Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2013

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← January 2013 Votes for deletion archives for February 2013 (current) March 2013 →

This is a google map with an overlay. It is said to be "Non-free because overlay of a Googlemap". It should be possible to create a similar file with a free map. Therefore fair use is not possible. --MGA73 (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is only used to show proposed districts in discussion at Talk:Los_Angeles#Districts_map, and obviously the intent would be to use a free map when the discussion is settled. Is that use OK, or should it go immediately? Pashley (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the discussion is over: Nominator is being too hasty here. I think this probably falls under exemption doctrine Purplebackpack89 23:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the discussion at LA is over: per Purplebackpack89 and Sandy.-- Alice✉ 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless is can be clearly shown that it falls under fair use or some other copyright exemption. Google have "Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google ..., you must not: (a) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof."
I do not consider "I think this probably falls under exemption doctrine" sufficient to justify keeping an image that apparently violates copyright. Pashley (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is to merge and redirect anywhere that is either a real place (not a hotel or restaurant, though) or a likely search term. This is both; you have done the merge, so do the redirect and it is over.
It is not necessary to list such places here; just merge and redirect them. That is quick and easy and does not require admin privileges.
See Wikivoyage:How to redirect a page if necessary. Pashley (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because this title has an edit history needed to attribute content which was kept for the merged page, "merge and delete" is not an option (unless you keep the contributor list somehow). Merge and redirect — and say in the edit summary where the content came from and where you moved it to — is the best way to handle pages from which some content was kept. K7L(talk) 22:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged and redirected — Ravikiran (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was established on the talk page that this is a remnant of the RDF project, which has now been closed and declared historical. For that reason, the template has no use. JamesA >talk 14:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does nothing (the RDF payload is commented out) but is currently still transcluded from multiple pages, including the main page. An admin will need to remove it from any fully-protected pages. K7L (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator.-- Alice✉ 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: Deleted — Ravikiran (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LtP: I only indicated that El Gouna is imho similar to WDW in it's kind (definitely not its quality and the concept). My fear is, if we pass El Gouna, then Orascom will add all 50+ resorts they have, then Club Med et al will follow and finally we will have hundreds of promotinal articles of resorts. I accept that people make holidays in resorts but imho only the major exceptions (like WDW) should be granted an article because they are a destination themself. If we broaden the policy that every resort can have it's article, then good night Southern Europe. Every SEO/Marketing guy will blow up their resort to relevance. El Gouna is in essence only 17 hotels built next to another. It's a bit like Madinat Junmeirah in Dubai, where five hotels have been built together and now label themself as an tourist area. I'm pretty sure we are going to regret it, if we don't stop. WDW ist special because of it's size, varierty and history. El Gouna is a bath tub for Europeans. jan (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WDW is its own captive incorporated municipality, Lake Buena Vista FL. K7L (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Result: Keep — Ravikiran (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure about this one... UNESCO World Heritage List is a valid topic, but creating a category for sites on that list doesn't work well as most of our articles cover not sites but destination cities or regions. At least a few park articles might fit the category, as might the Rideau Canal itinerary, but when these are designated in cities the UNESCO tag normally applies to a small, specific historic district (such as Vieux-Québec, the walled "old town" within Quebec City) or landmark, not the entire city. This means that, unlike Wikipedia, we don't have (and won't have) a full article for most of the places on the UNESCO list as they're just part of some larger city. K7L (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - In its current form, the category should be deleted. Though I believe that what could be useful is a category including all articles that describe or have a listing for a UNESCO site. It may be worth sticking an icon in the top-right corner as well, so users know that within that destination there is a UNESCO site. Although that kind of idea may be worth discussing elsewhere. JamesA >talk 14:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see what this category could possibly hold for us that the UNESCO World Heritage List does not already have. If there is a town/city with a World Heritage Site that is not currently part of the list, it should simply be added (I recently did this with Japan's Kumano Pilgrimage sites). That World Heritage Site could actually probably use its own article as a Travel Topic, since there are so many sites and pilgrimage trails scattered about a large area. If it ever gets one, that should be linked on the list as well.

Result: Deleted. AHeneen (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file is tagged as a derivative work of artwork (sign). Unused so should be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Result: Speedy Delete — Ravikiran (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Article Zachodniopomorskie was moved twice ending up at West Pomeranian Voivodeship but articles with {{isPartOf}}referencing Zachodniopomorskie were not updated. I have not done that. The category Zachodniopomorskie can now be deleted.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted –sumone10154(talk) 23:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Region Chilean Extreme South was moved to Patagonia (Chile). Have now correct the breadcrumb IsPartOf entries of articles pointing to the redirect page. Can now delete this category. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. AHeneen (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Mistakenly created by an IP, I think. Should be deleted per policy that templates must have reasoning explained on the talk page, but the IP has seemingly disappeared. JamesA >talk 11:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as broken. The content is not a template but an attempt to invoke the template, done in such a manner as to be detected as an endless loop. In general, these infobox settlement, infobox country templates duplicate {{quickbar}} but something which never did work is of no use. K7L (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete - JamesA >talk 03:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The region article was renamed from Central Pacific to Central Pacific (Costa Rica). Have now edited the ispartof of articles referencing it.--Traveler100 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. AHeneen (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete - Per Wikivoyage:Using MediaWiki templates. Experimental templates require rationale on the talk page, which is not required. No consensus was reached (or sought) for its use. Template's purpose is covered by Template:Regionlist already. JamesA >talk 03:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]



I'm not totally sure what to do with this article. I think it falls outside our scope? Else we could also start articles about tuk-tuks, rickshaws, etc. Or is this wanted? Globe-trotter (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Hey guys, it was me who created the page. I think it is a relevant topic, as marshrutki are a region-specific kind of transportation with its own code of conduct and other things which are good to know for travellers. Another reason is that these things (how to behave in m. and so on) are repeated in all articles about Ukrainian cities (please have a look e.g. Kiev, Poltava, Donetsk). It is much more efficient to have it as a separate article. Dlituiev (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really a region-specific kind of transportation—you'll find it through much of the world, albeit with different names. "Marshrutka" is the name used throughout most of the former Soviet Union. --PeterTalk 00:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially agree: it is not specific to Ukraine, but still region-specific: for the former Soviet Union. You'll not find something like marshrutka in any land of the Western Europe though, to my humble experience.Dlituiev(talk) 00:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be. But for a West European who have not ever seen such a thingy, and for whom there is whether public transport or taxi, it is a valuable piece of travel information. Just make search 'marshrutka' and you'll see how many articles pop up: 208 excluding my article! That's why it is worth to make a separate article.Dlituiev (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we could move this content to a more general article about public transport vehicles that travel a fixed route, picking and dropping off people when they shout at the driver (and coming up with a good name), that would be ideal. We could then go over different names, and any differences in operation, when/if there are any—they're really remarkably similar except for quality (Sierra Leone "marshrutki" seem like they're held together with some gum and string). --PeterTalk 09:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. These things are quite common, and the rules for using them are often kinda the same. Just finding the right name for the article is the key. --Inas (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename per Inas. Since these kind of busses are in use around the world, it might be good to find a general name for this article which could list the different locations and forms of busses, rules, etc. INeverCry 18:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep. I have no idea whether as a separate article, a redirect to a section of Ukraine, to a new article on this sort of thing in multiple countries, or to a section of an overall "bus travel" article — but it should be kept in some form. Pashley (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Present version of this article is nearly empty, but even if we have more information, it will be specific to some region. The rules of using "marshrutka" (pay when you enter or pay when you leave, stop on request or stop on designated bus stops only) are not uniform over Russia or Ukraine. It makes no sense to collect this kind of information in one article. It only belongs to individual city articles. Finally, "marhsrutka" in the city and "marshrutka" between the cities are two completely different stories. Which one do we plan to describe? --Alexander (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you make a good point that there isn't much to say about this in general, and that local particulars belong in local articles. But I think that points towards merging this into a Bus travel travel topic, rather than outright deleting it. I'll come off the fence and vote. --Peter Talk05:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I understand Peter's reasoning. If we accept Alexander's reasoning that the diversity of rules makes this article difficult to sustain, a bus travel article will surely have this same problem multiplied. Possibly not a single thread of commonality to hang by? To me, marhsrutka are quite a foreign concept. Even pointing out the different types, different methods of payment and differing stopping patterns offers some insight. I don't mind placing this info in a bus travel article. My fear is that this will be a subsection of a bus travel article that will end up being how to travel by Greyhound across North America. Not sure it belongs there. --Inas (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining the basics of bush taxis, marshrutkas, whatever (which do the exact same things—stop and pick up on command, fixed route, few fixed stops) shouldn't really be that hard. Anything really particular, like what to shout in which language when you want to get off, should be in the city article. Inter-city and intra-city is the only major difference, and I think two paragraphs would cover this type of transportation. We already have Intercity bus travel in the United States and United States of America#By bus, so I either don't agree with or don't understand your point about the article being dominated by that information. --Peter Talk 02:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's been more than 14 days and there are 3 votes to delete, 2 votes to keep, 2 votes to keep/rename, & 3 votes to merge/redirect (2 to Bus travel, 1 to Ukraine). Consensus is against deleting, but what should the page be renamed as (or redirected to)? AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure it is legitimate to vote for a merge/redirect to an article that doesn't actually exist?--Inas (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To break the gridlock, I propose the following:

  1. Add information about the Mashrutka to the Get around#By bus sections of both Russia and Ukraine. I have already done so, and it seems to me that even if there is more information that can be added that is useful to the traveller, it will be at most, a paragraph or so. The Russia and Ukraine articles can easily accommodate the information. Yes, we are duplicating the information, but this disadvantage is outweighed by the fact that we are putting information where the traveller will look for it.
  2. Turn the Mashrutka into a disambiguation page of sorts. Just have a couple of sentences about what it is, and link to the Russia and Ukraine pages.

Redirecting to a Bus travel page won't make sense. While Bus travel is a valid travel topic, the Mashrutka is actually unlike most bus travel. We could potentially have a travel topic about hop-in hop off vans, but I don't see that to be very useful.

Does this sound like a plan? — Ravikiran (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the Russia and Ukraine articles, because the information you put there was mostly wrong or outdated. I don't care about the Marshrutka article (be it redirect, or diambig, or something), but its content should be purged ASAP. Editors should put specific information into individual articles about cities and countries. --Alexander(talk) 12:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have purged the Marshrutka article of pretty much all content and just left a note to redirect the reader to the two articles. I am torn as to whether we should use the disamb tag or leave it as a travel topic. — Ravikiran (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make Disamb. Ravikiran and Alexander have the best solution here, and I've made it a disamb. --Inas (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Alright. I am calling this a consensus and archiving this discussion. — Ravikiran (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Region article moved from Caribbean Costa Rica to Limón (Costa Rica). Have not fixed the isPartOf parameters of cities in that region. Can now delete.--Traveler100 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted –sumone10154(talk) 20:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about hotels are not wanted - see What does not get its own article? in Wikivoyage:What is an article?.AlasdairW (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for these extra deletion templates copied from Wikipedia. Template:Delete is sufficient. –sumone10154(talk) 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted — Ravikiran (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file is tagged as a derivative work of artwork. Unused so should be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. At least it should be kept until we decide whether it's better than the current Strawberry Fields photo in Central Park. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Policy states that unused images should be deleted, and this is a duplicate of a similar, used photo at [File:Strawberry_Fields_memorial_at_Central_Park,_NYC.jpg]. If that Commons file is decided to be deleted, it should be reuploaded here, although that deletion request doesn't look like it will pass. JamesA >talk 02:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the above passes the muster, this should go. If it doesn't, then it should go anyway. --Inas (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted. --Peter Talk 03:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/February_2013&oldid=4920822"