Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2015

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← July 2015 Votes for deletion archives for August 2015 (current) September 2015 →

A possible copvyo in addition to being not an article. What good does it do to keep it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a real place, so policy is to merge and redirect. The obvious merge target is Moscow, or one of its districts.
On quick inspection, it looks to me like most of the current text should be lost along the way and the whole thing reduced to under a dozen lines, either a listing or a paragraph. However, I might be dead wrong; someone who knows Moscow should make that call. It is even possible the article should be kept as either a travel topic or an additional Moscow district.
See Canton Fair for an example of a redirect for a somewhat similar place. Pashley (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the place is listed on Moscow Outskirts:
  • 1 All-Russia Exhibition Centre (Всероссийский выставочный центр), Prospekt Myra (просп. Мира), 119 (M: VDNKh 1.3km SE, Botanicheskiy Sad 1.8km N), ☏ +7 (495) 544-3400, . A permanent general-purpose trade show. The exhibition was established February 17, 1935 as the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition, all of the pavilions were to be constructed from wood. In 1959 the park was renamed, - Exhibition of Achievements of the National Economy ( Выставка Достижений Народного Хозяйства Vystavka Dostizheniy Narodnovo Khozyaystva) or ВДНХ/VDNKh, -& rebuilt. By 1989 the exhibition had 82 pavilions with the exhibition area of 700,000 square metres. Each pavilion (including the 1939 "regions" example: Leningrad, Armenia, Belarus, Karelia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, North Caucasus, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan) had been dedicated to a particular industry or a field: the Engineering, the Space, the Atomic Energy, the People's Education, the Radioelectronics & the Soviet Culture Pavilion. In 1992, VDNKh was renamed, receiving its current name VVC. It occupies 237ha of which 26ha are used for indoor exhibits. It has approximately 400 buildings. Some sights here: pavilions, fountains, a luna-park, Ferris wheel, Cosmonautics museum, Cirkorama theatre and even a rocket. Map. 

Ibaman (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it is huge — a hectare is 10,000 m2 or 107,000 ft2 — 80 years old & a permanent exhibition. Definitely not delete, but I'm not sure how it should be handled. Pashley (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A subheading in See in the Moscow Outskirts article? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge as appropriate and redirect to Moscow Outskirts, per User:Nastoshka's remarks in Talk:VDNH. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's now been over a month since consensus was achieved yet no action was taken... What gives? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please just plunge ahead; merge and redirect. If after two weeks consensus is to keep, merge and/or redirect, any Wikivoyager is welcome to go ahead, do that and archive the discussion here. Only if the consensus is to delete, it requires a moderator to delete it. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hobbitschuster, thanks for redirecting the article, but it should be redirected to Moscow Outskirts, not Moscow. And where did you merge the appropriate content to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about redirecting to the wrong place. I thought we had established the danger of this being a copvio to high as to rather not use the text. Or am I mistaken on this as well? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm not suggesting that all of that should have been moved, verbatim. However, if there is no listing for VDNH in Moscow Outskirts, there should be one, and it might be appropriate to summarize some of the text that was in the VDNH article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Ibaman posted the listing above. Do we need more of the content in VDNH to be folded into this listing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do think so. Or actually, not so much more, but it would be good to rewrite the listing to give it a more inviting character. While odd, I liked the place (although it's been a long time since I visited). I undid the redirect for now; consensus was indeed not to simply delete and redirect, but to merge and redirect. That's exactly why such articles have to wait a bit, sometimes, even when there is consensus. It takes a little time and effort to do any merge. I do think there are a few good points to take from the article. I have no time this weekend, but if no-one else will get around to it, I'll do it next week. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RESULT: merged and redirected to Moscow Outskirts

First off: I don't know whether this place even actually legitimately exists. Second off: Most of its content are just crude jokes written by somebody who appears to dislike the place and/or its inhabitants. Third off (is this even sound English?): de-WV does not have anything to say about this place, despite it being in Germany and particularly North Hesse, an area that de-WV usually covers very extensively, which suggests there to be not much of value to the voyager there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The town is shown on OSM, so the place does exist. It's true that the article needs extensive copyedits, but our policy is not to delete real places, and I've not seen any evidence that the town is unimportant enough to be merged. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it exists, w:de:Dipperz. The English-language w:Dipperz is a one-line stub, but there might be something useful in de.WP's article? K7L (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no travel relevant content in the German WP article. Just the last two election results and a half paragraph on history that mentions the first mention of the place and not much else. I would thus favor a redirect as our policy on real places is to not delete them (even though I would think it to be not a bad idea here) Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we being so hasty in judging Dipperz unworthy of its own article? It's no more possible to come to the conclusion that a place has no relevance to travelers based on its Wikipedia article than based on its Wikivoyage article. For instance, a quick Google search shows that Dipperz contains several hotels, so it passes the sleep test. The article may need to be gutted and rebuilt from scratch, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that at least half the article seems at least potentially to not be vandalism (everything up to and including "See", as well as "Go next"). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:AndreCarrotflower, please look at the edit history. What you deem to be "not vandalism" was either added by me or the last few sentences put in by the vandal who created the page in the first place, which I thought might indeed be credible (though obvious) Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How it came to be is not really relevant; the question is rather what this article can become. As far as I can tell, this place is indeed not all that interesting in itself, but it serves as a base for visitors who come to enjoy the natural features of the region. I too question if this article will ever be a proper one, but I'm also not sure where to redirect it to. There's a lot of towns like it in the area, so redirecting all of them to Fulda doesn't seem right. North-Hesse is too large a region to contain listings, so we can't use that as a container-region like we've sometimes done to solve this issue. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a real place so according to policy it should not be deleted. I do not know the area & am happy to leave the choice of keep vs. merge & redirect to those that do. Pashley (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RESULT: kept. Any good options for a redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page.

As much as I love this image, the Hat has been removed from the park and so the image no longer serves a purpose in our travel guide. Powers (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems uncontroversial. Based on your reasoning, I'd support a Speedy deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RESULT: Deleted. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding a template every time we want to include a ₹ symbol is not a good idea from any standpoint -- readability, usability, or technical. The Rupee symbol is available in the box beneath the edit window for anyone who doesn't have the Unicode index memorized. (Of course, we should subst: all of the uses of this template before deleting it.) Powers (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the template should go, but it is going to be a lot of work since it is used in many places. See "what links here" for the page.
Template:INR is a redirect which should go as well. Pashley (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the effect of this decision on the intelligibility of articles (and, therefore, the interests of the reader/traveller), I oppose deletion, unless a bot is created and used to convert these Unicode symbols before the template is deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's not strictly necessary to create a bot for this purpose as there aren't that many transclusions that will need to be corrected. About three dozen articles use this template. It'd be rather tedious to do manually, but I took care of a longer list that way when we deleted Template:ICAO. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have an opinion either way, but converting the template to a symbol is an easy task using AWB. If consensus is for deletion and no one else is comfortable using AWB for this task, ping me and I'd be willing to do the necessary updates. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I argued before we made the change that we should just keep "Rs" as the ruppee symbol, same as for Pakistan & Sri Lanka, to avoid this problem.
You can fix it by adding the right unicode font. Pashley (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Also consider template INR which is a redirect to Indian Rupee.. those articles could be fixed and that template removed as well. There does not appear to be that many articles linked to either template - can assist in editorial work as well - let me know - also ₹ in a template listing I think is a bad token in the listing editor - Matroc (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being badly written and not complying with our manual of style, this article appears to be about a private resort or something of the sort and thus would also not comply with our rules for what is an article in the most cases; I do think in this one as well... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a real place, w:Koh Kong (island), and not all of it is a private resort.
Yes, there are plenty of problems, but it is far from vandalism or unsalvageable. I suspect just a new user unfamiliar with our manual of style and somewhat shaky in a 2nd (for all we know, 5th) language. Such people need aid & encouragemnt, not to have their contributions deleted. Pashley (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a first-pass copy edit, putting it partly into our style. If it is kept, it will need more. Pashley (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After the issues were pointed out to him, the user vowed to return and further improve the article. Which he never did. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into a listing in Koh Kong and redirect. See discussion at Talk:Koh Kong island and also (if you really want to) at User talk:Dryland94 (you may have to go into the history of that user talk page to make greater sense out of it. By the way, you will see at the end of that user talk page that the user did not vow to return, and also why such a user didn't need "encouragement", but simply got abusive at being asked to work within policies. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dimly recall that he at some point wrote something like "this article is not yet finish" (sic!) or something to that extent somewhere, which would imply he was going to continue editing it, which he never did. I however don't think this user could have ever turned into a positive contributor. But that's not the issue here. The issue at hand is whether this place deserves an (its own) article. For me the answer clearly is no. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect is fine with me. Pashley (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what are we to do now? The article still exists, but I think it is unsalvagable and does not deserve its own article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is now a month since this was vfded. Is there any sign of any way to move forward? User:Ikan Kekek, User:Pashley, what do you say? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is pretty clear: merge and redirect. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was the only one arguing for keep & I later agreed with merge & redirect. Pashley (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged and redirected to Koh_Kong#See. --Saqib (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

smacks of page creation vandalism Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's keep assuming good faith; this IP created only one article. It's not unlikely he/she lives in some (small) town called Taipan - at least by his/her transliteration. I already posted on their talk page with a request for additional info. If that will not come (which is likely), deleting makes sense. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
K7L: -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two associations I have with this word are an Australian snake and a misspelling of Taiwan... I don't care whether we delete or redirect, but the article in its current form appears to have no snowball's chance in hell Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I would say redirect a location that has no points of interest to the closest place we have an article on. But as we are only guessing here where or what the contributor is referring to I propose deletion, unless more information is forthcoming. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure we're "guessing"? There is only one Taipan in China. No guesswork necessary. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's arguing to keep the article as-is. It's between "redirect" and "delete outright". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But as far as I can tell, the town of 'Taipan' doesn't exist. I'm suggesting rename to Taipanxiang and the redirect to Guizhou --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RESULT: renamed to Taipanxiang and redirected to Guizhou. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2015&oldid=4924684"