Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2022

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← July 2022 Votes for deletion archives for August 2022 (current) September 2022 →

I really don't understand why we have redirect for 4 June 2004. Cross-wiki namespaces should generally be avoided, and especially not a redirect like this in namespace 0 (it also has no page history behind it apart from an edit by Matroc). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted. Ground Zero (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear scope, created (and only edited) by an IP user and I don't see a discussion approving this page. Since this is not an official Wikivoyage policy or guideline, I really cannot see a convincing argument for keeping this. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a draft for a changed layout. But it has been untouched and uncommented for eight years, so will probably not advance. If somebody thinks there are merits to it, we could discuss merging it in, and if that is done we should probably keep it in some form, but otherwise it can be deleted. As it stands it is a bit confusing. –LPfi (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a short discussion about it in the pub, see Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub/2013_(additional)#Help_pages_clean_up. It could be moved (no redirect) to somewhere in the pub archive space if we want to keep it, but I don't see this as essential. AlasdairW (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do find this "new version" much easier to read. It will be nice to apply that to the official policy page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But unless this draft becomes official, it cannot stay in projectspace. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a much clearer presentation than wv:tdf. I have started a discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Time and date formats to propose incorporating this version into the policy. Ground Zero (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Result of this nomination? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus so probably best to leave it open for another 7 days. It's unlikely to ever become policy as we discourage the use of tables, but we'll see how the discussion goes. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, there is no consensus to use this, and given it fails on my phone (and many others'). Delete? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that now that there has been a proper discussion about adopting this format, there is a reasonable argument for keeping it, after adding a large notice at the top making it clear that this is not the current policy. Alternatively an extract from this could be pasted into the discussion. Otherwise somebody thinking of something similar next year will not know what has already been considered. AlasdairW (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept due to a lack of consensus. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most people when seeing "PIN" in all caps think of the personal identification number they need to use at an ATM to get money, so when I saw this redirect, I was expecting it to go to an article about banking, but instead, it goes to Wikivoyage:Postal codes. Apparently, postal codes are called "PIN codes" in India. If we don't delete this redirect on account of its being confusing, I think we would have to turn it into a disambiguation page, and do we really want a disambiguation page for two non-destination terms, one relating to banking and purchasing and the other relating to mail? See Wikivoyage talk:PIN codes for more context and discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the second page would you link on the disambiguation page? The 'when to put postal codes in an article' page, plus ??? We don't have pages like Wikivoyage:Banking or Wikivoyage:ATM, and it doesn't make sense for a page in the Wikivoyage: namespace to link to actual articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep First of all, quoting the policy, "As a general rule, redirect pages should not be deleted." Nowhere does it say, confusing redirects (in this case, this isn't even confusing at all) are an exception. I'm not going to repeat my argument, but see Special:Diff/4486907. It's a term commonly (albeit redundantly) used in India, so someone may very well be searching that term up. If this were in namespace 0, I'd have supported deletion (and I'd not have created such a redirect in the first place) but this is in namespace 4 (i.e. projectspace), so the chances of us needing a projectspace page for banking is next to zero. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A general rule has exceptions. I think we would all agree that as a general rule, redirects shouldn't be deleted, but that there are cases when they should be. This thread is to determine whether this is one such case, and I hope you don't mean to say that if a consensus votes to delete, you wouldn't consider that legitimate because you believe "a general rule" means "never". Care to clarify your views on this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would expect PIN codes to link to an article about banking, or possibly about protecting your valuables ("set your phone to have a pin code to prevent others using it"). It shouldn't link to Wikivoyage:Postal codes as the article doesn't use the term. If the redirect is a kept a sentence must be added explaining this term. It should always be possible for the reader to find the redirected term in the article, otherwise they just give up and go elsewhere - then redirects are expensive as they cost us readers. AlasdairW (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm on the fence. On the one hand, it's confusing to anyone not familiar with Indian English, as already proven by those of us who thought it was Australian, or that it referred to bank card PINs, as it does in much of the world. For that reason alone, it's not a great redirect unless it's the only likely search term that an Indian Wikivoyager would think to use when searching for our postcode policy.
But on the other hand, how likely is it that we'd ever have a Wikivoyage policy about banking? A redirect that's clearly pointing to Wikivoyage space is never going to land you on a mainspace article about money. So yeah, initial confusion is justified, but if you think about it, the idea that anyone would be searching for our nonexistent credit card policy by typing "WV:PIN codes" is a little farfetched.
If anyone is going to search this, it'll be an Indian, and they'll be looking for the postcode policy. Would anyone with the appropriate qualifications care to comment on how likely this is? 🙂 --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!: Not someone from India, and my experience in India has been pretty limited to South India, mostly in Kerala, but I will note that I heard "PIN codes" very often. Most notably, my driver kept requesting what the "PIN code" (not just "PIN") was from getting between destinations – I'm not exactly sure why though, but he did (often in sentences like "What is hotel PIN code"). Meanwhile, I, on the other hand, a brand new visitor to the state (and India for that matter), had no idea what he meant. Another local (with good English proficiency) eventually told me what "PIN" and "PIN code" meant. Now I will add that my stay in India was only for a bit more than a week so I really don't know whether this is the case throughout or just in the South. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PIN code is undoubtedly in common use in India; that's not in question. My question (which no one who has commented yet would be able to answer) is whether Indian Wikivoyagers would only use the term PIN code, and not think to search for any other expression before giving up.
If that's at all likely, then the redirect serves a purpose.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My views mostly align with TT's comments. I think we need to keep this and add some content to the target ("We may use postal codes (US: ZIP codes; India: PIN codes)...") to help people understand why they ended up there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could do the second thing regardless of the outcome of this nomination. Oh look, I just have.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete /as a useless project space redirect; changed vote based on the discussion below this comment and after a careful read of the policy: "As a general rule, redirect pages should not be deleted. Redirection pages provide alternative page titles for articles and allow search engines to locate articles by their alternative names -- this is not relevant in this situation because the target is not an article, it's a policy page/. I added a disambiguating hatnote (Special:Diff/4487307; EDIT: and Special:Diff/4487309), which I believe should suffice. Twsabin (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I think a little harder, I have to admit that the redirect in the project namespace is odd, because who will ever type: W-i-k-i-v-o-y-g-e-:-P-I-N-... Would someone speculatively type it to see if a policy under that name exists? Redirects are supposed to redirect to relevant pages from realistic search terms IMO. Maybe a better argument for deletion than the one relating to the confusion with bank PIN would have been the one that the redirect is probably completely useless as such. Twsabin (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it is useless clutter. Pashley (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how it's "useless clutter"? It's a redirect and redirects don't take up maybe 20 bytes at max – the exact opposite of "clutter" and that itself is not a valid reason for deletion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether somebody would use the redirect. Is it realistic that an Indian editor would look up our policy by that name? It isn't about 20 bytes (although I'd guess at 4 kB at minimum), but cluttering the namespace. If it is likely that somebody uses the redirect and wouldn't easily find our policy without it, then by all means keep it, but I find that scenario very unlikely. We shouldn't make redirects for all possible search terms. –LPfi (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we allowed redirects if it was standard in a different English variety, right? From w:MOS:ENGVAR, I thought such redirects were encouraged. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is useless because it redirects to the wrong thing, not the normal use of "PIN code", because it is in the wrong namespace & because it is an unlikely search term. If we did need something for PIN code (we don't!), it would need to be a disambig not a redirect & in mainspace not project space.
It is clutter because it is useless & in the wrong namespace. Pashley (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have Wikivoyage:Spelling guidelines, Wikivoyage:Spelling at Wikivoyage, Wikivoyage:Orthography, Wikivoyage:Orthography guidelines, ... It is better to have just a couple of names for a certain guideline, as otherwise people might start using the alternative names in discussions and it becomes very hard to know whether any one such reference is to the well-known page. I get very frustrated by people using redirects in discussions, forcing me to either memorize them or click every time to check what they are talking about. –LPfi (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The difference with those you linked is that those aren't used in other English varieties, while PIN (stands for Postal Index Number in India) is, though maybe a French speaker might tend to use orthography (as it's similar to the French word orthographe). Point is that if there is someone from India looking for the postal code policy, they'll be entering "Wikivoyage:PIN" (and the rest should autofill). You could technically make the same argument for wv:zip – to me, "zip" means a zipper. But no, for some reason we've decided to respect the US term but decided not to for the Indian term. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were the one who added Wikivoyage:ZIP and I in fact objected to it (note my comment: "If we're going to have any redirect, I think it needs to be from Zip code"), your argument is not that strong, although to be fair, W.Frank added a redirect for Wikivoyage:Zip in 2013. But why do we need any of these redirects and how likely is it for people to look for such terms with "Wikivoyage:" at the beginning? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they are seasoned Wikipedia users, they might type that in, looking for the policy. If they ponder whether to include a postal code in a listing and don't find it as Wikivoyage:PIN, then they should try Wikivoyage:Listings or somesuch. Or they could use some more generic term – and I think "postal codes" would come pretty high on that list. A user cannot depend on the existence of a certain policy or policy shorthand. –LPfi (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus so the nomination is left up for another 7 days. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this and the ZIP code redirects - I've come off the fence, persuaded by the most IK "why do we need any of these redirects and how likely is it for people to look for such terms with "Wikivoyage:" at the beginning?" and LPfi "A user cannot depend on the existence of a certain policy or policy shorthand." I would still plum for keep if someone from India addressed my above question as to "whether Indian Wikivoyagers would only use the term PIN code, and not think to search for any other expression before giving up", but that doesn't seem likely at this point.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept due to a lack of consensus. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for a bit more context, but this was created by an IP who's a serial copyright violator and banned from this site (and also on the Italian Wikivoyage). In this case, this article was cribbed from the Italian Wikivoyage with no attribution (as with this LTA's contributions) and isn't even one of the districts listed in Milan#Districts. This leaves us with two options:

  1. Delete
  2. Redirect to Milan (as this overlaps with the city centre and South districts so you can't redirect it to one district)

I favour deleting this in order to erase the unaccredited copyvio from the Italian Wikivoyage from the page history, whilst Ikan Kekek also mentioned on the talk page "If we had to redirect it to the article for the entire city, I'd rather delete it.". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: One possible solution is to recreate a "Milan/Quadronno District" article after deleting this and redirect it, but only if we can redirect the term to a specific existing district. If we can't, I do think deletion without recreation would be the least bad outcome. I think it's worth asking, though: how bad is it to translate an article from another Wikivoyage, not state that in any edit summaries but state it in a thread on the article's talk page? Does that constitute sufficient acknowledgement for the purpose of copyleft? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always add {{translated}} on the relevant talk page which is sufficient attribution, but I still feel very skeptical of keeping a banned user's work. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page is currently empty, and you and I are the only people participating in this thread, plus it's just a translation of the it.voy article, right? So I think we should be patient, but as things stand, there's no consensus to do anything with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete the work of a banned user. This isn't a likely search term. Readers interested in Milan will use that as a search term, and go from there. Just putting a "translated" tag on the article will encourage the ban used to keep doing what got them banned in the first place. Ground Zero (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What content did the user copy? Copying from Italian Wikivoyage may be a violation on technical grounds, but I wouldn't put it in the same tier as copying non-free content. However, if this is definitely an LTA, I'd support the ban, and I'd support the speedy delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked User:31.190.252.156 for block evasion and copyright violation; there is every reason to believe that User:31.190.238.181 and User:151.21.151.19, who are responsible for the article (now redirect) at issue in this thread, are the same user, so it would make sense to block those IPs, too, and delete the redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably delete Lierna, too, though someone will argue that not all of the IPs are the same user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those IPs seem to geolocate to Lavena Ponte Tresa, Provincia di Varese, Lombardy (not sure whether that's close to Lake Como), but let's keep Lierna to another thread given it's been edited by numerous other IPs.
re SelfieCity's comment: "if this is definitely an LTA" – yes, Ikan and I have spent hours cleaning up this user's mess + copyright violations, particularly on this user's Lake Como beach stubs. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but individual yoga centres that are hardly famous cannot have redirects of their own. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The linked page has never been an article (it was created as redirect). The article was at Isha Yoga Centre (see the history), discussion at Talk:Isha Yoga Centre (including two VFDs and an implemented merge proposal). That other page may need to be kept for attribution (it was attributed in the merge), so they are different cases. However, given that talk page history, even if it is about the other page, I think a speedy is not appropriate. I notice that the redirect is linked twice and the centre mentioned thrice in the target article. Some clean-up is needed (I removed one listing that seemed related). –LPfi (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to keep a redirect for Isha Yoga Centre, as you said, but why do we need a redirect for "Isha Yoga Center"? Delete. Surprisingly, their name is Isha Yoga Center, spelled that way, so I guess we should keep this redirect. :( Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally, we shouldn't be having both these redirects (since yoga centres are a blatant violation of wiaa), but Isha Yoga Centre is the one with the page history, not Isha Yoga Center (hence why I did not nominate Isha Yoga Centre for deletion), so even if the yoga centre uses the AmE spelling, it's unneeded for the most part as this has no page history (apart from a bot edit + the creation). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both redirects. I'm tempted to say remove the listing in Coimbatore too since the center is miles from town, but I suppose it can be kept.
Would anyone be inclined to write a travel topic article on Yoga in general? Searching for "yoga", I find Yoga in Rishikesh which looks to me like it violates Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals statement that providing "yellow pages" is explicitly a non-goal, plus a lot of listings in other Indian articles & some elsewhere. Then there's meditation which overlaps somewhat. Pashley (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isha Yoga Centre cannot be deleted for attribution reasons. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can be deleted if we remove or reword the derived content, which is the course of action I'm leaning towards. I haven't had time to read the VFDs or or the involved articles properly. –LPfi (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-written the merged content to address the attribution concern. Ground Zero (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I'm now in favour of deleting both. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support deleting Isha Yoga Centre, because the fact that we have a listing for the center at all is due to the prior existence of the article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does keeping a redirect for Isha Yoga Center create a precedent for people who want to create redirects for Sleepeasy Hotel, Mabel's Diner, or Babylon Niteclub? Ground Zero (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. The only reason we have this redirect is that the article was not speedily deleted. Any new article for a hotel, diner or nightclub would be speedily deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Ground Zero edited out all the merged content.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He did, but the likelihood that there would be any listing for this center at all if it had not previously had its own article is not high, and it's a counterfactual, in any event. I see the way the wind is blowing, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify, that refers to the Isha Yoga Centre redirect, not this one. Maybe everyone should make clear whether they are voting for both or only one of the redirects to be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both for my part. They're variations of the same thing, despite the different edit histories.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one can be deleted. It is not needed for attribution and we don't usually provide redirects to listings. For the other one, I have sympathy with IK's argument. There is no need for attribution copyright-wise, but we can give attribution out of respect for other's work and to keep the history of the site as clear as possible. It hasn't been nominated, so in theory that discussion is premature. –LPfi (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Isha Yoga Center deleted; Isha Yoga Centre can be dealt with in another nom. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2022&oldid=4500044"