Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2012

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← November 2012 Votes for deletion archives for December 2012 (current) January 2013 →

Islamabad (disambiguation)

Per here. --Saqib (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2012 (CEST)

  • Delete - "According to old map of British India (1836), Anantnag was called Islamabad by some" so unlikely to confuse any traveller today! --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:45, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
  • Support - What I said on the talk page. JamesA >talk 13:48, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 02:36, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete. Keep. Apparently there is still some active usage of the name Islamabad, and it is a historical name of the city. A disambiguation page could help site readers, so there is no reason to delete it.--Globe-trotter (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Comment. After a bit of research, it does appear there is a recent push from Islamic Kashmir to know this place as Islamabad. However, I don't think this is likely to be an issue facing a traveller. --Inas (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Comment — The official government site for Anantnag has this to say: "but still the name Islamabad is Popular among common masses, though officially the name Anantnag is used." [1] So there is some evidence of actual current usage, not just historical use. — Ravikiran r (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
We can mention Islamabad name as being the former name of Anantnag in the article. --Saqib (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep. As long as searching for or linking to Islamabad gets you to the correct article, there is no reason not to have this disambig page. Pashley (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
As a general rule, I think old names should be supported. See User talk:Pashley/Archive#Test_old_names Pashley (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOCleft

JamesA brings up a good point above: this template is completely unused. Of the four links to it anywhere on the site, one is this page, and the other three are only mentioning it in passing in years-old discussions.

  • Delete - As I said above. There is no use for it, as the TOC is left by default. JamesA >talk 04:27, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete - –sumone10154(talk) 04:37, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete Not necessary. TOC is left by default. --Saqib (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

Please would the nominator place the appropriate VfD template on the discussion page of this template so interested parties can be notified. --W. Franke-mailtalk 04:45, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

  • Delete, obviously. --Globe-trotter (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete. Pointless/redundant. --Peter Talk 04:31, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete no need. Jc8136 (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2012 (CEST)

Result: Deleted –sumone10154(talk) 02:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London2012

  • Delete - The London Olympics are over, so we have no use for this template anymore. –sumone10154(talk) 19:23, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
    • It's not an inherently bad idea to delete it, but it would be nice to have at least one such template on hand to serve as a model for the future. LtPowers (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
    • Question: When we delete templates like this, is there an automatic way of removing the deleted template code from articles where there would otherwise be a red {{London2012|<<Stadium/Venue>>}} - or does this task still have to be done manually? (Sorry to interrupt proceedings with my shattering ignorance!) --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:43, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
      • If there were alot of pages containing a deleted template, we could create a bot to do it. But if there aren't that many pages, it's probably easier to remove them manually (which has been already done for this template a few weeks ago). –sumone10154(talk) 22:21, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
        • Thanks for the quick answer Sumone10154! (And I assume that when we click "What links here" on the template candidate for deletion we always get an infallible answer and then it is the deleting admin's task to delete any occurrences before he finally deletes the template itself.) In that case

*Keep per the Lieutenant's rationale (if the decision is to keep, then this section will need to be slightly re-worded --W. Franke-mailtalk 23:27, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

  • Delete. Create the template for the next Olympics. Any rationale for keeping this one disappears. --Inas (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete. --W. Franke-mailtalk 02:41, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete per above. --Saqib (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete. I hoped to find a precedent for this, but can't find one—that and the fact that they don't pop up in special:allpages/template leads me to believe we have deleted these in the past. --Peter Talk 03:26, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
    • Aha! Found one. And more importantly, the policy that says we should delete this. --Peter Talk 03:33, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
      • Geez, I said almost the exact same thing two years ago as I did above. At least I'm consistent. Anyway, the Sochi2014 template should have been listed on the Template index after it was created; the wording there implies that all active event templates should be listed -- doing so would avoid the problem of making sure we keep at least one around. (Alternatively, we could create a meta-template that is used to generate a consistent format for these event templates; that might obviate the need to keep one around at all times.) LtPowers (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

Result: Deleted –sumone10154(talk) 02:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage:Cooperating with WikiOutdoors

  • Delete. This site does not exist anymore. --Globe-trotter (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete –sumone10154(talk) 02:37, 12 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Restore and Mark historical. Deleting something just because it's no longer relevant is akin to removing our history. It may be instructive in the future to have the ability to review how we tried to work with other projects in the past. LtPowers (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2012 (CEST)
I agree with LtPowers, about both actions & reasons. Pashley (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2012 (CEST)
Keep per above. --Saqib (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep / Mark historical - as above. JamesA >talk 12:56, 12 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete We never cooperated with them. We never shared anything. We never associated with them. Now they are dead. The page itself was added as nothing more than a promotional page for the other site. There is nothing instructive here as to how we have cooperated with sites in the past, or how we will do in the future. I'd argue to delete this even if the site was still active. --Inas (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete per above. --Saqib (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

Result: Deleted –sumone10154(talk) 02:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Day Trip to Newport, RI

  • Delete - We usually delete outline itineraries after one year, but this one has no content at all. –sumone10154(talk) 05:52, 15 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete - Unless I'm ignoring some policy I can't think of, I don't see a good reason not to delete. (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete - Can I beg for someone not to say Redirect to Newport? --Inas (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2012 (CEST)
No reason for a redirect. Why would someone be looking for this? (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2012 (CEST)
So far, so good. :-) --Inas (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
There is nothing to merge here; there's no content at all. And articles merged into another can be deleted; they're not required to become a redirect. –sumone10154(talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do we maintain attribution if we don't redirect? LtPowers (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to attribute. Attribution only applies if there was useful text in this article which was later moved to some other page... even then, there are other ways around the problem (keeping the author list for a page with one author, for instance, may mean just giving that original author's name in an edit summary when pasting the text). There is nothing here, so no attribution to retain. K7L (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no useful text, then it's not a merge. LtPowers (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted –sumone10154(talk) 03:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOCright

  • Delete. I don't think there is any reason we'd want to have the TOC on the right, so I don't really see the purpose of this template. --Globe-trotter (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete. Any change like this should be done globally. --Peter Talk 03:25, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep - I'd be questioning why we have Template:TOCleft when the TOC is on the left by default. There are specific examples when TOCright could be used. I've only used it once so far, on the UNESCO page that we've just about finished with a new layout. By putting the TOC on the right, it doesn't interfere with the table and makes the intro flow smoothly. It can be expanded to see individual countries without messing anything up, as the photos are simply moved down the page. I invite you to remove the template and see what happens then. JamesA >talk 03:48, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
    • Over on UNESCO, I'd personally say it looks just fine if you swap the location of the contents and the brown-and-white logo on the page. The location of the TOC can be moved further up (to keep it from interfering with the placement of the Africa header - is this your concern?) by using the __TOC__ keyword as the second line in the page source; various placements of that keyword can be used on most pages where the default positioning botches the formatting. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
      That would make the issue less prominent when the TOC is collapsed, but my concern was when a reader was to inevitably open one of the continents in the TOC (say Europe) and it pushes the table on to the right side of the page and underneath the image. This will cause more trouble as further images are added. An easier and cleaner solution would be to simply float the TOC to the right. I don't see how that could do any harm. JamesA >talk 04:13, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Vehement Keep. In the 6 years or so that I have been looking at Wikitravel and then Wikivoyage articles I've often wondered why such a large proportion of our editors are so aesthetically challenged/visually handicapped/possessed of humungously wide screens that they can not see just how many of our articles are currently visually buggered.
For the majority of Travellers in the world that use writing systems that read left to right and top to bottom, the right hand margin is the least visually intrusive for the Table of Contents and this template ensures that Infoboxes are pushed down underneath it so that the lede is not reduced to a narrow worm sandwiched between the two.
When the image bug is fixed, I will be able to post some "before and after" screen shots that should make the improvement this template brings instantly clear. --W. Franke-mailtalk 04:16, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete. It confounds all typical English-language page layouts to place any TOC on the right side of a page. While there may be room for improvement in the default TOC layout (I favor adding a linebreak at the bottom, like a Wikipedia-formatted page, to keep it from indenting the next section header), we already have the tools to manually reposition it and the ability to fix the defaults - not throw them out entirely in favor of a completely non-standard, unexpected location. Having an unpredictable mixture of left and right would be worse still. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
    I agree that we can not have a mixture of lefts and rights, and that the template should be used sparingly, not on pages left, right and centre which is what seems to have triggered this nomination (as I created the template a few days ago and no one cried foul then). However, I cannot see why we cannot allow certain instances where the TOC would otherwise mess with an article significantly. I can't imagine readers seeing a TOC on the right, becoming so very confused and in the end not bothering to read the article. Can I also ask what you mean by "the tools to manually reposition it"? If you mean we don't need a template for that UNESCO instance, and can simply substitute the repositioning table onto the page, I would be fine with that. Although it would make for a big coding jumble at the start of the page. JamesA >talk 04:47, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
Sorry about that James. Globetrotter follows me around and mindlessly reverts most anything I do to the point of vandalism and egregious policy violations. --W. Franke-mailtalk 05:05, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • JamesA, I've demonstrated one possible way to do it on that page now (direct link to that revision: [2] - I also made the logo thumbnail on the right a little bigger so it was closer to the TOC's height). I don't believe we can create the more stand-alone style of TOC that Wikipedia uses, with the entirely open space to its right (example: wikipedia:UNESCO World Heritage List) without modifying the TOC-generation code, though. That's a discussion that certainly wouldn't take place on this page! -- D. Guillaume (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
    I see that formatting keeps the table and image together. To be honest, I don't feel that keeping the images and countries together is such a huge issue. The fluidity and layout of the article is more important, especially with tables. Aligning the TOC to the right pushes the photos down, but keeps the layout together. Can I also say that we plan to add some more photos to the right column, so that could cause a lot of issues and a lot of white space using that layout you recommended. JamesA >talk 11:02, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep I don't see why this template should be deleted, it can be useful on lots of pages. The software MediaWiki gave us the TOC tag in order to allow us to control how and where the TOC can be placed. Some pages may (if not now, maybe in the future) flow better and looks better with the contents list on the right side rather than on the left. Off-course this template can be used to good effect, and won't be overused. And even if this template is deleted, there is nothing preventing an editor from using other means to force to place the table of content to be on the right side. My suggestion is that we keep this template at-least for now. --Saqib (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete We should keep templates that support our style, and delete those that don't. Having templates for styles we wish to discourage, is confusing to new editors, who may reasonable assume that templates are there to be used. --Inas (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete No reason to keep it. Jc8136 (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep - Although destination articles shouldn't have this, there may be pages with tables where this would make a better layout, such as UNESCO World Heritage List. –sumone10154(talk) 22:18, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep Eiland (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2012 (CET)
  • Keep In my view TOC right should be the default, used unless there is some graphic or map that needs the space. I'm not as vehement as W. Frank above, but I agree that it is the least visually intrusive (& therefore obviously the right) place to put a TOC. Pashley (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An example: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cryptography Pashley (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Although this appears deadlocked per votes, a clear deletion rationale has been provided (Wikivoyage:Using_Mediawiki_templates#New_Mediawiki_Template_proposals), and no policy-based arguments have been made to keep this template. Since we're not a majoritarian bunch, I'm inclined to delete this and clean it from the page, but given the degree of contention, I'll wait a few days before going ahead, to allow anyone to prove this template innocent. If deleted, we can always revisit the position and style of our ToC (that would be a wonderful thing to do, actually). --Peter Talk 02:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question With this edit I asked the proposer of this VfD where I could find the discussion that led to the current bizarre default positioning of our Table of Contents - but he was either unable or unwilling to answer me. is anyone else able to help, please? -- Alice✉ 08:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 09:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Lea

Village-level article created with no content at all. This is a tiny rural district in Lansdowne (Ontario) in the Thousand Islands, not a municipality. It does not have its own town hall, post office or telephone exchange. While it is possible to sleep there [3][4][5][6] and there is at least one marina, something this small should likely be part of a larger article like Gananoque, Brockville, Thousand Islands or (were it to ever get a page) Lansdowne. (WP just redirects this and Lansdowne to Leeds and the Thousand Islands as the closest town hall, but even they have nothing much to say about Ivy Lea per se). K7L (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2012 (CEST)

You're obviously familiar with the area. Just redirect it to what you see as the best fit. Done. --Inas (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2012 (CEST)
As we don't have Lansdowne (except as a disambiguation which doesn't mention it as a population-1000 village in Ontario), the two possible targets are Gananoque (another town on the same side, 16km/10mi upriver) or Thousand Islands (Ivy Lea/Rockport is not an island, but is very close to the bridge and parkway). Both are close to usable articles. The scope of Thousand Islands (does it include anything on the mainland? does it actually include both countries? is it a bottom-level destination or just another pointless layer of region under northern New York?) is under discussion at Talk:Thousand Islands#Listings. The question of rural listings displaced to an adjacent town (redirect to a subsection for each village in a section "nearby" or "around the region"? don't distinguish the rural village from the adjacent town or city? list these in region-level pages instead of locally if there is no city-level page?) is unresolved at Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Villages with one or no listings. I'm tempted to create Gananoque ==Nearby== ===Landsdowne=== ===Rockport=== ===Ivy Lea=== as a section redirect target and place all of the mainland phone +1-613-659- / postcode K0E 1L0 listings there (with Hill Island to Thousand Islands, where it is now) but need to see if there is any consensus on Wikivoyage talk:Small city article template#Buy.2FDrink.2FAround_the_region first. K7L (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2012 (CET)
The reason you gave for removing this article is that there is no travel related content to add. If that is the case, why does it need a section in another article? We don't need to mention every place, just because it exists. --Inas (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Outcome: redirected to Thousand Islands. --Peter Talk 10:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref and Template:Note

  • Delete. Use of citations and/or references would be a huge policy change, so this template should not be implemented without first discussing a change in policy. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not for this use, see Rio de Janeiro, this just a note. I'm feeling so much that you want to protect what was there before, they are not giving any opening to news, or even understand what is being proposed. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea here is that you first propose and discuss, then make the changes. Not the other way around. --Atsirlin (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Travel guides should be easy to read. They do not need references and footnotes. --Atsirlin (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; allowing footnotes opens a huge can of worms and makes travel guides harder to print out and read. LtPowers (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rodrigo, I appreciate your efforts to help, but in my opinion, there was no good reason for the "Notes" section you created. You can see how I edited the Rio de Janeiro article here: [7]. I also agree with all the votes to delete your templates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a user has taken the time to search online for sources for a page, those sources might be of use to the next person to edit the article (so the same pointless web search doesn't need to be repeated). These should, however, be handled in such a way that these don't appear at all when an article is printed. Someone wandering around with a dead-tree copy of a city description isn't online to consult any of those reliable sources, regardless of their merits. One option would be to code this not to print (much like the mess of maintenance templates on a Wikipedia page), another would be to push the info off the article page to another location (such as the talk page). I don't necessarily agree with throwing the info away, but it does need to be omitted from hard copy of individual articles. K7L (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am new here and happened upon this page after searching for a reference template. I see no harm in referencing some of the information. For those afraid of crossing the line into encyclopedic, I don't think you have to worry. There are many aspects of this project (from the eyes of a new editor) that will never require references or notes. A cursory scan over a well-written article leads me to believe that sections like "Buy, Eat, Drink, Sleep, Contact, Stay Safe, Get in and Get around" are for all intensive purposes, opinions by travellers and would thus, not require any referencing. To me, this is what is unique about WikiVoyage. However, sections like "Districts, History, Climate, Literature, Movies, Talk, See and Do" could benefit from having references. Since WikiVoyage is a blend of many things, I think having the option to reference is vital to the integrity of the site.
From a Wikipedian perspective, the sections I listed as beneficial with references are very sensitive areas for intentional and unintentional misinformation. As the site grows now that it is part of the WikiMedia family, there will be a lot of new editors, and with it, a lot of new vandals. Without a direct source, which by referencing is a "click-away" it can become tedious to do a google search each time one of these things get changed, or updated.
As long as tone does not change, by which I mean that the site continues to be written in an informal, un-encyclopedic way, there will not be an issue of shared "missions" between Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. They are vastly different; it is clear to me with only being here for a couple days poking around. Referencing non-opinionated sections does no harm to the sites integrity or mission.
I agree with the "no print" option, these templates can be marked with no print tags in the template, even the reference or note sections can be templacised to be part of a collapsible table, where the default is collapsed, or hidden. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a broader discussion to be had about references, footnotes, notes, etc that is out of scope for this VFD - this was noted during the discussion about whether or not Wikimedia should create a travel guide project (for example: [8]). In the case of these specific templates, however, my concern is that a major change to the site such as implementing references/notes should be broadly discussed prior to being implemented so that we can make such a change in a structured way that everyone can agree upon, rather than doing one-off implementations that will later need to be cleaned up and that will confuse new readers in the interim. I'd encourage someone who has the time to begin a discussion about improving reliability in the Pub or at Wikivoyage talk:Business listings reliability Expedition, otherwise it is something that the broader community will likely revisit once the current cleanup tasks have been addressed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree completely with Ryan's last comment "There is a broader discussion to be had about references, footnotes, notes, etc ... something that the broader community will likely revisit once the current cleanup tasks have been addressed." We do need that discussion, ideally fairly soon, but we do not need templates until the discussion reaches consensus. Pashley (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can retract my vote, though it makes little difference given the general consensus here. When a narrower discussion occurs here on the future of these templates, I can elaborate then. Reading the comments prior to mine (and afterwards) leads me to believe that there is misunderstanding on references and such in that they could jepoardize WV's unique nature and mission; I believe it does not. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the concern is "use across a broad number of articles", what's needed is a mechanism by which, if there are objections to a template, that template isn't added to more articles (or is limited to one or two pages on a trial basis) to allow consensus to be reached. Deleting things for the sake of deleting them is not helpful. If you want references kept off the article page, fine, make a case for that... but do keep in mind that many of us are used to WP where articles for creation are routinely rejected for want of reliable, cited sources. K7L (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then discuss modified template use on article discussion pages per Pashley. -- Alice✉ 09:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 10:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cityguide, Template:Countryguide, etc.

Includes the following pages:

I'm not familiar with RDF, so I'm not sure what these templates were formerly used for, but since now RDF is depricated, these templates do not do anything. –sumone10154(talk) 05:37, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

  • Comment - Some of them are transcluded on a huge number of pages [9] We would have to consider how to remove all the instances. 08:10, 7 October 2012 (CEST) —The preceding comment was added by JamesA (talk • contribs)
    • I'm assuming we would use a bot to remove them. –sumone10154(talk) 19:12, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
  • I'm a little hesitant to delete... at the moment it's the only way we have of distinguishing the different types of articles from each other in a machine-readable way (even without the RDF, the mere presence of the templates is useful in that way). If we ever need them again, it'd be a lot of work to add them back. LtPowers (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep. I don't think they're confusing any newbie editors or travellers, space will be practically infinite and cheap and the Lieutenant makes a good point about bot searching. --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:24, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
I think they are confusing. Especially because we have Template:Cityguide and Template:Guidecity, which are distinctly different. --Inas (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep per LtPowers. They are potentially very useful for things like, for example, suppressing "add listing" functionality to, say, region articles, or huge city main articles. --Peter Talk 20:24, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Comment A link to a template is far from the best way of doing this. Categories may be better. But we need to develop a strategy before deleting. --Inas (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
Could we create hidden categories to replace these templates then? Or have the templates place the article in a category? –sumone10154(talk) 05:25, 15 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Comment - Keep until we design & implement something better. I'd say it was fairly obvious that status stub/.../guide/star should use one set of tags and article type city/region/.../continent/itinerary/topic another, rather than confounding them into a larger set of dual-purpose tags as at present, but that & other questions need discussion and we have more urgent things to do now. Pashley (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. --Peter Talk 21:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MFG

This is a template for a German car sharing website. There is a discussion leading up to this vfd in the pub. The idea being that this template would be placed on many German articles. Eiland has raised many valid points with the way that the geographical hierarchy works, and the benefits of putting this template across many destination guides. However, I have some concerns.

  1. That this information may be best maintained in the country level article, rather than duplicated in each destination guide.
  2. That is hasn't received any support as is required by our Wikivoyage:Using_Mediawiki_templates policy.
  3. That the site being linked to may run afoul of our Wikivoyage:External links policy.

This is obviously a good faith attempt to produce useful travel content, which makes assessing it all the harder. --Inas (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2012 (CEST)

Delete - I agree with Inas. (WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2012 (CET)
Delete - I agree with Inas. My detailed comments can be found in the Pub. --Atsirlin (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2012 (CET)
Im against deleting for stated reasons in the pub. It sems to me overly procedural to want to get this one out? There are more templates around which do stuff in content where no-one complains about (and im not going to snitch on them here). But this deletion proposal feels like an italian tax revenue service wich collects small tax debts from smalltime crooks who arent hiding, whereas the missing tax billions are banked overseas and government isnt even trying to set it straight. Anyway, welcome to wikivoyage? -- Eiland (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2012 (CET)
Eiland, I would like to re-iterate that none of us is trying to insult you. You made a suggestion that so far lacks any clear support of the community. If you still want to go forward, please, address our concerns and try to improve your template. The fact that we have other dubious templates does not justify the creation of a new one. --Atsirlin (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2012 (CET)
Also, the reason other templates either not in use or not really desirable aren't deleted is precisely because no-one has complained about them. --Peter Talk 14:25, 29 October 2012 (CET)
No problem.
  1. What have links to http://www.carpooling.co.uk/carshare/_Germany/Munich.html and http://www.mitfahrzentrale.de/suche.php?frmpost=1&lang=GB&START=Munich to do on the Germany-page? Or otherwise stated, we do list trains, busses; etc. in cities, but these are also mentioned on the national pages, I don't really see the difference? Additionally, the template provides a deep link to the rids-shares offered from the WV-pages it is being used at.
    An additional concern was the maintainability. But the template seems to me to be in fact easy maintainable because if the MFG or MFZ service change their link format, one edit to the template will update all links.
  2. There were three (3) people participating in the discussion. The only valid conclusion I see is that not a lot of people really care or mind? Mind you, I'm trying to improve the guide too.
  3. Why exactly? I looked again at Wikivoyage:External links and I don't see why we cant have those links in the ride share section. Application of the template even prevents the use of useless front-link links such as "you can find rideshares here" [10]
-- Eiland (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2012 (CET)
You should have a closer look at the last two comments here. --Atsirlin (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2012 (CET)
I've got the feeling that this is one of those deletion discussions where all the time new arguments for deletion will be brought in until the template is gone, but here goes:
  2. Regarding printing "problems" ((WV-en) Ryan): We can put a <noprint></noprint> in the template around the link which he/she says are too long to print. Ryan was concerned that the template "that it is being used to promote a specific service that might otherwise be questionable based on Wikivoyage:External links" but i still don't understand how this would be in disregard of that policy?
  3. Regarding maintaining the template (Atsirlin): isn't that the point of moving to the Wikimedia Foundation: w:Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Beyond that, this is a very basic template, and I don't want to sound too ignorant, what on earth could go wrong?
-- Eiland (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2012 (CET)
Well, I am not going to elicit your response. I will only note that Ryan's argument has nothing to do with what you have written above. Regarding the maintenance, we had all "article status" plaques broken after the migration. But that was just a table environment, which is "a very basic template" indeed. --Atsirlin (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2012 (CET)
Responding to Eiland: the last bullet point of Wikivoyage:External links#What not to link to covers car rental services, and while this car sharing service isn't the same as a rental agency it's very similar. My larger point made in the Pub, however, is that this template would set an example that any number of similar services will want to follow, and I think it's a dangerous precedent to set as it will make it more difficult to deal with individuals who want to promote a service on Wikivoyage. Ensuring that Wikivoyage is not overwhelmed by promotional content has been our single hardest battle - both in fighting obviously promotional material and in ensuring that useful content is not excluded - and I think that this template will become an example that makes it harder to push back against attempts to use Wikivoyage for promotion in the future. Let's continue the discussion about how to allow useful services while excluding promotional content, but until that discussion reaches a clear consensus I think this template would set the wrong example. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:32, 31 October 2012 (CET)
At least I'm happy no-one brings up the issue that we shouldn't confront travellers with German pages anymore :) But sorry; car rental isn't ride sharing. There might be 20+ car rental agencies in a city, and the MFG template mentions 2 major German ride sharing sites. It remains an editorial decision by us as to which car rental or ride sharing service to add either to a template or to a destination. I don't see how car rental agencies could use templates sensibly? Also, when an added template is in plain violation of the External link policies, it doesn't seem hard to remove it, either from a destination or the template as such. Further more I think its not very useful to talk in terms of dangerous precedent or a single hardest battle, those metaphors cloud this simple question. Also, please elaborate what would then be the advantage of adding the rideshare paragraph without templates to the destination articles? Certainly not maintainability. But I see in Wikitravel there is a long standing tradition of not liking templates, and its hard to break with tradition, that I know. -- Eiland (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2012 (CET)
There are only five popular car rental agencies (Hertz, Budget, Avis, Sixt, Eurocar), so why don't we link to them on every page? --Atsirlin (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2012 (CET)
There is nothing special about this template. The question here is, where there is a site, that is relevant to an entire country, do we want to make a template and add it to every relevant destination in that country. In the U.S., this could equally well apply to every car rental agency, craiglist + 1000 others for ride shares, Days Inn or Best Western for accommodation. Every discussion I've ever seen on this has ended up pointing the other way, i.e that things that are relevant everywhere in a country should be described at the country level, and only have at most a cursory mention at the destination guide level. If we start duplicating this information it devalues our geographical hierarchy, it opens the floodgates to many more templates of this kind. We need a strong consensus to make this change. VFD isn't the place to argue for that consensus, it is the place to follow our policies, and the policy on this template is quite clear, IMO. Also, even if we were considering making this kind of template, a ride sharing site is a bad place to start. There are thousands of these sites, many of them dubious. We can't tell if any of them are official, and some may actually be dangerous or illegal. --Inas (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2012 (CET)
I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by this (kind of) discussion, I thought Wikitravel atmosphere was more flexible? Why is it that with proposing one template (ok, three - including the Swiss and Austrian ones), fellow editors need to express concern on the Overall Wellbeing of the travel guide? What happened the reliance on our editors? Isn't this a wiki? People add stuff to the travelling guide and others either keep it because they judge it valuable, or delete it, if they judge it inappropriate. For now there seem to be 200 mentions of Hertz and Avis on the site, and they don't seem to be in anyone's way. For one I would greatly oppose a "project" to remove them. If they are inappropriate in a certain destination, any editors has the right to remove them. The same goes for applying the template. If it adds valuable content to a destination, it will be kept, if not, its application will be deleted. I sincerely do not see how keeping this template would open the floodgates of commercial spam or craiglist. IF craiglists provides a valuable car sharing resource for a region, I believe it should be added, just as I believe the addresses/contact information of local car rental stores, either owned by a chain or independent. This info needs to be in get in get out sections, as travellers might need it. The whole story of geographical hierarchy regarding the rise sharing sites to me does not make a lot of sense - as I already argued in the pub. Regarding this not being the right place for the discussion; I brought it up in the pub, and then Inas took it here. I don't think its fair to claim now its not appropriate to discuss it here when no viable other locus is proposed. What are these pages for then?
Im going to bother to argue against your fallacy that car sharing sites might be dangerous or illegal, because then they also would not have a place on your argued regional articles, now would they? -- Eiland (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2012 (CET)
Well, wiki is about finding consensus, not about edit wars as you are suggesting. Sorry, but I probably don't have time to explain this further now, when we have tons of work on moving images from Shared to Commons, and making sure that things will work after the migration to WMF servers. There is a lot of more important things to do. --Atsirlin (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2012 (CET)
  • Keep per Eiland's argumentation -- Alice✉ 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I think this template just opens the door for any other promotional listing. I live in a German-speaking country and every city has a different car sharing provider. It will just boom and cause headache for the patrollers. Let users individually add local tips and don't use majors because they are present everywhere. Wiki is to let local knowledge benefit everyone. Jc8136 (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 21:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why need this disambiguation page when Antwerp (province) is already showing in the bread crumb menu in Antwerp article. --Saqib (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (CEST)

Antwerp (disambiguation)

Why need this disambiguation page when Antwerp is nowhere else in the world except itself in Belgium. Antwerp (province) is already showing in the breadcrumb menu in the Antwerp article and form part of the hierarchy. There are some more disambiguation pages like this that need to deleted as well such as Rio de Janeiro (disambiguation) or perhaps Babylon (New York) as well. --Saqib (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2012 (CEST)

  • Delete - Yes, we need to set a precedent on this, as I don't believe any particular policy states whether disambiguations must be created for two places, even if both are mentioned in the hierarchy. JamesA >talk 10:36, 21 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Delete - Yes, James and Saqib have correct reasoning (same as London and Paris) and one should not need 2 clicks to go to Antwerp. —The preceding comment was added by Alice (talk • contribs) I'm sorry. I thought I did sign my name. I'll try again: --203.117.33.6 13:15, 22 October 2012 (CEST) Sorry about this. Very strange. Try again: -- (WV-en) Alice✉ 13:17, 22 October 2012 (CEST)
London and Paris disambiguation pages should be kept. --Saqib (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (CEST)
Agreed. There are several cities in different parts of the world that are called London and Paris. Paris, Texas, for example, and London, Ontario. A disambiguation page is needed for those. (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2012 (CEST)
Actually, London and Paris are both in Ontario. K7L (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Remove otheruses from Antwerp. No doubt the otheruses template and the reference to the disamb page in the Antwerp article should be removed. It looks stupid, and it is redundant. I think that will have the desired effect here. As to whether we need to delete the disamb page, it's cheap, and neither here nor there really. The page isn't the problem, it is the link from the Antwerp article. --Inas (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Keep I do not understand why these pages have been nominated for deletion. They all are used when there are multiple destinations with the same name. It doesn't matter if they're in the same country, different levels of geographical hierarchy (city vs. province; Georgia (state) vs. Georgia the country—or one destination is located within the geographical hierarchy of the other page of the same name—ie., Antwerp vs. Antwerp (province). The fact is more than one page/destination uses the same name (without "province" or the region name attached in parentheses)—the first criteria on Wikivoyage:Disambiguation pagesand therefore no reason to delete the disambiguation page! Now, as for which page is displayed when typing the name (whether Antwerp should lead to the city, province, or disambiguation page), that is another matter and, per policy, a message in italics should be placed at the top of that page with a link to the disambiguation page or other destination with the same name (but region/region level attached in parentheses).AHeneen (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is very convincing. I think you're exactly right: The disambiguation should be kept, but the Antwerp city guide should load whenever someone searches for "Antwerp." Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with regret until we have the policy discussion. But where should policy discussion go?
  • To me, it seems silly to have a disambig page and an other uses tag in a case like Antwerp where it is a city & surrounding area. There is a city/prefecture ambiguity for many places in China (e.g. see map in Pearl_River_Delta) and current practice is to just write an article for the city and any significant smaller places (e.g. Fuzhou with links to Mawei, Changle, Fuqing) with no prefecture article at all, let alone disambig pages. That seems sensible to me. Looking at the Antwerp_(province) article, I see little point to it either, let alone the disambig page. Pashley (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept. --Peter Talk 21:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gorzów Wielkopolski

This article used to be a redirect to Gorzów Wielkopolskie, the redirect having been put in place by User:Globe-trotter. Then a new user Alan ffm put a VFD template on it without adding it to the VFD page. I am inclined to think that the template addition was an error. Does this need to be deleted? — Ravikiran (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Outcome: kept, and moved back to Gorzów Wielkopolski. --Peter Talk 21:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Redirects to Joke Articles

Per the discussion on the pub, I have moved the joke articles to a subpage of Wikipedia:Joke articles, so the following redirects should be deleted. I have already removed all links to the redirect pages.

–sumone10154(talk) 21:28, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Outcome: kept. --Peter Talk 21:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Holj 091.jpg

There's no licencing information for this image and its source info points to a local real estate company webpage. I can't find the image on that site, but I think it's questionable that the image would be licensed under CC-BY-SA or in the public domain. Plus the image is pretty low quality.

  • Delete -Shaund (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 21:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage:Wikimedia Movement

  • I don't see how a page like this is useful on our wiki. Note that this is just a copy of meta:Wikimedia Movement, making it a copyright violation without attribution. But even if we were to change the text or attribute it properly, wouldn't this link be better replaced by a link to the Meta-Wiki document? LtPowers (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unsure why this would be searched for on Wikivoyage. A soft-redirect is an alternative to deletion for now. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it a cross-wiki redirect so anyone who searches here finds the approriate page on Meta. I am not sure quite how to do that; in fact I'm not even sure it is currently possible. If it is not, it should be and the technique should be used for all global WMF policy pages that apply here.
  • This seems so obvious to me that I'm shocked that we are even discussing deletion. Am I missing something? Pashley (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect: Have it say this page is on meta: and give a clickable link... done. K7L (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected. --Peter Talk 21:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Surabaya-muslim-sate-lady.jpg

Result: Deleted. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Surabaya-becak-drivers.jpg

  • Delete. I think this is on the wrong side of the line, though not as obviously as the photo of the sate vendor. But please look at my new subsection is Wikivoyage talk:Privacy rights on "Where the line is drawn" for a discussion of the limits of image privacy policy - posted there because detailed discussions of policy are not relevant here in VfD. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ampel-market-stall-surabaya.jpg

Result: Deleted. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:HokAnKiongChineseTemple-Carving.jpg

Result: Deleted. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hitchhike from Novi Sad 07-2005.jpg

Result: Deleted. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ulcinj.jpg

  • Delete. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy, with only very rare exceptions any image uploaded locally (instead of to Commons) is subject to deletion. This image does not meet any of the criteria for a local exception and I've added a note to the uploader's talk page requesting a re-upload to Commons. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would be better off moving these to Commons yourself using one of the many transfer tools (see w:WP:Moving files to the Commons). That way, the image is still available, and the local policies here are satisfied. This, that and the other (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's fair to ask someone else to take responsibility for the image. As noted in discussions elsewhere, if someone ignored the "please upload images to Commons" message then I'm not willing to assume they read and followed the license and copyright guidelines stipulated on the upload page. My opinion is that the uploader should upload the image to Commons, or it should be deleted and references to it removed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'm still coming to grips with the somewhat unfamiliar policies here... the no-free-media policy, and others like the MW templates one, seem rather draconian in my view, but I suppose they are in the community's best interests. This, that and the other (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brussels palais justice.jpg

Result: Deleted. Per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bathurst SHINER

Result: Speedily deleted –sumone10154(talk) 08:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfalls are for hippies

Result: Speedily deleted –sumone10154(talk) 08:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waterbureestz

Result: Speedily deleted –sumone10154(talk) 08:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/December_2012&oldid=3243968"