Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2013

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← November 2013 Votes for deletion archives for December 2013 (current) January 2014 →

The argument is that this template isn't flexible enough to cope with information coming from Wikipedia. Please see/join the discussion at Template talk:Wikipedia#placement of Template --Inas (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clarify in the documentation that it should be used only on talk pages, and move any existing examples in articles to the talk pages. Pashley (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Template:En icon

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danapit, the consensus you cite was for a one-time-only cull of skeleton articles, for SEO purposes. It was not intended to set a precedent to delete and re-create every skeleton article we come across—and even if it were, any SEO benefit to doing so has been eliminated by the fact that we no longer link to WT in any article footers. Best to just leave this one be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, it does still link to WT there, look again. As far as I know, the "one-time cull" has not yet been completed. Texugo (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that we'd taken the calculated risk of altering the footer to mention WT but not link to it. Did that happen for some articles but not others, or am I totally mistaken? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure. I do remember the idea being brought up, but if any part of it was implemented, then I totally missed that. Texugo (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The link to wikitravel is still there but the link is black rather than blue. Hover of the Rushville in the footer to see the link. -- WOSlinker (talk)
Any reason for not waiting until we have at least one listing or one descriptive paragraph about this place before recreating? Cluttering the guide with empty skeletons just because someone dropped {{subst:smallcity}} on the corresponding WT page years ago (and walked away) does nothing to help the traveller. K7L (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the reason is that our current policy is to keep real places, and this doesn't have any rationale for being nominated here in the first place. There is a consensus to delete and recreate for SEO purposes. There is no consensus to start deleting places for simply not having enough info, which would have implications for a great many more articles, and this is not the place to build such a potential consensus. But of course there is no reason why we can't add a listing or two when it's recreated, as has been done with the majority of such deleted and recreated articles so far:
  • John K. Gowdy House (Rush County Museum), 619 N. Perkins St., ☏ 765 932-3568. Mo-Th, 9AM-11:30AM. Built in 1888 and now the home of the Rush County Historical Society Museum, it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 
  • Comfort Inn, 320 Conrad Harcourt Way, ☏ 765 932-2999. Breakfast, WiFi, small exercise room, microwave, and mini-fridge. 
Texugo (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to do this, could you please use proper international phone numbers? I have no idea where country code +765 is. K7L (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Problem solved. Texugo (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pashley, a third option, per the above nomination, is to delete and recreate the article for SEO purposes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have deleted real locations in the past; a series of pop-100 towns in Maine with one dive bar and little else were deleted as page creation vandalism. There's also the SEO question; imported empty articles have been deleted. A real place still has to meet Wikivoyage:What is an article? K7L (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If those pages were deleted rather than redirected, it was in blatant violation of policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
pcv is a special case. LtPowers (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outline itinerary article last edited in late 2008. Need to go now. --Saqib (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to re-set the clock on the customary 14-day period between nomination for deletion and actual deletion since nobody actually bothered to place the deletion notice on the actual article (that is required by policy) yet!--118.93nzp (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making me aware of it, but for your kind information, I'm ready to wait for even 3 weeks henceforth. --Saqib (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both having now placed a templated notice on the nominated article and for your forbearance, Saqib. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose so, unless someone adopts it and adds content to it. Let's see if that occurs during the customary 14-day period between nomination for deletion and actual deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but I would say only few minor edits won't be enough to escape deletion. --Saqib (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We would need at least a declared intention to enlarge the article substantially. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a day or two to look and see what I can find about this trek/climbing peak. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the trek but I might know some people who have been in the area. IF I can find enough information to put together something worthwhile, I'll know in a few days. Otherwise, it probably should go. Dave.mcc (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I will try to rescue this article. I have 2 friends who did the trek and climb 2 years ago and I think I can find enough good information to make a useful article. Let's see what I can do over the next week or so. That OK? Dave.mcc (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, Dave! If you don't get enough info for a full article, then merge & redirect to Khumbu and put what you do have there. Then if we later get enough info for an independent article, we can always undo the merge. Pashley (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy kept. --Saqib (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I translated a lot of content today from the WV German article to this near empty article. There is no content from the original article remaining.

I noticed that the empty article was migrated across from WT, with the WT attribution at the bottom.

Would it be possible to A) Copy the article content, B) delete this article, C) recreate this article with saved content? Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of current source: User:Andrewssi2/TegernSee Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for translating. Definitely, the article should be deleted and re-created to get rid of WT attribution. --Saqib (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you put a capital S in TergernSee in your title. I do not speak German, so do not know the conventions there. I think we want both Tergensee and TergenSee, with one a redirect to the other, but am not sure which should be the main one.
You've done A above (copy) & I'm about to do B (delete) but I'll leave C (recreate) and D (needs a redirect) to someone else. Pashley (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I took care of recreating and making a redirect. Texugo (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be better if Andrewssi2 himself re-created the article since he's the one who translated it. --Saqib (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're right. Redeleted. Andrewssi2, could you do the honors? Texugo (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Texugo! Content now recreated. Looking at redirect for TegernSee.
You are correct, the 's' in See should not have been capitalized. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. Article was deleted and re-created as suggested by the nominator. --Saqib (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the main contributor to this itinerary with transportation sub-section was added by JuliasTravels. I've merged all the material to relevant Sri Lankan destination articles and I'm not sure where to redirect this itinerary since the content in the article not belongs to one particular place. --Saqib (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving things to destination articles where possible is a good idea but, having done that, why not keep the reduced itinerary that links them together? There may be readers who want to make approximately this trip, and having articles with many links improves our SEO rankings. Pashley (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem if we keep it as itinerary, but it is currently at usable status and since, all of the content have been merged into destination articles, it will only duplicate things. But, if we delete this article, I can write a brief itinerary in Sri Lanka's Do section for those readers, who would like to make this trip. --Saqib (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is completely fine for this type of itinerary to duplicate information. It's a legitimate itinerary that has already developed past the deletion point. Even if the creator is no longer interested in adding to the article, there is enough information that someone who knows Sri Lanka and its World Heritage Sites could easily plunge forward from here. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep. I'm a bit puzzled by your change of heart, really. It's perfectly normal for itineraries to duplicate the most relevant parts of the destination articles that it links to. See e.g El Camino Real which is now under discussion for star status: it links to well-developed articles, and of course duplicates some of the info there, but in a way that creates a relevant, new and cohesive structure useful for travellers. The Sri Lanka itinerary can still grow over time, but it's already a useful articles for those interested in World Heritage Sites. You did a pretty good job, there's no reason at all to delete it :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Withdrawn. --Saqib (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage:Language*.php

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are location maps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the template page for examples. LtPowers (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Without prejudice to the fact that we don't use location maps for cities (only for countries, I think), in what way does this template not work? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The red dot was massive but a recent edit to Template:PositionMap general fixed that. So I'll withdraw the comment that it doesn't work but it's still unused. Could keep it though if someone thinks that it could be useful. If it is deleted then Template:PositionMap general should also probably go. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If someone thinks it's useful in the future, i.e. they make a proposal and actually succeed in building a consensus to implement this sitewide, it would be easy enough to recreate. Even if I thought there was a chance of that happening (which I don't), I still would argue against keeping it "just in case". Texugo (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Travel_Tips_For_Your_British_Virgin_Islands looks like marketing spam Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're mostly using Template:Disclaimerbox instead. --Saqib (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best use for that template, though; we should restrict it to actual disclaimers. LtPowers (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It obviously has a purpose to serve. Pashley (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, everything exists have a purpose to serve at one stage, but this one have no more. This template barely used as compare to Template:Talk archive which is widely used. --Saqib (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep highly useful and appropriate template that should be used more; needs publicising! (Has slightly more functionality than Template:Talk archive - but lacks the pretty picture...) --118.93nzp (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you consider to use Template:Talk archive instead which is already in wide use. Btw, Template:Talk archive was not publicised either but still it's being used a lot even though it was created very earlier as compare to Template:Archive which was created back in 2010 and yet not used much. Also, which (slightly more functionality) you talking about? --Saqib (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the wording, Template:Talk archive exists merely to label an archive as such (including a pretty picture); whereas Template:Archive actually provides a list of all available sub pages - now do you understand why it should not be deleted without having a complete replacement? --118.93nzp (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think talking about the picture is distracting from the actual issue here -- which I didn't notice until just now. Template:Talk archive goes on the archive page, while Template:Archive goes on the main talk page. It seems that both would have a place, but at the very least they don't duplicate each other's functionality. I don't know if automatically listing all subpages is the correct solution (for example, on Talk:Europe, it would produce incorrect results), but some sort of templated pointer would seem to be in order. LtPowers (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I've been trying to communicate. Please cast a vote - presumably to Keep ! --118.93nzp (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the title of this page, we determine whether to delete or not based on consensus, not voting. If it becomes necessary, I'll make an explicit decision, but at the moment I'm willing to entertain counterarguments. LtPowers (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this template has not been used much since it was created because it wasn't seems necessary to put it on every talk page so I doubt if it will be come in use even if kept. --Saqib (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, it's going on a month since this template was nominated for deletion. The general sentiment seems to be trending toward keeping the article, but under the rules we have now, we're forced to delete it unless both Texugo and Saqib are willing to retract their votes. I invite both of them to change their votes to keep in light of the arguments presented in this nomination, if they choose to do so, or else reaffirm their delete votes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, I still think this template should find its way to recycle bin. --Saqib (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. Sorry, folks, but policy is policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Currently just used on 3 articles. The template is just a wrapper around the Geo template. And while the documetation mentions prec, radius, elev, elevMin and elevMax parameters. These do not do anything and only the lat and long params are used. So the current 3 uses should just be updated to use the geo template directly. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep it simple rather than producing multiple complex templates. Pashley (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/December_2013&oldid=2954189"