Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2015

← December 2014

Votes for deletion archives for January 2015

(current) February 2015 →

Paleorrota Geopark

This article has already been deleted on wv:pt, wp:en (see here), and wp:pt, and does not appear on the list of UNESCO geoparks, as the article stated until I removed it just now. In fact, the park does not exist: it does not have any official international, national, state, regional, or municipal recognition as a park and is, as far as I can tell, merely a proposal being promoted by a single amateur paleontologist/blogger here. I could not find any official references to this "park", and everything seems to lead back to one Mr. Sérgio Kaminski, who runs the blog.

Delete - Texugo (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the place doesn't even exist, the article should be speedily deleted, with just a notice here or somewhere else where people would read it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read through the WP deletion discussion though, you can see some indication of why I thought it better to bring it up here first. Texugo (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP discussion contains a suggestion that there perhaps should be an article on that encyclopedic site because the concept of the Paleorrota is mentioned in official documents. We don't have articles about parks in the conceptual, pre-planning stage on Wikivoyage. Again, I say speedily delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pashley (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted - I assume three admins agreeing on speedy deletion is grounds enough. Texugo (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Health Insurance Card

As far as I can see, the license of the source website does not comply enough with our license to allow this information being copied here. Of course, we also don't like copied text. Since there's been some discussion about it however, I'm going to post here. We need to make a call. Does anyone think this should not be deleted? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to delete and redirect: The source license is not clearly compatible with Wikimedia , and equivalent non-copyrighted information already exists in European Union --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason for redirecting this? Replacing pointless articles with redirects is usually just a device to keep real places off VfD, even when there's nothing there. This isn't a place. K7L (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a real "place", but it is a real and travel related "thing", which is also covered in our European Union article. There's no harm in such a redirect, I guess. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with redirecting. Why not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It won't hurt. Danapit (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JuliasTravels' rationale. It's not implausible that someone might type "European Health Insurance Card" into the search bar; those who do ought to be directed to what information we have on the subject. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to European Union --Saqib (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:!

Per the gerrit:136234, it's now a magic word. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. I don't understand the point of this template. It inserts an exclamation point? If so, how is that useful? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It inserts a pipe character ("|") and is used when calling templates. In templates pipes are used to separate parameters - {{template|param1|param2}} - so if you want param1 to be "left|right" in the previous example, you need to use the "!" template to insert it, i.e. {{template|left{{!}}right|param2}}. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. See mw:Help:Magic words#Other and note that Wikipedia has already deleted this template - w:Template:!. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who deleted the template, how useful is it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until the MediaWiki change noted in the Gerrit issue above was implemented this template was absolutely necessary to be able to pass values containing pipe characters to a template, and we used it in many places. Now that it's been replaced by a magic word it is completely redundant and having it around is just likely to create confusion. We should most definitely delete it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The replacement is automatic, so that there will be no structural problems with any page when this template is deleted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It'll need to be replaced manually in a handful of places before deletion, no big deal. Texugo (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In that case, I have no reason to object to its deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above discussion. No longer needed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Redundant. Texugo (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Ricordi samoa 04:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted --Saqib (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block/Unblock templates

All of the above templates were created recently by User:DLindsley, but in the two weeks since their creation there hasn't been any discussion about using this sort of functionality here - typically unblock requests have been less formal, and if a user wants to be unblocked they leave a message on their talk page, and if someone feels they were inappropriately blocked then that user is unblocked (this has happened a few times with hotel touts). I'm fine with formalizing that system, and I actually think it makes sense to have templates here that are common on other Wikimedia projects, but for now I don't think the wording and approach indicated by the above templates is the best way to move forward. As an aside, if we do decide to keep these templates we should probably re-import them from Wikipedia with full history to ensure proper attribution.

Delete per above. -- Ryan • (talk) • 09:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, odd creating template before any discussion of a need for such things and the user has not been active on this site with any other topic or since there create. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of these templates have been needed so far. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot of them. Requests for unblocks by banned users don't happen nearly often enough that we would need to automate responses with templates. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted --Saqib (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inuse & Template:Inuse/doc

Delete. Putting a big "do not edit this article" notice on an article strikes me as off-putting, and I would personally prefer not to see this become something we encourage. Do other Wikimedia projects actually use this sort of thing? -- Ryan • (talk) • 09:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally agree, questioned it when it was used. Wikimedia can handle most edit conflicts on sites much busier than this one. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely unnecessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen it used before and can see why people would like to use it. However, such templates have a tendency to become forgotten and remain in place far too long. It's not about the software or site being able to handle edit conflicts, it's about how such conflicts can be annoying when you're working substantially on an article. It's not uncommon for some of us to jump right in fixing and adding things in edits they see appearing in the recent changes; we should try to refrain from doing that (and I'm including myself! :-)). However, only new users get truly puzzled by edit conflicts, and they won't know to use this template. Regular users who get annoyed by edit conflicts can just mention they're currently working on the article in the edit summary. The benefits are just not convincing. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to vote keep, but JuliasTravels' rationale is persuasive. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this might be useful if Wikivoyage becomes much, much busier than it is now. Can't see it happening for a long time. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could see a possible use for a process by which, if the existing article is pretty much word-for-word WT import, a new article is created (initially on a subpage) with no WT content and expanded until the old one is eventually deleted and replaced. That would address an SEO problem where we are being punished for duplicate content and having every page defaced with "content from other travel wikis" disclaimers, but I'd expect its use would be rare as someone has to find the time to actually write the new article. K7L (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted --Saqib (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qarsaa

Delete. This is currently our only stub article on the site, and I can't tell if it's supposed to be for a mountain, a village, or something else, so I don't know how to template-ize it. Google maps has no results for "Qarsaa India", a Google search for "Qarsaa" isn't turning up anything useful, and the information in the article text aren't proving helpful. Rather that waste more time trying to save the few sentences of text that are present, let's just get rid of this
Speedy keep - I've redirected the article to Kersa and templated it per Powers, so there is no longer a reason to delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not in India but Ethiopia, Masjid is Oromo for mosque, and probably more common spelling is Qarsa or Kersa. But I have spent some time on the web looking for the mountain, the village and the mosque and failed to find confirmation for any of them. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and outlinify or redirect. This would appear to be w:Kersa, Hararge (or its eponymous central town), based on its stated location of the Oromia Region. Powers ^(talk) 19:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and outlinify or redirect per Powers. Well found! JuliasTravels (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "masjid" is the Arabic word for mosque, and thus is used in numerous languages spoken by Muslims around the world. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept --Saqib (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]