Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2008

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in July 2008. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/June 2008 or Project:Votes for deletion/August 2008 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Merge and Delete. Agreed. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 19:11, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Wait and See. While I do agree that this page is not an article yet, I am curious as to why the Disneyland page is an article and the Sea World page is not. I can see how merging the page could be a benefit also, but please help me to understand as I am still a new user. (WT-en) Biggie54 08:28, 18 June 2008 (MST)
I think it's because Disneyland is a massive theme park which is practically an attraction unto itself. Sea World is more like one of the attractions in a much larger city. Also, just to piggyback on the idea of "can you sleep there?", you can sleep at Disneyland, whereas the sleep listings for this Sea World article aren't actually in Sea World, but near Sea World. You can't sleep at Sea World California. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Delete -- (WT-en) Colin 13:26, 18 June 2008 (EDT)


Merge and Delete. Ah, ok. That completely makes sense now. I appreciate the heads up and the fact that you can't actually "sleep there" clears up a lot. Thanks everyone. (WT-en) Biggie54 14:21, 18 June 2008 (MST)
On an extra note, when I looked up the locations of the Sleep listings, I noticed that none of them even fell under the geographical area of San Diego/Mission Beach. So if whoever's deleting this article is doing a merge, be sure to double check whether it actually belongs in the guide you're thinking of. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 19:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 14:48, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected --(WT-en) Nick 15:02, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

The article is currently a redirect but the last version that I redirected is a completely made up and looks like it was written as an April Fools' Day joke. It isn't valid as an article, and the town is so small it's not worthy of having an article - anything worthy of inclusion can go under the general Illawarra article. Please Delete Historical version. (WT-en) JRG 01:33, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Already redirected --(WT-en) Nick 15:04, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't actually mean to delete this (I presume a redirect would be more appropriate), but it seems to contradict/overlap the region structure for Long Island (which goes by county), and I don't know where to redirect it to at the moment. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:21, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't hate this as a sub-region of Suffolk County (New York) or could be redirected there. It is mentioned in that article. -(WT-en) OldPine 12:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Ah, I didn't realize it works as a sub-county region—since Long Island is such a big tourist destination, it's probably fine to have sub-county-level regions. So Keep. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Keep, although the regional breakout for Long island probably doesn't have to be this granular. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:24, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Nick 15:08, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

My bias: I know we have some, but I'm not a fan of articles about mountain ranges. This could be a redirect I suppose, given a title change, but I don't know that it serves us as a stand alone article. It seems to have been written (or copied) just to support an external link (which I removed). I would have speedy deleted if I weren't such a team player ;) --(WT-en) OldPine 12:33, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. IMO there are times when it makes sense to treat a mountain range as a "region," but this is not among them. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:00, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:05, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Tagged with {{vfd}} since February, but nothing seems to have happened since. Anyway, this image appears to be a copyvio. It's from Steamboat Willie, which is still copyrighted in the U.S. Only used in an April Fool's article. (WT-en) JYolkowski 22:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I'll stay neutral since I'm the uploader, but as far as I'm concerned is the crown jewel in our Hell article and I'd be sad to see it go... ho hum – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 21:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Can't say I get the joke, but it's an obvious copyright violation and must go. Sorry. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
You don't find it funny that Mickey Mouse is the gatekeeper to Hell? Suppose you had to be there. Sapphire will kill you. But, delete – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:05, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Do we have a "fair-use" policy paralleling Wikipedia's? This has passed muster there. I believe our policy is more restrictive, however. Scratch that. The colorized version is probably not "fair-use," alas. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:07, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Looks like a non-article to me. I presume that you can't sleep there. It probably should get a mention, though, at either the nearest town or its parent region. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:57, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete Agree. (WT-en) OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Given the vast number of hits that a Google search on this name reveals, I'd prefer a redirect -- but to where? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Unless someone who knows the area has a better suggestion, just redirect to Crete. The current article has only one line of text, no indication of region or nearest town. (WT-en) Pashley 07:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Crete

  • Delete. While this could conceivably be a valid travel topic, it's currently just a random small city template + an advert for a travel agency. I doubt we'll see any volunteers to write this properly. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:43, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete per Peter -- (WT-en) Colin 19:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete (WT-en) OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Although it looks like an advert for a tour operator right now but if volunteers could help to edit it then the information would be very useful for disabled travelers. (WT-en) Barracuda 12:46, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Having created a similar article myself (Disabled travel in South Africa) I obviously don't see the topic itself as a problem, but I also don't see any reason to keep almost empty travel topics around. If it does not at least contains some useful information it should be deleted. --(WT-en) Nick 14:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:13, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:15, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

  • People in photo --(WT-en) Nick 02:23, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete (WT-en) OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
  • The people in the photo aren't recognizable, so this isn't deletable on privacy violation grounds... however I don't see the usefulness of it, and nothing links to it... so I still say delete for those reasons – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. hehe. If an admin sees something that is speedy-deletable then they'll do it, if a user sees something, then they should list it here on the VFD page to draw attention to it... admins do speedy deletes from this page as necessary – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 11:57, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, concurring with the above. (WT-en) OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:19, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Seems to be a resort rather than a town, but I may be wrong --(WT-en) Nick 13:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Clearly a hotel/resort rather than a destination, but let's follow the process. It needs to be de-linked from several pages before it's deleted, btw. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:31, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:56, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Viñales is a small town next to a national park, which has the same name. I moved this page to Parque_Nacional_de_Viñales. Maybe I should have moved the page rather than created a new page and deleted the old page? Sorry, I wasn't sure at first if there should be separate pages for the town and the national park. I can see an argument for the latter (e.g., most national park pages don't have nightlife sections!) but most tourists go there to hike in the day and salsa dance at night, so I put the town and national park on one page.--(WT-en) Chapayev 16:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Viñales should definitely be about the town.. you can sleep there, and it's a popular destination. Whether or not we need an additional article for the National Park depends on how much there is to see, etc... if there's not a ton of stuff to write an article about the park and just a handful of sites, then the ones nearby the town can go in the "Get out" section of Viñales (city) and the others can go on the Pinar del Rio (province) page. But we should definitely move the city page back to Viñales  :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
If you look at the map you'll see that the town of Viñales is inside the national park. You can sleep in every national park in the United States, as far as I know, and all are popular destinations. There's "a ton of stuff" about the park waiting for someone to type it, on the photos I uploaded from the exhibits in the national park headquarters.--(WT-en) Chapayev 23:13, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Then we should have articles on both. Viñales should be the article for the town... as for the park, what's the most common name (not necessarily the official name)? Wikipedia calls it Viñales Valley – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 12:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Nick 03:58, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Merge-Redirect Keep I'm thinking this doesn't qualify under guidelines on what is an article and I feel it could be covered under the nearest town (to which it previously was redirected). However, my aging memory seems to recall other ski resort articles and I would like to get a consensus so that persistent restarting can be judged concretely. --(WT-en) OldPine 11:39, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. Sun peaks seems to pass the "can you sleep there?" test, and there are also many other articles that are devoted to ski resorts. I did a search for 'ski resort' before I decided to go ahead with Sun Peaks, just to be sure that it was something fairly common. Large ski resorts are also tend to be the size of a small town. Sun Peaks also does not fit under: "What does not get its own article?" (WT-en) Occasional Traveller 07:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
    • I agree with cacahuate that you can sleep at a hotel, but that shouldn't be the only requirement for an article. Sun Peaks (and many other Ski Resorts are much more than a hotel. They are little towns in their own rights, with homes owned by private citizens, as well as shops and cafes within the "town". ... just another 2 cents on this one.. (WT-en) Occasional Traveller 09:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. At 45 minutes from the nearest city, it seems like it's a valid destination in its own right. Agree that it passes the "Can you sleep there" test. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:50, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Undecided. We need to clearly define what our criteria are for acceptable ski resort articles. "Can you sleep there" is just a guideline; IMO it's more like "if you can't sleep there, then no article", but not "if you can, then definitely article". You can also sleep at a hotel, but we don't allow articles on hotels. BUT, let's discuss this in an appropriate place, not on VFD: Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?#Ski_resorts – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. The basic criterion that has worked in places like Colorado and New Mexico is that a ski resort that is part of a town (e.g. Taos Ski Valley, which is part of the community of Taos that has a lot of destination-ish features beyond the ski area) doesn't get its own article, but is subordinated to the town's article. If the ski resort is the town (e.g. Red River, one that I happen to be familiar with and know is not "part of" any town but itself) and provides the services that a destination provides, then it is as valid a destination as anywhere else. This one definitely seems to fall in the latter class, and strikes me as a clear keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:05, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Nick 04:01, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

People in photo --(WT-en) Nick 03:45, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:04, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

People in photo --(WT-en) Nick 03:48, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:06, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Wikivoyage:Image policy#People_in_photos. --(WT-en) Jonboy 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:10, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Fairly blatant plug for Luggage delivery service (which is a valid article). (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:25, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:12, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Evaluating every country on the local cost of two American products converted to the American dollar seems to me to be not only outside of our scope but also a rather myopic, biased and under-informative perspective. Plus, who is going to keep this thing up to date? BusinessWeek? Pricing information already given in the country articles and in the individual listings should already give the traveler a more reasonable idea of what to expect. Except, of course, for those thousands of people who travel the world smoking Marlboro Reds and eating nothing but Big Macs.

  • Delete. (WT-en) Texugo 21:00, 17 February 2008 (EST)
  • Wait and see. As it stands, this article is not a keeper. However, with a more thoughtfully chosen set of comparison items (if one is possible), I can imagine it as a valid travel topic under the "Buy" heading that actually assists the traveler -- which, after all, is what travel-topic articles are supposed to do. Let's give this one a little while to either take root or wither before deciding whether to delete it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:12, 17 February 2008 (EST)
  • Delete. Unmaintainable list. Article is less than a month old and already more than 3 years outdated. Pack of Marlboro Reds will cost you around R20, not R14.70, Coke around R5.50, not R4.50 and a Big Mac I have no idea as I totally avoid the place. The buy section in every county is a far better place to explain local currency purchasing power. --(WT-en) Nick 14:42, 2 March 2008 (EST)
I agree with Nick here. This article is a nice idea, but totally unmaintainable. Delete. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 12:00, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
  • As it stands, delete, but the topic is valid. Rewrite? with some general summary info -- don't pay European or American prices in third world countries, eat local food to save money, cameras and electronics are cheaper in Singapore, etc. -- and have links to things like per capita GDP as an indicator of living costs and to the Business Week article. (WT-en) Pashley 20:49, 2 March 2008 (EST)
  • A friend of a friend, an economist at that, wrote a hilarious book called "Ten Times the Price of a Haircut". Great read on life as a UN/World Bank itinerant consultant, mostly about mismanagement and ill-conceived projects. Title is from a rule he suggests for the cost of girls anywhere. Should we include that? :-) (WT-en) Pashley 20:57, 2 March 2008 (EST)
  • Split into articles of destination countries quoted. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 08:31, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I still don't see the point. When is someone going to need this article? What are they supposed to learn? It looks like common sense reiterated to me, and it's organized like a 9th grade essay. (WT-en) Texugo 01:38, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Inclined to delete. Nice idea... but... either way, let's figure it out soon, this has been here a few months now – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:06, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Discuss. I frequently see a need for 'price comparison across countries': how prices for electronics compare in US or Japan to Moscow; how prices for fashionwear compares in Milano to Moscow; how prices for jewelry or watches compare in Dubai to Moscow etc etc. How can we cater the needs like mine with Wikivoyage? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:24, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
We've been discussing for 4 months now... there seems to be a consensus to delete as far as I can tell; I think that's what we should do in the next couple days unless you've got a really convincing argument for keeping it... so far there's been none. If electronics are notably cheap in Moscow, enough so that it makes it relevant to a traveler, then we should note it on the Moscow page... we don't need a separate article to do that – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 16:57, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
My first point is to have a global article where I can find that for electronics I should consider Japan, not Singapore or even Moscow; for fur coats, I should go to Greece, and for quality leatherwear--to Vienna or whatever.
My second point is that facts like "X is x2 cheaper in Moscow than in New York" are irrelevant in Moscow article (as such facts don't make Moscow an attractive destination), nor they are relevant in New York (as it's a wrong place for facts on Moscow).
I've made a stub with both examples of price comparison facts I find useful, and with a short outline of where to go for specific shopping: User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin/Shopping around the world. Facts I already listed are mostly trivial, but I'm sure the community can contribute with much more useful. Not sure my examples will help What things cost to survive, but we still need a place for a facts like I listed. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Right, except that we're Wikivoyage not Wikishopping. Nobody is reading our website to figure out where to go based on shopping, but they may consider picking up some electronics in Taiwan if they already happen to be going there and find out that they're cheaper than at home, which is why it makes sense to then mention that under "Buy" in Taiwan article. I understand where you're trying to go with your example there, in theory, but I really just don't see how it will be useful, in reality. I really can't see anyone looking at that and making travel decisions based on it – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 19:07, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
I think something along these lines is worth having. Consider the traveller going from Australia to Southeast Asia who wants a camera for the trip. Should he buy in Oz or Bangkok? How much would he save by starting his trip in Singapore and buying there? What about stereo equipment? Is that worth buying in Singapore or Hong Kong to bring home? (WT-en) Pashley 22:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
How about setting up an Incubator: namespace where we can place and discuss pages like the above--travel topics that are slippery slopes, but a clearly useful and maintainable form is still to be found--instead of just removing them? From previous history, Ferries in the Mediterranean and User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin/List of Ferries (and even maybe User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin/Paper travel guides?) might wait there for new ideas on how to make them up and running. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
It's not really about which namespace they're in, if we allow them we allow them. I think you should do what you're already doing... try to develop it in your user page sandbox, which others can add to as well if you let them know it's ok. Hopefully then once you start actually thinking them through you'll start to see which of the ideas actually have potential and which of them will just sit around as unrealized stubs for 10 years. Ferries in the Mediterranean is another good example... you argued it out of a successful deletion nearly 6 months ago but haven't touched it since... and it still contains absolutely no info that couldn't and shouldn't already be on the individual countries' get in/out sections. Like an itinerary, those kind of articles need someone with the desire and vision to write them, or at least give a solid base to build on, otherwise they won't really get touched and become useful.
Anyhow, we're off track now... we should be discussing the article up for VFD... Pashley has a point about buying a camera, but I think pieces of advice like that are better suited to a section on Urban backpacking, or under "prepare" in a RTW itinerary, etc. Trying to have one article that points to the best place to buy hundreds of different things or that tries to be a price comparison between countries is way out of scope IMO, and leads us to another one of those lovely unmaintainable lists. I don't think it's within our scope to advise people in general about where to buy a cheap business suit or a dvd player – unless it's something very particular about that destination, in which case it's better mentioned in that country's "buy" section, where people would expect to find it... nobody is looking for an article on WT that does price comparisons on dvd players to decide where to go; but if they're already headed to Singapore, let 'em know about it in "Buy" – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 16:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
1. Article on shopping and price comparison: I can't say for US, of course. For Russian travellers, shopping is an essential part of travel (especially when they travel to Europe and US)--and I think isn't also quite a case for some Europeans. As for Russia, many-many things are x2-x3 overpriced here, but not all of them--and it's not clear before you get to the brand's original country whether it'll be a huge saver to shop overseas or not. Things get worse when you don't look for specific brand, but for generic good-quality products like fashion footwear or formal suits--you can't easily go to online shops and find out that good-quality stuff can be bought times cheaper even if you don't know a single local brand in this country.
And yes, several popular travel guides published in Russia have a heavy section of shops worth visiting for a great value for money--for general-use products, not local souvenirs or regional gourmet specialties.
2. Incubator namespace: I believe that our mission (as editors at Wikivoyage) is to help anyone sharing useful info to find a maintainable and long-living place and form for every piece of content we receive and find useful. Nowadays we expect visionaries to come and share--but revert any info that don't fit well into article format (like totally removing personal or single-occurrence experiences), and we VFD pages that an original author couldn't find a right form for from the first attempt.
The idea of separate namespace is to allow "wait-and see", "decide-later" scenario--not immediately considering it as "officially allowed" in here.
--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Re: 1... still think it's out of our scope, you could build a whole wiki around world shopping; but we're only debating the :en WT right now, :ru may well have more of an audience for shopping articles
Re: 2... our mission is... actually, I think that's just about the opposite of the spirit of non-goal #7; a travel guide without a discerning eye isn't a travel guide at all, it's a yellow pages.
My main point is that there's not much that I come across that is appropriate to WT and can't fit into our already existing guide structure. My goal is to try and avoid duplicating info across our site, unless absolutely necessary, which it almost never is IMO. The primary place for any info should always be the destination guides themselves. "Lists of..." types of articles IMO only start to suck info towards them that should be aimed at the guides; or worse, put in both, duplicating info that then needs to be kept in sync.
I actually like the original idea for this article, when the info is in the articles themselves, the way I did in Bangladesh#Buy... I think that's a great use of an infobox. LP also does this, and I think it's useful... not just in gauging how much you'll be spending in a country, but also for knowing that a bottle of water should cost Rs 10, and to punch anyone who asks for Rs 100.
So.... then the article was re-written into its current format, and as it stands now, I still think that everything in it (and that will likely be added to it in the future) has a place elsewhere... breaking it down: any relevant info in the opening section and "Cheaper countries" should be (and some already is) in Money#Costs. Info in the "Electronics" section should be primarily in the individual country articles, and then perhaps touched on in any appropriate itineraries, as I said above about Pashley's point on cameras.
I agree that vfd'ing this the day it was created was maybe a bit rash... it could have been discussed and guided on the talk page first into an appropriate focus or to a different place on the site. I have no problem letting some things sit around and see how they develop, much like Bill says above, but I'd just like to move this one along because a) it seems clear to me that there's better places for the info, and b) I know that you're allergic to conclusions :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:58, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
  1. I agree that this specific article in its current form is not maintainable or practical enough.
  2. What is the best place and way to continue this discussion on other forms of shopping/pricing-centric articles? (clearly a vfd discussion page is not a best place for that)
  3. At this point it looks logical to consider: (a) Shopping Destinations article -- places where people head primarily for shopping (I can name only a few destinations, but they do exist), (b) price comparison "Moscow vs rest of world" looks for me like the easiest way to plunge forward; pitifully such info will be available only on :ru (until we find a way to incorporate it to :en); (c) probably, Tips on Shopping article.
  4. Generally, between-the-lines thesis "this is non-goal at :en, try at :ru" alarms me--looks like Wikivoyage is still very westerner-centric.
--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:39, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Not Western-centric, traveler-centric, which was the conclusion of the conversation you just linked to as well. I'm not advocating that you create those on Russian WT, I personally would like to see them nowhere... but, I said that in response to you saying that it's something Russian's are very likely to find useful... so perhaps that will be one of the various differences between ru and en.

The best place to discuss further (and where this convo should be copied) is Talk:Travel topics. I'd also argue against a "Moscow against the rest of the world", since that would very logically just be placed at Moscow#Buy.

RE: "tips on shopping", we already have haggling... I'm struggling to think of more angles that can't be covered there that don't segue back into prices comparing. But for sure if you think of some bring it up at Talk:Travel topics.

So I'm thinking we delete, any other arguments for keeping? Last call... I think I may copy to Pashley's userspace in case she wishes to keep it for future thought? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:58, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

"Moscow against rest of the world": when you visit the rest of the world with Moscow as home region / Moscow prices as reference for comparison, it's more logical to seek info on prices and good deals in a specific region, not a one-article-cover-all "what things cost in Moscow" which give no idea on which products can be found in a specific country/city--whether overpriced in Russia or entirely not available. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:20, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
"Tips on shopping": travel destinations; duty-free air/port shops; tax-free shopping; "If you buy with a Singapore-only warranty, what can you do with this electronics at home?" to name a few. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:20, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
→ Talk:Travel_topics#Shopping_articles – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 12:58, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Nice effort, but it just doesn't work for me. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:45, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete. I've been leaning delete for a long time on this, but kept quiet since Sandy did a nice reworking of the article. But ultimately, I see any serious effort to analyze differences in the real costs of goods across countries to be beyond the scope of Wikivoyage. For more casual analysis, along the lines of "digital cameras are both more advanced and cheaper in Japan than elsewhere, so if you don't mind the Japanese interface, buy your cameras here," can just go in the country buy sections—I tend to think its best not to duplicate that info in a travel topic.
I could perhaps envision an article that broke down into sections by type of goods (i.e., clothes, high-tech goods, fine dining, accommodations, etc.) and listed some of the best (cheapest) places in the world to get them. Off the top of my head, I certainly couldn't write that, but I could suggest Hong Kong for clothes, Japan for high-tech, fine dining might actually be at best values in North America, and that's all I've got. Such an article would be much more specific, and more resembling a list of pointers. But as is, I'm coming down on delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:27, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:15, 29 July 2008 (EDT)


  • Merge to somewhere? I don't want to see this good content deleted, but it's currently not formatted in a way that fits into our website, really. Could we merge this to the "do" section of a region article? Or the "get out" section of Valldal? Or would it warrant a full itinerary? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep, but with changes. Is it just a day trip? If so, merging to the "get out" section of Valldal is probably better. If you can sleep there, or if it is a route into hiking and camping territory, then it should probably become an itinerary. Either way, it should lose the "ëxternal links" section which violates policy and, this being a mountain road in Norway, I suspect it needs warnings about being closed or dangerous in winter. (WT-en) Pashley 09:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: 'Mered and Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:22, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/July_2008&oldid=4920711"