Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2022

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← January 2022 Votes for deletion archives for February 2022 (current) March 2022 →

This template is a currently unused template, nor was it ever used. As far as I'm aware, we only use these boxes if there are a reasonable amount of countries or dependencies that use that currency, such as the euro, the US dollar, the Australian dollar or the EC dollar. As the Indian rupee is not used officially anywhere outside India (while a co-official currency in Bhutan and Nepal), it is not necessary to have a specific exchange rate template for it and they can just be manually updated in India#Buy every so often. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pashley (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect doesn't seem to be useful, merely because of its incorrect capitalisation. In its entire lifetime, it only received 507 pageviews, and such redirects with incorrect capitalisation are pointless – do we really need to create redirects for "British columbia" or San marino"? In all, whatever way, this redirect is not at all useful because it is obvious common knowledge that proper nouns are always capitalised. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the search box is indifferent to capitalisation anyway, but check with someone who can confirm. We also don't really want blue links to spelling errors. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The search box is indifferent to capitalisation, at least in most cases, which should include this one. Those not using the search box should know they need to spell things correctly, and if one does a typo in an article, it is better that it is obvious once you preview or save. –LPfi (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the issue was a red link in an edit summary somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot have redirects for every typo in edit summaries. It is easy to go to the correct page in cases like this, where the typo is obvious. When it isn't, it still isn't worse than if it were not linked at all, which is very much more common. If the link is important, add it to a new edit summary or put it on the talk page. –LPfi (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the benefit in removing this redirect? Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Hobbitschuster: who created this redirect. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pashley (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the point of a Disambiguation with only red links Tai123.123 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After doing more research, it seems most of the places are tiny villages, some that fail wiaa. Have struck my vote. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sometimes disambiguation pages with just one blue link have a point: when there are places more well-known than the one you create an article about (read: more well-known in some audience). In these cases using the name for the less-known place, redirecting the name there, or leaving the plain name a redlink could be confusing. With no blue link, and none assumed to pop up in the foreseeable future, I don't think there is a point – is that the case here?

–LPfi (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How likely is Port Gibson to be just called Gibson on the ground? Port Gibson is not on the coast. and is unlikely to be an actual port these days. There is also Gibsons, which could be added to the list. AlasdairW (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that those who try "Gibson" and don't get a match try again with "Port Gibson" – and a search would find it with "Gibson" without a disambig page. One problem with disambig pages like this is that they may be arbitrary lists, leaving out some much more important place. I think the page does more harm than good. Delete without prejudice; if some thought behind a new page is shown it may be worthwhile. –LPfi (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted.

Not another encyclopedic article! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, it's an outline, but it seems of some use to me, and it's definitely not encyclopedic, as an encyclopedic article would have way more content dealing with history and so forth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Merged. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason given by Graham87 under a speedy deletion request.

Block evasion, Te Reo Ahitereiria, see enwiki block logs of users in history

I declined the speedy just because I don't think we've ever deleted articles because of someone lock evading, we've only speedily deleted articles because of someone block evading like AC or the one Australian user who we all know. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can already tell that what I am going to write will be misconstrued, but with the caveats that block evasion is bad and I do not support anyone editing or soliciting someone else to edit while blocked in any fashion, I don't see the value in our community removing otherwise valid and potentially useful content just because of the source being someone who was editing while blocked. Remember, ttcf and is the traveler helped by removing this phrasebook? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the person who declined the speedy, I'm only going to say keep only because I cropped two banners for this article. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I now vote for delete per Graham87. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's now a discussion on Wikivoyage:User ban nominations relating to this nomination. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the person who nominated it for speedy deletion (honestly, kinda just to see what would happen). Not only because it's block evasion, but because casual travellers would be extremely unlikely to need such a resource: firstly, because its native speakers live in some of the most remote communities in Australia, both generally and more specifically for tourism (see the list at w:Pitjantjatjara#Some major communities); and secondly, because most of its speakers that a traveller would encounter (e.g. at roadhouses/general stores, on guided tours, at art galleries) would also be fluent in English. Casually walking around in these communities without an idea what you're doing would be foolhardy at best (snooping on private homes is rude and there could be sacred areas) and deadly at worst (see this news story for an idea of what I mean). The only people who would need such a resource are linguists and people working in those communities (e.g. as nurses/teachers), both of whom would have much more appropriate resources available to them. Graham87 (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable, although I cannot assess to usefulness – if I were going to a remote settlement in Nenetsia, I would try to learn the language at phrasebook level. The phrasebook now contains only the pronunciation of letters and the odd phrase. Except "hello" it is quite useless, and anybody able to make it more complete could as well start off from scratch. –LPfi (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because we cannot rely on the creator of this this article. User:Tai123.123 voted "Keep, assuming the information is correct". I don't see how we can assume that. If Justin can assure us that the content is "valid", I'll change my vote, but I am not prepared to assume that. Ground Zero (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tai123.123 has now changed their vote, so it's only Justin now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a regular contributor can assure us of the content. There are only 3 actual phrases in this phrasebook. When I tried these in Google Translate different languages were recognised for each of them, and none of the results metched our translation - maybe not a surprise for an obscure language but it didn't increase my confidence. AlasdairW (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a travel article, and it was created by someone who was lock evading. Unlikely to ever become a worthy travel topic. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an offensive term and it's a similar reason as to why we don't have an Eskimos redirect. Here's two quick articles as to why it's considered offensive: --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wasn't current on acceptable terminology for Aboriginal Australians (I was going to write "native Australians", but Australia#Respect states that "Native is also offensive", so maybe "native Australian" is not P.C., either), but we don't want to have an offensive redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I reworded it. Native isn't offensive, it's just not a preferred term. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible redirect If we have an article on respecting native/indigenous/aboriginal peoples while traveling and how to understand the power dynamics of some outsiders traveling to lands that still have indigenous control, then that could be a valid redirect. If not/until we do, delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends. It seems a fairly likely search term, which argues for keeping the redirect, but if the article includes the term (perhaps in a note that it is obsolete & may be offensive), then the search will succeed anyway & the redirect is not needed. Pashley (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added such a note so I'll now say delete.
Should we mention that "abo" is sometimes used & is really offensive? I would think not, but an Aussie's opinion would be welcome. Pashley (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's mentioned in Australia#Respect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also mentioned in Indigenous Australian culture#Names. But I'd like the opinion of @Yvwv: who created this redirect. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search for "Aborigines" lists 50 articles, many of which are not in Australia. For example Haiduan in Taiwan, Uromi in Nigeria and Ayer Keroh in Malaysia has an Aborigines Museum. So the redirect might have the wrong target. I don't know whether the term is offensive in these other countries. So either delete or change the redirect to an article which coveres these other countries' use of the term. AlasdairW (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (my initial response was to this as an article but I see now it's a redirect, so I deleted it to rethink it) As a redirect, we do have redirects for Native Americans, First Nations, and Jews. Most ethnic groups don't have redirects, but that could be attributed to a lack of articles about Zulus, Hausa People, Romani, etc. If ethnic groups are viable redirects, I think this should be an easy Keep. From the discussion above, it seems referencing these people in any way is "offensive" in Australia, but outside of Australia, at least in North America, they are Aborigines (with the capitalized "A"). "Jews" can be offensive or neutral, and it is a redirect. I don't know the extent of "offense" the term causes in Australians particularly with actual Aborigines versus whites/academics, but outside "Aborigine" is entirely neutral. It has no negative connotation at all, so it shouldn't be an issue to keep it. It is the only way I've ever heard them referenced. If we don't like ethnic groups as redirects, that is a separate conversation. (edit: We have Gypsy as a redirect but not Romani or Romani people. People claim "Gypsy" is offensive, too, but it's the most common reference, so it's sensible. The redirects are based on popular or likely search terms for the specific article. That is definitely the case for Aborigines. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems the offensiveness is in the overly broad generalisation, talking about the Australian Aborigines is like talking about the Native Europeans. I suppose it is OK in the right context, but the context should make it clear one is talking about several peoples and cultures. Thus, the problem is not in the name itself, but in the way the name has been and continues to be used. –LPfi (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, we literally use Native Americans, and they are a lot more diverse, more numerous, and spread over a wider area than Aborigines, so maybe that's why the "offense" seems nonsensical/manufactured to me. But even accepting it as "offensive" at least to some degree, it is still a sensible redirect based on international terminology and how this group of people are referenced. It seems akin to gypsy. If think Aborigine and gypsy are internationally the most common terms used for the groups they represent. They make sense as redirects. I don't see "Aborigine" as being special in this regard. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember a work colleague newly arrived from India being horrified because she had used the term "red Indians" in a meeting about the First Nations people of Canada. It was the term she had learned in India. The Aboriginal peoples of Australia were called Aborigines for a long time, and non-Australian readers may not have caught up with the change in termininology. A redirect can help them find the correct article and learn what term they should use to avoid giving offence. Ground Zero (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the term used in English taught as a second language in the 1990s. Seemingly, terminology has changed over time. /Yvwv (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed that "Red Indian" was still bring taught in the 1990s. In 1999, Australia had a referendum on adding a preamble to its construction which, among other things, would have included "honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders". So terminology has changed there, too. Ground Zero (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirect kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a disambiguation with just one article – I think this db page should be deleted (to make way for the one article linked), Soumya-8974's page move reverted, and then add a hatnote. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP primary links to the Mumbai one. If we can find which Mumbai district it's in then we I think we should keep it with links to the Mumbai district and the Raigad one. Tai123.123 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: No consensus. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/February_2022&oldid=4397040"