Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2023

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← July 2023 Votes for deletion archives for August 2023 (current) September 2023 →

Sri City

Nothing to see, nowhere to sleep. The Do section says "trekking, hiking, picnics, fishing & boating" without any specifics. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. That's a nonsensical point of view. This is a city of over 275,000 per Wikipedia. It should have an article, and what's currently there should be cleaned up, with the "Get around"s put in "See" as relevant. We should be using information on sites like https://sricity.org/. I'll do some preliminary work on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No way does this city have 275k inhabitants – I !voted delete after looking at the city on OSM and unless it's including the surrounding settlements. Right now, only two of the eat listings are actually in Sri City itself, with the rest all being in Tada. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you're right: I misread this text in w:Sri City: "Sri City forms part of Satyavedu and Varadaiahpalem Mandals of Tirupati District. It is part of the Satyavedu constituency for the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and the Tirupati constituency for the Lok Sabha. As per 2011 census the total population of the Satyavedu constituency is 2,77,010." So it's part of a constituency that had a population of 277,010 in the 2011 census. I see that there is indeed a Tada article. If it would be best to merge and redirect, that's OK with me, but deletion is not OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or conceivably redirect. Pashley (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although there is only one listing on the map as in the city there are several in neaby Tada, including a hotel. Needs more work, but it is a useful business destination. AlasdairW (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into Tada is ok. I hadn't realised that we had a Tada article, and I don't know whether Tada or Sri City is a better name for the merged article. AlasdairW (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, a quick Google search reveals seven places where you can sleep nearby and around 10 sights/activities which can be seen/done around Sri City. And as mentioned above, business travel is just as valid a form of travel as recreational. Ridiculous nomination. Gizza (roam) 01:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Tada article says "Tada is at a walking distance from Sri City," Would it make sense to merge Sri City into Tada & redirect? Pashley (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a much better solution and one that I'd favour over deleting. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The city has a pop of around 250,000 and so is not a small place. In addition, it has a number of hotel options (https://sricity.org/hotels-resorts/). It just needs a traveller to type them in. SingyeDzong
Of the six hotels at your link, two are in Sri City, two in Tada & two in w:Sullurupeta.
Is this one of those situations where we want a region article with the towns redirected to it? I'm inclined to doubt it because the towns are substantial, but I'd like to hear from anyone who actually knows the region. Pashley (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (although merging might be okay too). It looks like this area is under development and will likely become a legitimate business destination. Agree with comments that it needs more info, especially hotels. I'd also recommend finding an authoritative source for the population number. I find nothing legitimate to support that 275,000 number but do see references to the population being as low as 6000. (In this article this article], it says "...the total population of 6142 (1893 households)..." There is a big difference between a population of 6K and 275K... I think we should refrain from any mention of population if it can't be verified.
Mrkstvns (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: no consensus on whether to keep or redirect, thus kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Unblock

Newly created by an anon/IP user with no other contributions. It seems to me only experienced & trusted users should be messing with templates, & there's a procedure to be followed for new ones that has not been used here. I was tempted to just do a speedy delete.

On the other hand "what links here" shows many pages, so I'm asking instead. Pashley (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted once several years ago. Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/January_2015#Block/Unblock_templates Pashley (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone should read the discussion at the link. Nothing has changed except for the creeping Wikipedification I noted below. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The pages shown in "what links here" were generally last edited before this was created. Either they were using the template before it was deleted in 2015, or the editor just assumed that the template existed here. AlasdairW (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I find it ironic that we block IPs and then just expect them to request an unblock, as if they were just expected to know how to ping or let an admin know, while half this wiki don't know how major templates work (because they couldn't be bothered to check the template documentation). The template may need a revamp, but that can be handled on the talk page, not here. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that it was usual to leave a message on the talk page of the IP saying why they were blocked. They can then reply to that message explaining why they should be unblocked. If we want an unblock template then it should be imported with proper attribution, or our own version created, complete with documentation. AlasdairW (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, it's common for users to miss replies if they aren't pinged and having an unblock request being put in a category also gives blocked users a sense that their unblock request will be reviewed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless. Just state why we should unblock you. If you can't do that, you haven't put in even minimal effort. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know that users who are blocked should do that? When I was blocked on bgwiki last year, assuming there was no proper process (there is one on bgwiki, but not here) I certainly wouldn't just leave a comment asking to be unblocked knowing that there is a very high possibility that it might not be read. My first port of call would be to use an unblock template (if the wiki has one) or leave a message on the admin's talk page on Meta. Never would I even consider making myself look dumbfounded by replying to a comment that could potentially never be answered. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would admins be more likely to see a template than a post? And what if we did? What's important is to give us a reason to unblock you, not a template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could be more noticeable if it included a tracking category and admins watched that category, but it doesn't and they don't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because such templates typically include a tracking category (such as Category:Pending unblock requests), whereas a simple message in plain text doesn't. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage is not a big enough wiki to require that. I would oppose getting special notifications for those. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is part of the unfortunate drive to Wikipedia-ize Wikivoyage. Wikivoyage does not need to become so bureaucratic and template-heavy, and we have been fighting an increasingly rear-guard war against this creeping process. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an attempt to be more bureaucratic and "Wikipedia-ize" Wikivoyage, this is putting Wikivoyage in line with the hundreds of other WMF projects that do have a clear proper process for being unblocked. It's about user experience, and I know this from experience because I have been (erroneously) blocked before. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You won't receive special notifications for those – since when did you think something added to a category automatically does that, Ikan Kekek? In addition, what part of the code do you think does that (cf this to enwiki or Commons templates, per se)? If you couldn't find the code that automatically does that, that is what I thought. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't do that, it's definitely not as good as someone simply leaving a comment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which has a lot of flaws, as I mentioned above. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument builds on the user already knowing the procedures on other Wikimedia wikis. If they do know their ways around the Wikimedia universe, they can easily find a way to contact somebody and should not be discouraged by not finding the template. On the other hand, those that do not know their ways around aren't helped by an unblock template, unless its existence is told to them – instead ask them to say whatever they want to tell on their talk page. It should be watched by the user leaving the message, and is probably seen by others watching Recent changes. LPfi (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that should be told via a block template. "It should be watched by the user leaving the message" creates a lose-lose situation for both involved parties – blocked users simply don't know when they'll receive a response under poor UX and admins have better things to do than to watch the user talk pages of blocked users (what if they're travelling, per se?) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I monitor new comments on user talk pages; don't you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not when I'm travelling. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not very relevant. You think you'd monitor some template while traveling? Why do we have multiple admins? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that's exactly why this template works – it adds the unblock request to a category, which can then be reviewed by other admins. Why is that so hard to understand? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People have already used red-linked "unblock" templates. The result, to my recollection, has always been a confirmation of the block, because they provided no good reason to unblock. This is a tiresome discussion. I and others have said it all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think someone should remain blocked because they used a template that they thought existed because it is used on 96 other WMF projects? Yeah, I'm not surprised by your stance, coming from someone who outright deleted a perfectly valid unblock statement that would have gone unchecked were it not for ThunderingTyphoons!'s perseverance. This discussion is only becoming tiresome because you are not willing to change, bring up random arguments that have nothing to do with the template, and make spurious claims by not understanding how this template is meant to work. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous and you know it. Unblocking or not unblocking people has nothing to do with a template, and you are out of line. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User experience while blocked does, which does have something to do with a template. Sigh... SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In saying that, I do support Pashley's suggestion which aims to resolve UX. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need Wikipedification. –LPfi (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see we have a Template:block; it should be easy to get admins to drop that on most blockees (not spambots or long-term abusers) talk pages, and this seems much more plausible than expecting blockees to know about an unblock template.
Just edit the block template to make sure it has
a link to the block log entry
clear instructions on how to request unblocking
& we are done. Pashley (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. We would need to have agreement on how and when to use the template instead of (or in addition to?) a text statement of why the user was blocked. For example, it's logical after having used the tout template to then state "You have been blocked for an initial period of 3 days accordingly. Please use this time off to read the links you were given above." But that's not about deletion and should be discussed elsewhere, such as on the talk page of that template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted a related template; see User talk:KingCrocMan. Conceivably it might need to be restored at some point, though I think not. Pashley (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. Pashley (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All other templates copied from another wiki and pasted by User:92.251.26.251

These templates, so far, are Template:Sockpuppeteer; Template:Sockpuppeteer/sandbox, which is a redirect to the former; and Template:Unblock granted. We need to prevent the unauthorized copying of templates from Wikipedia - and especially irrelevant templates (sockpuppeting is not against Wikivoyage rules; only behavior that violates rules is prohibited). Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can close both this & the template:unblock discussion above, since they have now all been deleted with the comment:

(Mass deletion of pages added by 92.251.26.251, crosswiki vandalim (global sysop action))

A few have also been tagged as protected to prevent re-creation. Should we do that for the rest and/or block the user? Pashley (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user is already globally blocked for a month, so I think we're good. I think you're right that since all the files were deleted, we can close this discussion. Any objection from anyone? We can wait one more day, in the unlikely event someone has an objection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. Pashley (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2023&oldid=4714316"