Danapit (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I view this as a one off to see if it changes readership. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find Saqib's compromise — "rename the current copy in the main NS to Taxila (Pakistan), delete the redirect, rename my draft to Taxila and redirect Taxila (Pakistan) to Taxila" — acceptable. To me, deleting the current article and losing the history is not acceptable, whether or not we then manually restore parts of the history. Pashley (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be unnecessary, and could result in the retention of the "this content was copied" notice. I think it might be better to archive the current article to Talk:Taxila/Old version or something similar (not in the main namespace) in order to retain the history. Powers (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Seems like a good way to meet everyone's concerns. The footer shouldn't have that much influence on SEO without the direct links to WT, as long as the content is completely rewritten from scratch, but I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of allowing users who want to do a full rewrite of a low-quality article to get rid of the footer saying it is "copied". So Archive and replace. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine too. Pashley (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article deleted and recreated. --Saqib (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intended as a joke, I suppose, but I don't think it should be left in the main namespace. I think it should be speedy-moved to a bad-jokes-and-other-deleted-nonsense subpage, but I just wanted a second opinion before doing so. Texugo (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The writer himself said it was "gallows humor." I support your intention to move it to the jokes page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and also yes to making this a speedy move. JuliasTravels (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, speedy move. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Moved to Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Islamic State. Texugo (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails the basic "can you sleep here" test. Appears to be a day trip destination that could be added to another article. --Tbennert (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Redirect. First of all, "can you sleep here" doesn't mean "if there are no accommodations, we can't have an article". It means "is it a community, the type of place where you might expect to find a room, or is it an attraction, where you visit and then go somewhere else to sleep?" Second of all, it's a real place, and we never delete those. Always redirect real places. Powers (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, where do I bring up a merge/redirect when the talk page does not seem to be appropriate? If it were obvious I would merge/redirect without discussion. I do understand "can you sleep here" and was using that as a quick way of saying "there are some super awesome pyramids at this spot and nothing else so I don't know what to do with eat,buy,sleep etc. because it's clearly not the same as a museum, etc." and this would fall into attraction. If I have been mistaken and should bring this article to a different page, I would appreciate the guidance.--Tbennert (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't get a response to a merge discussion on the talk: page, post a link to that discussion on Wikivoyage:Requests for comment or Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub so it'll be seen? K7L (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged with Saqqara --Saqib (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info about Rail travel in Canada and USA has apparently been collected in the same article at some point. Now that article basically just tells you to go to Rail travel in the United States and Rail travel in Canada, or for other parts of North America, to the country articles. The outline travel topic template at the bottom of the page says the article has not been edited for over a year and should therefore be deleted or merged. And finally, the article is not even listed on Rail travel. Therefore let's delete it. The "discontinued international pass" part can be merged into the articles/countries the information applies to. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem just leaving it as an index page? Powers (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't see the harm. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to keep the "discontinued international pass" unless there's some reason for the traveller to expect this to exist. What's here isn't worth keeping as an outline travel topic as it conveys no useful info (and no, the criteria for keeping a topic aren't the same as the criteria for a disambiguation or redirect). K7L (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't really care about keeping it one way or another, but if we do keep it, I think we should drop the note about the discontinued pass and reclassify it as a disambig page. Texugo (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be just a sneaky bit of agenda-pushing; there is no reason to presume, just because a map has a height or width specified in {{mapframe}}, that this represents a problem worthy of dumping an article into a maintenance category. This should be reverted and the corresponding category deleted until such time as there is both rationale and consensus for this change. I really don't see why we need this right now. K7L (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this nomination is inappropriate. This category is harmless to you, does not affect the content of any article, and represents nothing but factual information, like other maintenance categories such as Category:Has standard banner. It provides useful information which is otherwise unavailable, allowing us to see where and why people have decided the map default was unsuitable, whether it's for the purpose of making corrections (i.e., I found some that were inexplicably very tiny, like 150x150px), or consulting good examples of how it should be done, or any other that might be useful to consult, especially while we are discussing future policy on the subject and especially given that the prevailing policy candidate indicates that default size should be used unless there is a special reason not to. If anyone is pushing an agenda here, I suspect it might be the one who wants to suppress this factual information so that it remains unavailable and unconsultable. My suggestion would be to retract this nomination. Texugo (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is harmful is not the category, but spending loads of time removing other people's work. There was no consensus regarding the need to revert non-standard map sizes, and in many cases you did change legible maps with legitimate reasons for non-standard sizing. As somebody who actually DOES use those maps (I print them out via print-screen as displayed in the article, assuming that whoever sized, centred and zoomed them knew what they were doing), I find them very useful as they are. I don't run around with an online device but rather with printed copies of Wikivoyage guides and I have found maps of Stockholm very useful on the trip I have just returned from. As not only a Wikivoyage editor, but first and foremost user and traveller, I feel my interests were compromised in an ill-advised attempt for standardization. For the record, I find nothing wrong thwith the category though. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to avoid changing "legible maps with legitimate reasons". If I have missed something, please feel free to point it out on the appropriate talk page, and we can figure out if there is really a reason. None of the Stockholm pages were peculiarly shaped to the point of needing centering, that I could tell. Otherwise please respect the long-established practice of centering only images which are necessarily panoramic, at least until the policy discussion is concluded. And for any further comment not specifically regarding the existence of this category, please go back to the discussion at Wikivoyage talk:How to use dynamic maps. Texugo (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are removing parameters including height=, width= and layer= from {{mapframe}} just about everywhere, on an indiscriminate basis, and this maintenance category is a tool to assist you in doing so. As such, this has everything to do with the category - which should not have been created. The question isn't whether "this category is harmless to you", the question is whether it is harmful to the project. I believe it is, and it should be deleted unless there is consensus for its creation. K7L (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. To be honest, I've not really had a chance to look at this category much yet, although I did find a couple of cases with inexplicably super tiny maps. I also saw quite a few where the map dimensions were altered just a little to make something fit, etc., which I think is fine. I haven't really used this category for any significant action. What I did yesterday was to root out the cases where the map was centered for no special reason, and in most of those cases, there was no particular reason for a size change either, so I pulled that out too, not least because it was often quite exaggerated to make it look better as a centered map. Texugo (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And at any rate, our aversion to categories has never been applied to maintenance categories, and if you were to delete maintenance categories which had no prior consensus for creation, you'd have to delete almost all of them. Texugo (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused here. I pay little attention to maps since my abilities with graphics are only marginally better than those of the average turnip; I just work on text, add co-ordinates when I can, and rejoice that others do maps. Over the last year or so, it looks from where I sit like they've been doing very well.
This nomination starts by claiming that the category "looks to be just a sneaky bit of agenda-pushing;". It seems to me exactly the same could be said of the vfd nomination. My reaction is basically "a plague on both your houses". Move the discussion back to Wikivoyage talk:How to use dynamic maps where it belongs.
Meanwhile, keep the category since no deletion rationale based on Wikivoyage:Deletion_policy has been given and the category can do no harm unless it is misused. If you feel it is being misused badly enough that the talk page discussion is not enough, see Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits. Pashley (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Unless it's misused"? It only has one use, an index from which to find articles from which to arbitrarily remove {{mapframe}}'s height=, width=, layer= parameters. That is a misuse of the category system for a disruptive purpose, and grounds enough to nominate the category for deletion. The talk page discussion of undoing the change to the mapframe template (or changes to specific articles, such as Ottawa and Calgary) doesn't preclude deletion of the category being discussed here. K7L (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one of my edits went against any established policy or practice. Adjusting something to an accepted default when the alternative has been controversial cannot be classified as "disruptive", and there was decidedly nothing arbitrary about it — in fact, what was completely arbitrary were the subjective and status-quo-breaking aspects of the layouts which I set back to default. Texugo (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. There is no policy forcing dynamic maps to one specific size, so you should not have made changes to such a large number of articles to force them to one size without prior consensus. K7L (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those sizes had been set specifically for the image to be centered, and it therefore made no sense to keep them when moving to the right, and/or they had apparently had their settings arbitrarily copied from whatever other article the person learned to insert mapframes from. At any rate, no prior consensus was apparently needed for whatever user to pick a size in the first place, and no prior consensus is required for me or anyone else to come along and change them any number of times afterward. This wasn't some bot edit. I did look at each change I made and I tweaked coordinates and zooms to make sure they look OK. In some cases I left the altered sizes in there, in many I felt they were unnecessary. The point is that the settings I replaced were no less subjective than my own, so I don't think you get to condemn my edits on principle. Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, the category in question was created more for informational purposes, I have not made any significant mapframe edits since I created it, and I won't interfere if you'll keep your size adjustments within reason and keep the maps on the right as we have always done. But I do want to be able to see what's going on with these, especially while the policy discussion is ongoing. Texugo (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've hit a long list of articles, everything from Ottawa to Calgary, with edits removing height=, width= and layer= parameters from {{mapframe}}s across multiple destinations. When called on it, you attempted to find support to rename the parent category:articles needing attention to disguise that this subcategory is basically a hit-list of all destinations with custom-sized maps, attempted to pass off your changes as modifying "centring" instead of "size" (when the category name makes this clear this is about size) and created a pointless category for everything in special:whatlinkshere/template:mapframe as a further distraction. You've also tried to claim that some existing policy or status quo forces maps to a specific size; it does not. We do avoid galleries of large photographs to keep download times low but that's photos, not maps. VfD items are guilty until proven innocent, especially if they're not actual real, geographic locations (which can be redirected to avoid deletion debate). Furthermore, if you want to conduct an "experiment", a template in use on over a thousand articles is not the appropriate venue. Experiments are normally limited to one or a handful of tiny, off-the-beaten-path destinations until consensus is obtained. The template needs to be reverted unless you can obtain consensus for these edits and the category deleted. K7L (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
as it stands now, this deletion debate has devolved into a petty he-said/he-said. This discussion appears to at least obliquely touch on larger issues than the simple question of whether or not to delete this category, so what we need to make a consensus-based decision is participation from community members other than the two major players in the discussion, who represent viewpoints that oppose each other in an entrenched way. Let's get some outside perspectives, please, because I, for one, am pretty tired of the pointless back-and-forth. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with having a category to list maps which are non-standard. But I do find the mass edits that followed questionable. I find that it takes 10-20 minutes to add a properly considered map so that the size is just right to include what is wanted, with the best layers for the destination. The mass edits were being done at more than one per minute, and I think quite a few need to be reversed. Please keep the category, but do not take widespread action without agreeing a plan of what is to be changed. (I am assuming that there is no performance impact of having the category.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the category for now, but considering the controversy that has arisen, consensus should be found regarding the edits. I don't think the two issues are intrinsically connected. I also don't think creating the category was against any policy, nor did it clearly require prior consensus. The same might be true for the edits, but as those have been challenged, it's obvious that we'll need a normal discussion about them before proceeding in any direction. That discussion should probably take place elsewhere, however. JuliasTravels (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage talk:How to use dynamic maps#Massive standardization of non-standard map sizes - Texugo (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same rationale as Category:Maps with non-default size. There is no existing policy or status quo stating that height=, width=, layer= or alignment parameters should be stripped en masse from our articles. A change to remove the fields from over a hundred articles *is* a mass update, so should not have been done for such a controversial exercise without obtaining consensus *first*. Ditto for the changes to {{mapframe}}, a template used on more than a thousand articles. Delete the "hit-list" categories, roll back the edits and obtain consensus before making controversial changes which affect a hundred or a thousand pages. K7L (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation as the above category. The nomination for deletion is unfounded and inappropriate. Maintenance categories and templates are at least given the courtesy of tagging them with {{experimental}} and seeing how it goes. Considering that both categories provide purely factual information otherwise unavailable, information that is relevant to the ongoing policy discussions, and considering that neither harms or even affect any other page in anyway, they are certainly not some nefarious thing to be attacked and deleted on day two. We have a number of other maintenance categories of this type, none of them hurting anybody, and most were started in the same manner, not requiring consensus to start them, and generally kept after the experimental period unless people generally agree they have no utility whatsoever. Since they are purely factual, the type of edits that can be made from them is actually irrelevant, as that is also not a valid deletion criterion, but even if you think it matters, none of the edits I made using either category was anything but a correction, fully supported by policy, of something which we do not have any consensus for. My edits aside, unless somebody can demonstrate a clear and valid deletion criterion applicable to these categories, these should be retracted, and you should restrict your misguided ire to the conversation at Wikivoyage talk:How to use dynamic maps. Texugo (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The {{experimental}} status is for testing a change on one or a tiny handful of low-traffic pages. A mass edit of over a hundred pages does not qualify. K7L (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same process as with existing maintenance categories. You keep talking about changes to hundreds of pages, but it doesn't change anything on any of them, as you well know, it only affects the category page itself. And repeating that allegation a fifth or sixth time will get you the same answer: it's immaterial and fully within precedent. Texugo (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, if we had to limit experimental new categories to one or a handful of articles, it wouldn't even be worth experimenting with because it wouldn't even serve its intended function. Texugo (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same rationale as Category:Maps with non-default size. Pashley (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same rationale as Category:Maps with non-default size. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the mass edits (I haven't looked into them), but that's another discussion. JuliasTravels (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental template and accompanying category. They were created before the implementation of {{mapframe}} and partially duplicate its purpose, but using (unnumbered) picture icons instead of our now-standard color coded numbers. When asked about it back in December of last year, creator Traveler100 stated "I would not want to retire the idea until I see an alternative method on how to label points of interest along a route by type." However, no further work has been done on it. The last developmental work/discussion was more than a year ago, and the template is not used in any main namespace article. In response to Traveler100's concern, alternative ways to "label point of interests along a route by type" such as Template:Map key have been suggested, but have not garnered much interest either. This particular approach here will never get off the ground now that we use {{mapframe}}; listings with coordinates already get a numbered color-coded icon, and thus adding this in would cause every listing to have two different colored, different style icons at the beginning of the line. It was a valiant effort, but it's been given plenty of time and I'm afraid it's run its course.

Which is exactly why I tagged him above, so he should have gotten a notification. I don't mind waiting a little longer, of course, but we shouldn't wait forever or keep it just because the creator hasn't spoken up. Texugo (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2014&oldid=4924712"