Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2014

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← February 2014 Votes for deletion archives for March 2014 (current) April 2014 →

Template:Nbsp and Template:Loop15

A pair of templates which apparently work together to insert a certain number of non-breaking spaces in a row. The purpose is unclear and the templates are still unused after more than a year.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ParmPart

Created over a year ago, unused, with no explanation as to its purpose.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link FA

Created over a year ago with a link to a non-English Belorussian website, and subsequently changed to some code whose purpose is not clear to me. Template wholly unused.

Sorry, what does "FA" stand for? Texugo (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article. What I mean is that while we have a recognized content system, we don't have it set up properly for interwikis, and we would need additional support from other Wikivoyages anyway, and it risks being mooted when Wikidata support for this sort of thing comes around. --Rschen7754 18:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so obviously nothing to do with completely external sites in a foreign language, as the original creator of this template had it... Texugo (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USS Pueblo

USS Pueblo was created today with a redirect to Pyongyang. Since redirecting to individual tourist attractions is not listed as per policy Wikivoyage:How to redirect a page can we delete this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I was unaware of this distinction. Would this not however lead to a large amount of redirect pages created for every public attraction? (such as a redirect page for every museum on London, for example? Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Also, to address Andrewssi2's comment above: as long as this site exists, newbies are going to create articles that don't pass muster per wiaa. However, the fact that it does no harm to redirect those articles rather than deleting them does not mean we're constrained to waste time and effort creating redirect articles for every individual attraction under the sun. It's fine to let the problem articles be created, nominated for VfD, and redirected organically. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, let's please remember not to type underscores in wikilinks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for anyway having discussed this. This one redirect wasn't a major issue in anyway, although I was a concerned that it might set a bad precedent. I'll consider this closed. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with underscores in wikilinks? They're interchangeable with spaces as far as the wiki is concerned, aren't they? Powers (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They look messy, particularly when they're visible, as they were in the header of this nomination before I fixed it. Anyway, if AWB fixes them in mainspace, we ought to try to avoid them in projectspace. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept as redirect. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Title-icon-entry

Unused template, no links reported from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Title-icon-entry. Based on the history page for it, this template seemed to have been an experiment by Wrh2 (talk · contribs) taken from http://wikitravel.org/en/Template:Title-icon-entry. However, the comparable WhatLinksHere report from the same template shows a significant number of templates, and I think that Wikivoyage has managed to retain all information on the linked pages from wikitravel without needing to use this template. So it should be safe to delete. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with authorities

Some of the advice on this page comes down to Captain Obvious: "In general, law enforcement responds proportionally to a threat, so avoid any violent gestures."

Others such as the following example is a combination of naivety and false advice: "Be aware of the local attitude to corruption. In low-corruption countries, trying to bribe an officer can be disastrous. In high-corruption countries, it can be the only viable option.".

Firstly, dealing with corruption is a complex subject. Even in a 'high corruption' county, bribing can still very much be disastrous. Secondly, WV should never condone bribing or illegal activity.

I believe this page should be deleted based on the lack of any relevant content, as well as the poor advice offered so far.

This page does cover a broad subject, so I am open to counter-points on this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that was my first reaction too. However, it was only born less than a week ago and there are editors actively engaged with it now so we might want to give it a little time to see if any valuable content develops... --118.93nzp (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought about that, although the user who created it is busy creating links to these pages throughout WV, and not spending any more time to make any factual content on the page itself. I am concerned for long term quality.
Additionally, the subject 'trouble with authorities' is to me not a generic article but something very specific to each and every country. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is too general right now, but I'm not sure we should delete it yet. Could some discussion on its talk page be of any use? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I would also like to reach out to the author and ask then to desist adding links in other pages to this article until it is ready. Perhaps we can reevaluate in a fortnight? Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern would be this article's scope; dealing with authorities can vary so widely from place to place that it seems like there'd be nothing useful to say as a general matter. That said, "Captain Obvious" concerns are less important on travel topics; if "obvious" claims can go anywhere, it's on an article like this one. LtPowers (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm going to suggest a merge to Stay safe. As with most things, we should only split it out again once the amount of information begins to overwhelm the parent article. LtPowers (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with a merge in Stay safe Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like the best best short-term solution, but I'd like to hear from the creator before any merge is done. Depending on his or her plans, I might support keeping this.
In the longer term, I would probably support an independent article with a specific title like "Bribery" or "Corruption". However, I absolutely detest the current vague/euphemistic title and we don't yet have enough material for a separate article. Much of this sort of info should be in destination articles or other overview pieces like Tips for travel in developing countries. Pashley (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Police corruption is only one form of trouble with authorities. In some countries, certain minorities (such as gays) are targeted for discrimination; in others, there are problems with police brutality or oppressive régimes. The scope of this piece needs to be defined before changing its title. K7L (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while in the long term having lots of internal links is a good idea, I don't think this article is ready for that yet so certainly no more links should be added and quite possibly some existing ones should be removed.
Personally, I'd scrap all the names I do not like — Authorities, Trouble with authorities, Authority trouble and Authority misconduct — which currently form a rather complex structure of redirects, keeping only Bribes and Corruption. That may be too harsh or just be me being a curmudgeon. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, though, I strongly support the notion that having an article on bribery would be a good idea, for more-or-less the same reasons we already have Pickpockets, Begging or Bargaining, all of which I have contributed to. These are widespread issues and trying to deal with them in multiple destination articles does not really work. Pashley (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe WV should cover bribery as a general subject because apart from the obvious serious legal issues around bribery, the laws around it do vary significantly from country to country and often between one person's unique circumstance and another's. The only general advice we should be giving is 'do not bribe government officials', and that doesn't need its own article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might be convinced otherwise, but I tend to agree with you. And this is partly covered by this site's illegal activities policy. Advising people on when or how to bribe is pretty dangerous. At most, in guides to specific countries where what is considered a bribe elsewhere would be considered a gift in advance for good service, that can be mentioned somewhere ("Respect" is usually where such a thing would get stuck), or it could be observed that many motorists in a given country choose to pay a "fine" directly to the traffic cop who stopped them for speeding, instead of getting a ticket. There might be other situations worth mentioning, but only in guides to specific countries, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few days have passed, and no comment from the creator of this article . Additionally the content has not been improved at all. Is there a consensus to merge into other articles? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been six days, policy is to wait two weeks. Given the season, we might even think about waiting longer. Pashley (talk)
I guess that is fine. As long as this article is not linking everywhere yet then it isn't a burning issue. Suggest asking again end of January. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping awareness for this nomination. Today the article still hasn't addressed the key question of whether a subject so generic can provide useful advise to travelers that is applicable to most countries. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is intended to expand on the very generalized and lengthy Stay safe article, where there currently is a "law and authorities" section. There are indeed different issues that can be covered; corruption seems to be the most substantial one. Police brutality and/or detention could also be worth a section on its own. /Yvwv (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yvwv. Although I agree that if there is repeated information between countries then it can be optimal for that to be maintained in a single article. Unfortunately I just do not see it here. Although corruption and police brutality do exist in various forms in all countries, how exactly do you propose to provide advice that is equally applicable to North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Sweden on these subjects? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, that can be worked out during the road, as many other travel topics. Just as there are enormous differences between aggressive animals, pests, common scams and issues with money around the world, a travellers' confrontation with police and customs officers will look very different between countries. /Yvwv (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Wasp and Jellyfish stings have common advice no matter where you are in the world. Similar malaria advice is required in many different parts of the world. Shark attacks have similarities all around the world. It just isn't the same as police issues which vary widely from country to country.
If a traveler has potential issues with authorities in North Korea or Sweden then it should be addressed in that country's article. A general article about this topic has unfortunately nothing of value to give the traveler (Sorry for the bluntness of the statement).
My position is still to Merge with stay safe. Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suspect there is common advice which applies to entire groups of countries - for instance, the same issues with police corruption keep cropping up in multiple third-world nations - instead of being merely country-specific. K7L (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That advice can be found in Tips for travel in developing countries and Stay safe#Law and authorities. The scope of this article appears to be trouble with authorities in ALL countries, and is therefore too generic. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to support a merger with Stay safe, too, but certainly not a deletion, and without precluding the possibility of a split later, if necessary and appropriate. As User:LtPowers says, there's no need for a split until "the amount of information begins to overwhelm the parent article" - or at least until it's highly developed as a coherent section. But right now, I'm a bit skeptical about a separate article. I don't say "No," but I do say: Make the edits within the more general topic and prove the need for a separate one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to keep

Okay: as we'd hoped, the author of this article has come out of the woodwork and made his (her?) case for keeping it. But Andrewssi2 has been vociferously arguing for its deletion, and from his tone it looks unlikely that he'll be swayed. It's been three weeks since the nomination and, given that we lack a unanimous consensus to keep, policy dictates that it should be deleted imminently. Absent any major sea changes within the next day or two, I'm going to do that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the standard, then any one person alone could get anything deleted, including real geographic destinations, just by nominating it and stubbornly refusing to back down. Ronald Reagan could nominate Russia for deletion and, in the absence of unanimous consensus for or against, bombing would begin in five minutes. Wow. K7L (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are you both right about the current disproportionate "one man on the nuclear button" policy, it's also against policy to discuss it here - as opposed to on the discussion page of this project page... --118.93nzp (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any place that demands unanimity for a keep result. Powers (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Our policy has never been taken to mean we need 100% unanimity to keep something. I seem to remember quite a lot of things being kept despite my personal opinion to delete, and the world didn't end. Texugo (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that a consensus, while broader than a 50%+1 majority, does not require unanimity, and I thought we had already exorcised that notion in some other decisions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, Saqib is the one who's generally handled VfD's lately, but I distinctly recall that our interpretation of "guilty until proven innocent" has been that all outstanding delete votes have to be recanted before an article is kept. If that's changed at any time over the past few months, I apologize. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus doesn't require unanimity to block a user, how could it require unanimity to keep an article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate that I remember this being our procedure, but a) I've been fairly inactive on VfD for a while, b) I see nothing written in policy other than a vague reference to "guilty until proven innocent", and c) I really don't feel like digging through the archives for examples, so I'm prepared to just drop it. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that was the rule, that's a pretty bad rule. --Rschen7754 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're all right. The policy is just vague, and various admins have interpreted it in various ways over the years. We should just clear it up, and as far as I'm concerned, get rid of that "guilty until.." sentence. On other wikis, there are (often far too) extensive and well-considered policy pages for these things. Maybe we should just take a few basic ideas/procedures from there and see if they would work for us. That would also bring our deletion policy more in line with the way we handle other discussions and nominations. Adapt the Wikivoyage:Consensus page to better explain that it is not the same as unanimity, and link it here. Officially adopt the Wikipedia and other wikis procedure of an uninvolved admin determining such a consensus based on arguments (which in practice we often already do) and adopt the policy that in case of a lack of consensus, we maintain the status quo, leaving some option for relisting. If others think it's worth reconsidering the policy itself, I'm happy to write up a first proposal on the talk page for further discussion. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the "guilty until..." bit contradicts our infamous "status quo bias," which is policy. In the absence of consensus, a fail-safe approach would err on the side of not nuking Goldsboro. :) K7L (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That it contradicts the status quo bias is intentional. We want articles to have to pass a high bar, and not get a pass just because they went undiscovered for a while. Powers (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how a vfd with a status quo bias only in the case of no consensus and with an option for relisting is not a high bar indeed? It seems to be fine for many other wikis as well. I'll copy this discussion to the talk page, let's continue this discussion there without cluttering this page? JuliasTravels (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Compromise

Well, if anything it looks like this has at least asked us to look at the nature on consensus :)

Reading the thread once more it seems that there is a very tepid consensus to delete, with myself being the only driving force.

Although I still really don't like this article (for numerous reasons already listed), would it be an appropriate conclusion to keep the article but remove the incoming links from world trouble hotspots?

I would hope we can dissuade people from creating ad-hoc articles that can confuse travelers who want to find more relevant articles such as 'Stay Safe'. However by removing the links then we can at least provide a chance that content "can be worked out during the road" without confusing readers and relinked later if it becomes suitably relevant? Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is clearly no consensus to keep, but I think there is a consensus to merge, and I think that also works as a suitable compromise, as (at least some of) the content will be retained. If interested authors can demonstrate that the content is exceeding what's appropriate for the Stay safe article, then a split can be discussed. Powers (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would surely agree if this was e.g. a neighbourhood article for a city. It's a travel topic however, and the creator (who is a regular contributor) has tried to give us an idea of where this article is going and thinks the issues raised can be addressed along the road. He indicated that he wants this article to be a more specialized one, building further on the general description in Stay Safe. I'm not saying the concerns aren't valid: they are. But I don't get the impression people rule out the concept completely, either, right? It then seems kind of fair to give the article that year that we give to all new travel topics, to see if it can indeed be developed out of outline status and into an acceptable separate article? It will then however be merged/deleted after that, if it didn't succeed. Does that make sense? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) I don't think the current stay safe article is too long, so I agree that a merge seems appropriate. I also agree with the above comments that even if it develops into an article, I don't think the name is good. It'd be better to have more specific names but we're not there yet. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So after one month both the discussion and the article have not progressed. I propose merging now for the simple reason that it may take readers away from 'Stay Safe' and in so doing provide them with no useful content. If the 'trouble with authorities' (I'd prefer a different name) section of 'Stay Safe' becomes long enough then I'd say splitting out this article again could be considered. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has been lingering on VfD for far too long. In the next few days, I'd like to make the executive decision of merging it as Andrewssi2 suggested immediately above, so if there's anyone with a) strong feelings that this article should be kept, and more importantly b) an actual willingness to improve the article in the immediate term, speak now or forever hold your peace. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bribery and corruption should likely be an article in future. They currently redirect to trouble with authorities but are Wikivoyage:Requested articles. If you do merge to stay safe, I'd ask this be without prejudice to splitting police corruption out as its own travel topic (not all trouble with authorities, just corrupt third-world officers specifically) at a later date. K7L (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the merge activity will actually make this outcome far more likely in future. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged and redirected to Stay safe#Law and authorities. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Chinese food and Talk:American Chinese food

  • Delete. A Singapore Chinese who was a fine cook, regularly went to Hong Kong and had visited mainland China once told me that the best Chinese restaurants she had seen were in San Francisco — Hong Kong cooks with high-quality US ingredients. I suggested she visit Vancouver. Pashley (talk)
  • Delete - This could be a quite interesting travel topic article about chop suey and other Chinese American dishes. But a redirect to San Francisco sounds pretty random; there are plenty of Chinese restaurants and Chinatowns elsewhere in America too... ϒpsilon (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do what with it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think there is a misunderstanding here. Anything relevant for attribution was swept elsewhere by page moves long ago. Keeping this would not serve any purpose with regard to attribution. Texugo (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; I was merely explaining where the redirect came from as some commenters were expressing incredulity. There was a method to the apparent madness. Powers (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South—Central Asia

An unnecessary region, inventing a name not in general use. Also, the name is spelt wrong (it should have a hyphen rather than a dash) and it incorrectly refers to Kashmir as a country.

This is a very complex area historically and ethnically. You could make a good case for adding some extra-hierarchical regions to help travellers make sense of it all. For example, I recently added Bactria, promoting Kurdistan from redirect to article could be considered since there are Kurdish areas in Iran, Iraq & Turkey, a Pushtunistan article linking parts of Afghanistan & Pakistan is possible, Persia might be promoted to discuss the old Empire, far larger than Iran, and a tie-it-together article. on the various Turkic peoples from Xinjiang to Turkey might be a good idea.

However, I don't think this article is worth having. Pashley (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect it to Asia. Powers (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect where YPSI? --Saqib (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Asia. Or delete. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect where? Central Asia, Asia or South Asia? Btw, we also shouldn't forget the article title is spelt wrong as Pashley said above. --Saqib (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, either Central Asia or Asia I'd say, as long as people are directed to our region structure for that area :-) Make it a hyphen, sure. Or even make them both. It's simple enough: redirects are virtually free, and when someone takes the step of creating an article at this misspelled title, it's likely enough that others will search for it, misspelled and all. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd make it both an m-dash and an n-dash. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iran is in the Middle East and Pakistan and Kashmir are in South Asia, and the rest in Central therefore let's redirect it to Asia. Or delete it.
I was about to ask how we could "take advantage of" the fantastic banner if the article gets deleted, but then I noticed it's already in use in the South Asia article. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Central Asia article links to all those places, just below the colored list of countries in the "Countries" section. It makes much more sense to redirect this to Central Asia than Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Thank yourselves lucky when compared to the mess of the past on wp en re categories and any sense of possible finality- the mix of the perspectives of Asia/The East/ depending on your perspective have little use in travel format - I would strongly suggest simplification of any near/middle/far east (colonial era) or west/central/eastern asia (whatever) distinctions - more redirects the better - and less time wasted over what they should carry in baggage of meaning... sats (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Asia. - Texugo (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:File other

This appears to be a template used in the migration process and is no longer needed.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holhol

None of them is created, and I think none of them is notable.--GZWDer (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't know about the others, but the Djibouti one is the 7th largest city in the country, which makes it significant at least at the country level, and it appears on our WV map of the country. At any rate, I don't think there is any good reason not to keep a somewhat informative disambig page. Having at least some info has got to be better than looking like we've never heard of the place at all. Texugo (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. - Texugo (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Event-header, Template:Event-footer and Template:Event-line

Experimental since November as components of a possible way to display events in a sortable table, which has not gained any acceptance/consensus. Current efforts are moving in a different direction at Template talk:Event.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quickbar/image, Template:Quickbar/map, and Template:Quickbar/old

Remnants of a long-since-replaced quickbar, no longer needed. These can be deleted, just as we have done with all the remnants of the old main page.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pagebreak

Obsolete marker template once used by WT Press.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DiscussionMoved

Template only used on one user archive page. Does not appear to be a need for it.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FramedBox

Old style of documentation which was superseded by {{documentation}}.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Routebox-1/Test

Old test page, for template that is now just a redirect to another template.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ftt/sandbox

Old sandbox page, for template that is now historical, so doesn't need a sandbox version.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xt and Template:!xt

Two templates used only by Alice/W. Frank/118nzp to put text in a different font in green or red, respectively. Considerable controversy followed their introduction, and after more than 6 months for discussion at Template talk:Xt, they have received little support and much opposition.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OpenStreetMap

An alternative suggestion for how to display a slippy map in an article, copied from de: and subsequently superseded by {{mapframe}}.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Routeicon and Template:Routeicon/switch

Template:Routeicon is only used on 7 articles. All other articles that have Routeboxes just use the images directly. Seems little point in keeping this template as doesn't seem to have been used widely instead of the direct image option. Template:Routeicon/switch is not used at all.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Umbox

Yet another box template like {{ambox}} and {{ombox}}, for which no need has been established. Created as part of the importation of {{Talkback}} which is likewise experimental, and this has now been substituted into that template, so it is currently unused.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman urdu

Template with links to non-existent articles for each letter of the alphabet. A simpler de-linked version has now been put in place in the one article which used it (Indian Punjabi phrasebook), so now this template is unused.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:W

Completely pointless template which uses more complicated syntax to duplicate the functionality of [[w:]]. Used only on four user pages, where we can easily substitute the proper syntax.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DotMOTBP

Only used on a couple of historical pages. Could be substituted and then deleted.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TravelAlert

Used on only two article pages, its purpose duplicates that of the much more widely used {{Warningbox}}.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Villars

Completely duplicate with Villars-sur-Ollon. Please refer to official website and coordinate for evidence.--GZWDer (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Very simple solution, clear-cut case, and doesn't require discussion here. I can't take care of this now, but anyone else can and should do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Keep as disambiguation page, as per the comments below. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted then recreated as a disambiguation page, with relevant content merged into Villars-sur-Ollon. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian highway articles

These recently started articles are well-intentioned but fall outside the scope of Wikivoyage:What is an article? - not just any old highway is eligible for an itinerary article. The only apparent difference between these and your average US interstate is that they are named rather than numbered, and we've been deleting similar highway articles for years. We don't just create highway articles as highway articles; they have to serve as something people would do as a trip in itself, like Route 66 or the Dalton Highway. These don't appear to clear that bar.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these look to be pieces of Australia Highway 1, a ring road around the entire nation's coast, which might be a valid itinerary as one of the three longest highways worldwide (along with the Trans-Canada Highway and a Russian highway). It may make sense to combine those. Some are empty skeletons with no useful info, or lists of towns with no clear indication of why one should visit each of these places. The original user does appear to be active, so I find it strange you brought this here with no attempt to discuss the matter with this person directly. I'd suggest organising this into fewer articles - Highway 1 as the main itinerary and the other roads (if there's anything to see on them) as side trips. K7L (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is similar to that of K7L's, especially as I read through the Great Eastern Highway article on en.wikipedia and it seems like a very very significant highway. --Rschen7754 16:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know Oz, so I have no clear opinion on most of these. Certainly the ring-around-Australia route K7L mentions would be a worthwhile itinerary; I have heard several people telling tales of that journey, in various places (mostly bars) outside Oz. They also speak of the Nullarbor which I think means our Eyre Highway article should be kept or expanded. Pashley (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments First of all, given the content in Great Southern Highway and North West Coastal Highway, I don't think they should be deleted. These are apparently not run-of-the-mill routes but legitimate itineraries that could use more development but not deletion. Secondly, had it been more than a year since the last edits for the other itineraries? I haven't looked at all the histories, but in at least some cases, there were more recent edits. I wouldn't rush to delete these articles, even though they are all more or less undeveloped. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of these are certainly good topics for an itinerary. Wikivoyage:What is an article? says that "town squares or streets" do not get an article. I take this to mean mile long or so streets in a city, not 1000 mile long roads. Even if there are not things to see on the route, I think that we can still have an article giving advice on where is best to eat and sleep. If we really don't want such articles then let's discuss changing the policy. AlasdairW (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, I could definitely see exceptional cases in which individual city streets could get their own itinerary. For example, it would be possible, though by no means essential, for someone to create a Museum Mile article for the stretch of 5th Av. in Manhattan that is mostly on the Upper East Side but starts in Spanish Harlem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* In terms of 'what is an article', the articles are marked as itineraries, which are valid for WV. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the 'concept' behind these articles is valid. The vast, nearly empty, geographical distances between cities is a defining characteristic of Australia. I would say that it would have been better to create one or two fully fledged articles to begin with and build those rather than seven outline articles. Can User:SatuSuro comment on this? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as valid itineraries - and articles, with no reason to delete under any wikivoyage criterion that I can see that could see these highway itineraries not adequately developed in the event of more editing.

Firstly my apology for not explainjng further in the articles that I have worked on. To answer the various questions that have arisen, and to try explainthe issues that arise. First, Western Australia does not have a high density air service system (that tourists can use...), nor does it have anymore an elaborate rail passenger system - like other places with similar areas. So a tourist, traveller, explorer is more likely to find notable tourist attractions (another roadside attraction...?) on the highways listed, than by any other means. Cycling and walking the distances given is out of the question except for the more eccentric traveller. So the road is in fact the only means by which a traveller travel through the rather formidably extensive landscape... and here is the nub they have to serve as something people would do as a trip in itself - each highway listed above is nothing like a US interstate, it qualifies as a trip in itself

So the main form of transport statistically is by road. It can be found on wikipedia that an editor I know personally has developed the Great Eastern Highway, well beyond what I was thought possible - and has achieved significance for that road over and above its relative importance among the others in the state - it does not however actually improve the status of the road as an itinerary, as I would place it lower in status in comparison with the others by personal experience.

As i have travelled all of these highways at least 5x times in personal experience for longer than I am coy enough to admit, I am astonished that anyone could even consider that any of these highways are anything but itineraries rich and varied that are actually extraordinary opportunities to explain western australia to those who know nothing about the state, or its vast distances.

  • Albany Highway - is an itinerary - as the Wheatbelt, and Great Southern region have sufficient atrractions to have this take a few days where the traveller can find themselves on numerous side trips from this route if they choose
  • Great Eastern Highway - already commented above - how else does one get to Kalgoorlie? There is the train and plane - one of the few routes that actually has parralel services available for the tourist... but the potential side trips makes this Golden Pipeline route a complex and potentially lengthy trip
  • South Coast Highway - similar to the Great Ocean Road in Victoria(which I have travelled as well), the reason it does not have the same marketing value as the Victorian route is that it doesnt hang off the side of coastal cliffs, it is in fact a major itinerary for those travelling around australia, and again if i had the time and money could well take over a week and lots of money to even explore parts...
  • South Western Highway - again - although it might seem straight forward like all the highways mentioned, it can be used (ok can be used) like an uniteresting interstate in the US - but an intelligent edit of this article can take a traveller into the south west corner of the state with an as interesting itinerary as any of the other highways
  • Great Southern Highway - parallel to Albany highway - if the deletionist dont know the area suggestion was to havge a closer look - it could be merged with Albany highway, but even then, the merged article still is an itinerary
  • North West Coastal Highway - huh? the lack of knowledge of western australian distances is what disturbs me about even thinking this is not an itinerary - I could, if I had the time and money take well over a week, and spend thousands of Au$ to do this one properly - this is perhaps one of the most complex itineraries if i get to it - with all the side trips possible

I could actually go at some length how I personally despair of the average wikipedian from outside of australia's capacity to understand the australian landscape and the distances of travelling alone, let alone some of the odder aspects of what the travelling distances entail.

However, maybe one day an article here in wikivoyage will spell out more thoroughly the issues of distance of travel. The fact that in my wild mis-spent youth once travelled non stop from Sydney in News South Wales to Perth in Western Australia in less than 50 hours, does not make the landscape or the distances or the itineraries in between any less complex and rich in their local contexts. I would ask for fellow editors to allow the limited time I have to expand and explain further the articles mentioned, so that even a geographically challenged (as most are) outside realise that the highways/itineraries mentioned are in fact viable and valuable contributions to the wikivoyage project

Also please do not conflate any discussion about highway one, or eyre highway with this... it is a misunderstanding to even consider that issue with the deletion discussion started. sats (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone saying that these are not valid articles because the routes are too short, which is what you seem to be arguing against by calling people "geographically challenged". The issue, as I see it, is that you created several of these large-scope articles in succession rather than taking the time to develop one before starting on the next. Powers (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If something is up for deletion - I would assume that there is a problem somewhere, so I cannot see how you can say they are valid articles if someone is trying to go for delete...

I was under the illusion that there were others editors who were actually editing western australia articles as well, but it would appear as with most australian states, the articles and numbers of active editors with local knowledge are very lacking.... I find a constant issue with non-australians dealing with australian subjects, the understanding of distance and issues related suggest a lack of experience of the actual country itself - and leads me to become intemperate when using the term geographically challenged - my unreserved apology to anyone who finds that in any way problematic.

In future, I see the need to actually developing articles much further on creating, rather than expect there ever will be any followup from fellow australian editors, that is very dissapointing as there is so much to do. sats (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(off topic) There is a lot to do in the Australia articles (Melbourne is about to get kick started again), although actually the lack of local editors is unfortunately true of many articles we have around the world. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there ever was a good reason to delete these articles, there certainly is not now, as sats is obviously working on them now, and though I've never been to Australia, myself, I think it's evident that these routes are valid itinerary subjects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies to all concerned - I hadnt realised that I had started and left skeleton stubs, and I can understand they were an embarassment, I have merged Albany and Great Southern into a single Perth to Albany itinerary, and the rest will be expanded soon. sats (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the editor is committed to making these workable itineraries, then there is no reason to delete them. If any of the highways are truly believed to be too short for an itinerary, they should be discussed individually and since sats is the known creator and editor of the itineraries, those holding such concerns should make efforts to discuss them with sats before further action is taken on them. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no attempt was made to communicate anything about the articles. sats (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am still not sure I see how any one of these differs so greatly from, say, I-40 from Amarillo to Southern California, or I-80 from Salt Lake City to Reno, save the fact that the Australian ones have names instead of numbers. What exactly makes the Australian routes so much more notable than the American ones which we don't give articles to? Texugo (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Route 66 is very famous to follow as an itinerary in itself. Is that true for all these Australian highways in some magical way that doesn't apply to the average US interstate? Texugo (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
originally you had a choice - you could have communicated with me personally regarding the skeleton articles (I had started but had not substantially added to some), or you could have done a number of things - then, the vfd across a range which really dont fit together really well - this delete item hasnt closed, and I havent expanded the articles very much since - then you come and ask a question like that?... I wonder - you are trying to actually show your lack of knowledge of Australia, or what? I attempted to start a conversation at your talk and there was no reply (or what I could see anyway), the slowness of this vfd seems to be somewhat telling. I would have like to have had a conversation about the array of possibilities, but for whatever reason you show no interest. And to continue on about US interstae routes against a totally different geography seems somewhat odd. sats (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hey, hey.. slow down. Don't attack the messenger here. I had forgotten that you wrote on my talk page, as at the time I didn't have anything in particular to respond. And anyway if I had thought it was a simple case of inattention or forgetfulness, I would have contacted you personally first, but it seemed to me (and still seems) something of a disagreement about whether they qualify under policy, which I want to hear others' opinions on. At any rate, my concern was not simply that they were skeleton articles you'd forgotten to finish, but rather that, given our aversion to road articles for the sake of road articles, there might not be any truly legitimate reason for them to get their own articles at all. Many highway articles have been started and subsequently deleted in the past, and the simple fact that an article about a given road could be written and reasonably filled out is not the sole criteria for us having one. My main question is:
Why would practically all the major long distance highways in Australia qualify for their own articles when major long distance highways of the US or any other country typically do not?
Either a) there is a good answer to that, or b) by developing these articles we would be unwittingly setting a new precedent by which major long distance highways everywhere could get articles, which our policy has always been to avoid. I could accept it if the answer were "because it is not uncommon for people to answer the question 'what are you doing for vacation?' with 'I'm exploring x highway' (though I find it a little hard to believe that happens to apply to every major long distance highway in the country). I could maybe accept an answer of "because there are too many attractions far outside of towns along the way which otherwise have no articles to go in". Maybe there is some other answer that leaves it clear why these deserve articles where most do not. I promise you, though, that the answer is not "because Texugo is ignorant of Australia" — I readily admit that. Nor is the answer simply "they'll be ok because I'll write lots about them" or "because they're long and lonely roads"— both of these also could apply to lots of highways in the world for which we have deleted articles in the past. I am certainly open to keeping them if the question can be answered satisfactorily. I just want to see an explanation/discussion of why these highways qualify while most other highways in the world do not. Texugo (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aren't you just re-hashing what's already been discussed here for half a month now? There are some highways which are notable in their own right, even if we currently lack usable itineraries for them; that is not the same as a claim that every highway is notable. The original writer should be given the chance to consolidate and complete these - userfy them so that development can continue without further disruption if that's what it takes - so that whichever of these are notable can be turned into viable itinerary. Not contacting the original author, who is actively editing here, before proposing deletion was poor form and continuing to re-post the same demands after a consensus already appears to exist to let the author finish writing this in some form is not helpful. K7L (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kind rude there. It hasn't been a month and a half; the two weeks aren't even up yet. I do not at all think it's too much to ask what specifically makes these highways different from all the other highways we don't write about. And if they are truly unique and deserving of an article in a way that others are not, I don't think it should be so terribly hard to answer that question now. It has nothing in the least to do with whether or when someone can fill out the articles; if they are legitimate, I'll be happy to let them sit around indefinitely until someone can fill them in. But people seem to forget that reaching "usable" status is not the only criteria on which we decide what gets an article. If that were the only problem, I'd gladly step off. Texugo (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguably pretty rude to be continuing to threaten to delete these articles. How could your doubts about them be a compelling reason to actually delete them? Instead, please back off, let SatuSuro improve them, and then make a decision if they haven't been edited for a year, like other itineraries and travel topics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on Ikan. I'm not at all trying to be rude about it, and I'm not threatening to do anything against policy. I'm completely open to keeping them if they are not somehow out of scope, in which case I'm totally fine to leave them and see how they develop. But if they are out of scope in terms of them being highway articles for the sake of highway articles, with nothing special to recommend them as itineraries that are an end in themselves, then it wouldn't matter at all how developed someone could make them in a year. That is what I'm trying to determine, and I don't know why it should be so hard. We have started this "year" thing with itineraries and travel topics, but that doesn't mean that completeness is now the only criteria and that any and everything that pops up is automatically untouchable for a year in terms of examining whether it is within our scope or not. We've had plenty of other highway articles pop up and get deleted without waiting a year on the basis that we don't do highway articles for the sake of highway articles. If it were a spree of articles like US-385 and I-25 and I-80, I don't think we'd wait a year because we've been through all that before. Given that the group basically covers all Australian long-distance highways, I thought that this was also a case of someone making highway articles for the sake of highway articles. If that is not the case, someone just explain to me how it's different, and let's be done with it. Texugo (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to the policy forbidding the creation of itineraries based on highways, because I don't think there is one. It seems to me, the decisions we've made to delete before were based on the highways being per se uninteresting and the routes better covered with individual destination articles. If the Australians here think that these routes are best covered with itineraries, that's good enough for me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy forbidding itineraries based on highways, and we have several good ones, but the ones we`ve kept are first and foremost itineraries that people take as itineraries, which is obviously not the case with most highways of the world. If that is the case with these, fine. I just want to establish that what we are creating are actually itineraries people follow as such rather than merely highway guides disguised as such. Texugo (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't sure now, how can we determine which is which without seeing a bit more of the articles in question? This is what SatuSuro wrote above:
  • Albany Highway - is an itinerary - as the Wheatbelt, and Great Southern region have sufficient atrractions to have this take a few days where the traveller can find themselves on numerous side trips from this route if they choose
  • Great Eastern Highway - already commented above - how else does one get to Kalgoorlie? There is the train and plane - one of the few routes that actually has parralel services available for the tourist... but the potential side trips makes this Golden Pipeline route a complex and potentially lengthy trip
  • South Coast Highway - similar to the Great Ocean Road in Victoria(which I have travelled as well), the reason it does not have the same marketing value as the Victorian route is that it doesnt hang off the side of coastal cliffs, it is in fact a major itinerary for those travelling around australia, and again if i had the time and money could well take over a week and lots of money to even explore parts...
  • South Western Highway - again - although it might seem straight forward like all the highways mentioned, it can be used (ok can be used) like an uniteresting interstate in the US - but an intelligent edit of this article can take a traveller into the south west corner of the state with an as interesting itinerary as any of the other highways
  • Great Southern Highway - parallel to Albany highway - if the deletionist dont know the area suggestion was to havge a closer look - it could be merged with Albany highway, but even then, the merged article still is an itinerary
  • North West Coastal Highway - huh? the lack of knowledge of western australian distances is what disturbs me about even thinking this is not an itinerary - I could, if I had the time and money take well over a week, and spend thousands of Au$ to do this one properly - this is perhaps one of the most complex itineraries if i get to it - with all the side trips possible
What else do you want to know? All this is quite apart from whether it might make sense to have an Interstate route be an itinerary someday. Perhaps not, but maybe California Highway 1 or U.S. Highway 1 might be closer comparisons? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was just being thick-headed, but the way I interpreted that still left room for it be a case of over-enthusiasm plus under-familiarity with what we usually consider apt for an itinerary. Anyway, I'm not being obtuse intentionally and certainly don't want to hold up any longer than necessary, so if everyone really agrees that they are indeed akin to the Pacific Coast Highway or US-1 in the way people travel on them, and that they should be combined or dropped where appropriate, I am willing to let them go and see how they develop. Consider my objection dropped for the time being. Texugo (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Udupi Banner2.jpg

I think this file is rather redundant to File:Udupi Banner.jpg and has been left unused ever since. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we delete unused banners unless they have images of copyrighted buildings or objects. Am I incorrect? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We rarely vote here on images because images are generally not uploaded here but on Commons. K7L (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But this one is uploaded locally on WV not Commons and I think it fine to Delete an image which is useless and linked nowhere. --Saqib (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Images should be held here only in special circumstances. In this case, we have a nearly identical image on Commons so there is no reason to have it here. Pashley (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it was uploaded locally, rather than on Commons. Even if there's a nearly identical image on Commons, wouldn't it be best to just move this image to Commons? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Moved to Commons. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Warm Puppy.JPG

Image contains a copyrighted cartoon character and is not used in any articles, so can't be kept for "fair use", so should be deleted, unless someone thinks it should be added to Santa Rosa (California). -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interior photos of businesses have a high bar to clear even without copyrighted elements, so I don't think this image would merit inclusion in the article. Powers (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hello Kitty at the Adonis Hotel.jpg

Falls a tad short of our Wikivoyage:Non-free content policy, as this is neither artwork nor architecture. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also getting some conflicting information from the image description page: it says the original file was found on Flickr here which 404s and is presumably subcategorized under "toestubber" who has left, but it also alleges Tony Bowden as the copyright holder. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually disagree with ChubbyWimbus, inasmuch as this is the kind of really unusual interior (at least to me) that clearly deserves depiction in a guide. However, obvious copyright issues trump any other consideration when dealing with a cartoon character. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that it's unusual, but I don't think it's good for a travel guide to contain images for nostalgia's sake. Any intrigue it has/had becomes rather moot at the point when you see that the place doesn't exist; more like an annoying teaser to me. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait: Yes, if it's closed, there's absolutely no reason to show an image of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Block

  • Keep. This template has been flagged experimental since July 2013 and discussion at Template talk:Block has been inconclusive, so listing here to gain some closure one way or another. The template is useful to provide a standardized message on accounts that have been permanently blocked, and is commonly used on other wikis. It would not need to be used for every vandalism-only account, but does provide value when the account has made non-vandalism edits, such as User talk:Normsdale. On a tangentially related note, the original discussion about flagging templates as "experimental" was primarily motivated by a desire to keep templates from being used to implement undiscussed policy changes, mainspace changes, and to prevent duplicate templates from being created, and this template does none of those things. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I don't understand the idea of nominating something for deletion if you want it kept. It would seem to me, the place to discuss removing the experimental tag is at the talk page of the template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above there has been ongoing discussion at Template talk:Block that has been inconclusive. Requesting additional feedback via Wikivoyage:Requests for comment had no effect. If there is another suggestion for actually gaining some closure (deletion or removal of the experimental tag) I'd be happy to do so, but otherwise it seems like VFD is the only remaining option. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. There's one person who's demurring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not in agreement with the standard scarlet letter practice carried over by Wikipedia culture. First, there's the block log, second there's the message from the header of Special:Contributions, and third attempts to communicate with the user via the edit button produces an already fairly large banner at the top saying the user is blocked. I think that those methods give enough indication as to whether someone is blocked or not. If you must keep track of blocked accounts on Wikivoyage, there's always Special:BlockList, or you can create a category called "Wikivoyage blocked accounts" and just categorize the userpages of said users accordingly.
    • On Template talk:Block there were some suggestions it be used for something other than vandalism or spam - for example in cases of bans. Per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban, I'm not really comfortable with the idea of socially banning a user from Wikivoyage; it's like how in Wikipedia you're extremely afraid of offending the user next to you filing some frivolous RFC/U request or running off to ANI at the slightest perception of incivility. Wikivoyage's lax atmosphere let us have freer reign to what we say and do. And bans are only supposed to be used as a last resort anyway. Surely, if bans are so rare, if we were to actually formally ban a user, would it not be more appropriate to write out a notice yourself on the user's userpage pointing to the ban discussion, the reason for the ban, and so forth? The template is unnecessarily impersonal and offensive to the person so banned, and the large red X is quite intimidating to other users seeing it.
    • To be clear, I am not against using blocks, I am against using bans. Because next thing you know, we'll have to setup some sort of Arbitration Committee or other Wikipedia-esque bureaucracy in case people want to appeal such things... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • TeleComNasSprVen makes a good point; the fact that the user is blocked is clearly displayed when editing the talk page, so what additional purpose does the template achieve? Powers (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is a good point. I'd like to see it addressed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is very rare that an account that has made good contributions is permanently blocked, and will most likely only occur with some of the more creative trolls, in which cases people will invariably see the user's contributions in an article history at some point and follow-up. I don't think we should force those users to edit the user talk page or read through several sections on the talk page to figure out what's going on - when I am looking at contributions on Wikipedia I will often look at a user's talk page but would probably never start to edit that page, but luckily there is usually a template at the top of the talk page that provides a quick indication that the account was used for malicious editing and thus clears up any confusion immediately. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if you're not intending to leave the user a message (by editing the talk page), why does it matter if the user is blocked or not? And why are you at the user's talk page at all if you aren't going to either edit the page or "read through several sections"? I'm just trying to figure out what the use case is here. Powers (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a side note, but whether intentional or not it is very frustrating that there are so many discussions lately where someone essentially says "this is something that I think is a good idea or find useful" and that position does not seem to be taken at face value, or seems to be opposed for reasons that are not stated. Contributing here should be fun, and these endless, open-ended discussions about fairly trivial issues where something is opposed just enough to leave the discussion inconclusive, and that opposition seems to come from individuals who don't actually seem to have strong feelings on the matter, are most definitely not fun. I don't mean to single out LtPowers since this is a response to his comment, but I really think we need to try harder to not say "no" so often, particularly with respect to minor matters, and to work harder to propose compromises in cases where opposition really is warranted.
To get back to the subject at hand, if I am patrolling or looking at edit history and see something questionable, I'm going to investigate to understand better. That usually entails going to a talk page to see if others have had positive/negative interactions with a user. An unambiguous "block" notice at the top of the talk page for someone who would not otherwise be immediately identified as a malicious editor saves me time - I can unequivocally state that such a notice would be helpful to me. Other advantages of this template have been cited, but the informational value is why I added it to User talk:Normsdale and why I strongly believe it would be useful in similar future situations. To the point about it being a "scarlet letter", I am not concerned whether or not it might be embarrassing for someone to have such a note on their talk page if they tried to disguise obviously malicious edits by also making non-malicious edits. However, this template isn't important enough to spend hours and hours debating, so if people don't want this template used for some reason, or don't believe that I'm being genuine when I say that I would find it useful, let's get rid of it rather than engaging in yet another endless circular debate. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry though, I don't mean to be demeaning here, but compared to Wikivoyage, Wikipedia has had lots of years debating (perhaps uselessly) over the legitimacy of this template and "scarlet letter" practices, so the arguments hashed out here have really been nothing new. I can definitely understand and accept the potential usefulness some may see for this template - which is after all what kept its counterpart on Wikipedia all these years - but I don't think the potential benefits are worth keeping the template. I believe it is a contributor to some of the claustrophobic social atmosphere on Wikipedia, where everyone is looking over your shoulder and ready to accuse you of all manner of evil things if you step out of line with the rest of the majority. (Not just a reply to Ryan, btw.)TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I'm certainly not opposed to this template, but I think more explanation is needed for why you'd be looking at the talk page of an indefinitely blocked user, and I can indeed think of such a scenario, which elaborates on what you posted above: Suppose you found a questionable edit and then saw that the editor's talk page showed they are banned for vandalism: that could tip you toward reverting or deleting such an edit. I think that establishes the potential usefulness of this template. And since it won't be used except in extreme cases, I am having trouble understanding why we should be concerned about embarrassing, say, vandals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that I haven't actually taken a strong position one way or the other on the specific topic of this template. I'm asking questions because I want to know if there's something I'm missing. I see the usefulness, though it seems like a bit of an edge case, and I'd be curious if there's any way to mitigate the badge of honor / scarlet letter issues. There's also the issue of needing some sort of guidelines on when to use this template and when not to, perhaps at Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits. Powers (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. For obvious vandalism and/or spam we can always apply Wikipedia:Deny recognition: revert, block on sight, and simply ignore them, no template necessary.
  2. However, as proposed above and on the talkpage of the template, it's going to be used only in extreme cases, presumably those cases which are not obvious vandalism, such as banned contributors. I've outlined my reasons against bans in general above, but more importantly problematic contributors who were banned for issues other than vandalism or spam often have a chance to come back into the community. Instead of having them resent the community for the rest of their stay here, we should try to extend our patience enough to channel their efforts into more productive means, should they decide to return. Since these are rare cases, a simple statement at the top of their userpage linking to the ban discussion and reasons for ban should prove sufficient, the impersonalized and rarely used template rendered quite superfluous. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Middle East

A useless title. Its only link is from another odd region, South—Central Asia, which is nominated for deletion above. It seems to have been created mostly as an excuse to list most of the Islamic countries. Now it just redirects to Middle East, which is utterly pointless.

I'd be in favour of an article here along the lines of w:Muslim world but written for travellers, with less encyclopedic detail, or of expanding our article on Islam. However, this one should definitely go. Delete. Pashley (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear where South—Central Asia should be redirected, too, but sure, redirect this term, as well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect further to my comments above about the imperial colonial perspective of the east (nearer, middle, central, far) and all the endless variations of subdivisions of 'Asia' - I would be very against identification by religious affiliation - the geographic region and all the possible variant names are fine as redirects - voyage needs to be careful to provide geographic regions that are not too bound up in constructs that are external and not locally used. sats (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Middle East — Unlike "South—Central Asia", "Greater Middle East" term actually exists and is often used by news media so a cheap redirect won't hurt. --Saqib (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but even though, Greater Middle East is surrounded by Middle East so having a redirect to ME seems fine to me. --Saqib (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But by definition, the GREATER Middle East indicates beyond the Middle East itself. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then redirect it to ASIA. --Saqib (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't include the parts of Africa that obviously come to mind. Texugo (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is kept, perhaps it would work best as an extrahierarchical region. Pashley (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept as a redirect to Middle East. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedian

From the talkpage:

Our standard welcome template already mentions "If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here." In which case, I don't see a good reason to keep using this template even for welcoming Wikipedians. Thoughts? --Saqib (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

And in lieu of Template:Welcome already providing several links for Wikipedia editors to read such as Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians, I have to agree that this template seems superfluous. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think it doesn't hurt to greet someone already familiar with WP and show the main differences immediately. I quite like using it. Danapit (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We do need to accept that our growth depends on successfully integrating users from sibling Wikimedia projects, who will already have wiki editing experience (so no need to explain MediaWiki to them) but will find the way we do things a bit strange compared to the meticulous footnotes and reliable secondary sources which go into an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems useful to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AutoTransBot

Template once used by Maj's AutoTransBot, a bot that has been defunct for 6 or 7 years now.

Well, we do use {{translate}} but at any rate, I think we decided at some point that machine translation was not really very desirable or useful. I'm not really sure what this used to do, but it was already long out of use when i found it. Texugo (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yes and Template:No

Previously used only to create a single table at Japan#Cope, now unused after template substitution.

Result: Deleted - Texugo (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:-

Currently this template just calls {{Clear}}. Putting aside the fact that this should more properly be a redirect (nested template calls are more computationally expensive than redirects), the template previously at this name did something completely different, and I'm afraid that assigning this new (and non-transparent) use to it could be confusing and produce unintended results. Powers (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. - AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clear

Previously deleted in April 2008 and re-introduced without discussion or approval and without being tagged as experimental. It has been used on only 10 mainspace articles. While it does indeed exist on WP, this has never been a component of how we visually format articles here, because it needlessly introduces additional white space, which we typically try to minimize here for printability purposes.

Yet we seem to have gotten this far with out it, and it doesn't seem to be needed like that in the 10 articles it's in so far. The case you mentioned would have it create a block of white space before the next section starts, so in the rare case when that happens, it's always better to avoid it by reshuffling the elements. Texugo (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any advantage to using this template over the syntax <br clear="all" />? I think the latter is used relatively frequently when the lead section is small; the lead image in these cases often interferes with a map that may be present at the top of the Regions or Districts section. Example: Finger Lakes. Powers (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a general policy issue here regarding the extent to which we should adopt WP templates. This page is definitely not a place for policy discussion, but perhaps someone should start one & put a link here. Pashley (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any general policy issue raised above, unless you are proposing that templates from WP should as a rule be treated somehow differently from any other template introduced, in which case yes, that discussion should be taken elsewhere. Texugo (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. - AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ICAO

Per discussion on Template talk:ICAO, ICAO codes are effectively useless for the traveller and not really used even for airports so benighted as to lack their own IATA code. The template would be simply deleted from all airport references that also have IATA codes, and reviewed on a case-by-case basis for the rest. Jpatokal (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the template is deleted, what would remain to be reviewed case-by-case? If we decided to use the ICAO code in an article, how would we display it? Powers (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just (BARF), I'd imagine. But as this template is used in several hundred pages, of which (at a first approximation) zero appear to be so small as to be IATA-less, I'd be inclined to shoot first and restore later if necessary. Jpatokal (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know the URL of the WMF labs tool that allows us to query Template usage in WV? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ICAO should give an estimate. --Rschen7754 06:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was still hoping for the query tool however. with that we can tell how many articles use ICAO but don't use IATA. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete using a bot so no red vestiges linger on. I've never understood why for many years it was just fine and dandy to have a template on hundreds of articles that broke our crazy policy about not linking to Wikipedia (and was very poorly signalled as an external link) about such an unhelpful topic for travellers while we are still prohibited by policy from linking to a Wikipedia article on a species of animal or vegetable they may encounter at a particular destination. --118.93nzp (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever is done, no actual deletion should take place until the uses of the template are reviewed. --Rschen7754 06:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick scan of links yield two quick finds of ICAO only codes: Finger Lakes Apple Country and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park.
I'll keep trying to find the WMF Labs tool so as to get some exact numbers. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listed off [1]? --Rschen7754 07:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I found it listed on the old tool server (Catscan) http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php
OK, so we have 42 articles with ICAO and no IATA: (sorry for the long list)
Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are also pages that don't use the template that would need cleaning up as well, for example Tyrol. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One option would be just to remove the ICAO tags from destinations where they can be derived trivially from the IATA code (such as US48 destinations where they are 'K' plus an already-listed IATA tag, or Canada with 'Y' changed to 'CY'). K7L (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the list Andrew! Reviewing those by hand seems feasible; some of those pages, eg. Livingstone, are using ICAO when they actually mean IATA. Jpatokal (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an experimental template called Template:Airport codes which includes all airport code types but it's not used. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this ready to close as remove? I've done a little script to remove the ICAO template if there's also a IATA one. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, it is. Texugo (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the ones which also had an IATA code have been removed now, which leaves 86 articles to look at manually. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted at long last. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg

This is a fair-use image used as a banner for Baltimore/Midtown; fair-use because it includes a statue commissioned in 2004, and the US does not extend freedom of panorama to statues.

I believe this is a problematic justification for fair use: the Male/Female statue is not even mentioned in the article (I had to head over to Wikipedia to find out anything about it), and Penn Station has only a few sentences at the very bottom of the article. I am sure that there are pictures of several other places that could be used for a banner, as the very well-written article tells us about. Delete because of the fair-use issue. Rschen7754 03:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an alternative banner to suggest? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Baltimore Washington Monument.jpg and File:Ext-Night.jpg could be adapted; there may be others, but I'm not familiar with what exactly Midtown is in Baltimore, having never been there. --Rschen7754 04:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the non-free-use rationale does not depend on the artwork being specifically discussed in the article. It suffices that the image was deemed an important view of Baltimore. Powers (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't even tell that the statue in the image is an important view of Midtown Baltimore; I certainly don't get that impression from reading the article. --Rschen7754 04:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a view of the train station, and thus an important view per se. And my feeling is, either thrash out this policy matter in Wikivoyage talk:Non-free content or admit that you're trying to just impose your opinion on what can't be in a pagebanner on any page. I'm not saying your point of view is wrong or that I might not support it (I've been arguing points on both sides to try to draw out discussion and figure out where I ultimately come down). What I'm saying is that nominating this pagebanner for deletion while the entire topic of whether including non-free content in a pagebanner is per se a violation of Wikimedia Foundation rules and different as a matter of policy from including a photo other than a pagebanner of non-free content in any article is at least a bit questionable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, neither: we can't delete pages without consensus. I am simply presenting this matter for wider input, in a specific case. (Furthermore, policy cannot prescribe what should be done with every VFD nomination, nor should it; we cannot predict every scenario that will happen on Wikivoyage, and if we could, then we might as well get rid of this page and go to just speedy deletions entirely). --Rschen7754 05:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're incorrect. Pages nominated for deletion are guilty unless proven innocent (see the top of this page). So unless there is a consensus to keep this page, it will be deleted. And I'm not even arguing for it to be kept, myself, but I see this resort to Vfd as a really questionable way to engage in policy discussions. If your policy position wins, any pagebanner that includes non-free content not covered under freedom of panorama will and should be deleted. But until then, what you are doing is trying to force the deletion of a file that violates a policy you would like to enforce globally, in the almost certain absence of a consensus in favor of keeping it. And for further context, interested readers should look at the thread in Wikivoyage talk:Non-free content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think that is how VFD should work, but even so, my word is not the final say in the deletion: the community could choose to completely disagree with me, and has two weeks to raise objections, which it could easily do if that is where the consensus actually lies. --Rschen7754 06:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why is a train station so important, anyway? If this was Grand Central Terminal or Union Station, I could see that, but here? This is an incredibly subjective measure. --Rschen7754 06:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I have not actually made an affirmative statement that we should keep this file, and I don't think I'll express an opinion one way or the other on whether to keep or delete this file until we've resolved the larger policy issue. But since you admittedly haven't been to Baltimore, I don't think you know how important the train station is (or isn't). Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And while I have made only one brief visit to Baltimore, I'd suggest that since so many people arrive in Baltimore by train, this is one of the first views many people may see, or one of the last before they leave (whether to go home, or to commute to work in DC). Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think we should be discounting people's opinions solely because they have(n't) been to a place - that is not a good precedent to set. Not to mention that travel guides are generally written for people who are not familiar with a place, that's why they are reading the travel guide; the banner should be useful to them, not to us. But why not the harbor? Isn't that where the US national anthem came from? You see, the choice of a banner is subjective - if you asked 20 people who have been to Baltimore what the most important thing in Baltimore is, I'm sure you would get at least 5 different answers. Making the claim that objectively, the train station is, full stop, the most important element of Baltimore is... a novel interpretation of the word "important", to say the least. --Rschen7754 06:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The banner is for Baltimore/Midtown, not Baltimore, and the harbor is not in Midtown. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, but you started talking about the city as a whole, and you are missing the forest for the trees. My overall point still stands. --Rschen7754 06:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • And my reply would be that probably neither you nor I know Downtown Baltimore well enough to be able to pass judgment on which image is most representative of that neighborhood, and should probably leave that to others, and though it would be interesting to compare the existing pagebanner to alternative pagebanners, Vfd is not the place to do that.
  • Keep and try to do more useful things than discussing obscure issues of fair use. --Alexander (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I've misunderstood the original reason for buggering up our table of contents and making life difficult for the typical reader, a Pagebanner is just an excuse to have a really humungous size image that quickly gives a visual clue as to why they may want to visit the destination. If that's right, then any fair use rationale is essentially no different than for any other image used in one of our articles.

On that basis this nomination should fail, or we make a very stiff rod for our own backs with more essential images in the future. --118.93nzp (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Powers' argument about the parameters of fair use is convincing, as is Ikan's argument about VfD not being the place to canvas for changes to policy, especially controversial ones. We've heard from a goodly portion of those regular contributors whom we'd expect to weigh in on this issue, and it's looking more and more like Rschen is the only one who supports this interpretation of fair use. Absent any major sea change spearheaded by those who've remained silent thus far, per Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion#Reconsidering unanimity and guilty until proven innocent I think we're rapidly heading for a consensus to keep.
Anyway, in the exceedingly unlikely event that Wikimedia gets a DMCA notice regarding a pagebanner, the usual procedure as I understand it is that a certain amount of time is allowed after the receipt of the takedown notice to remove the offending image before further litigation is commenced. If that occurs, the image can be deleted and we can revisit our policy on fair use at that time.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no: several people have agreed with my position at Wikivoyage talk:Non-free content#Distillation of the argument. And you're wrong about how WMF handles DCMA: if WMF believes the image is infringing, it is summarily deleted by WMF, and if an admin restores it, they are summarily desysopped by WMF. See m:Office actions, which is a global policy. --Rschen7754 02:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. You might want to weigh in on that discussion, Andre. So far, the argument in favor of prohibiting non-free content not covered by freedom of panorama in pagebanners is seeming persuasive to me, although I think a decision should be made on the overall policy before the fate of this banner is determined. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from the wider discussions about allowing non-free banners in general, Gnagnarra is right on this particular one. I do agree this nomination should not be another forum for the general discussion about whether or not non-free banners should be possible in principle, but there's a clear problem with this specific image (banner or not): the copyright issue lies with the statue, while the arguments in favour of the image are about the building (which is allowed under freedom of panorama). It's quite possible to make pictures of the station without so prominently including the statue, so the concept of "no reasonable expectation of finding a free alternative" doesn't hold. I'm quite sensitive to Powers e.a. argumentation on limited use of non-free images in banners, but this particular one is no proper use of fair use in the Wikimedia context. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wondering if there's anyone with with a bit of artistic skill that could paint out the statue in the image? -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a very quick go, but I wouldn't encourage you to look closely... at all! --Nick talk 00:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Baltimore pennstation banner EDITED.jpg
Statue removed... badly.
Much bettter than my own attempt. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good; another idea would be going back to the original photo and recropping it so the statue is gone entirely. --Rschen7754 04:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So now we're resorting to misrepresentation? Powers (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nifty photoshop job, but like Powers, I don't think we should be misrepresenting things. Texugo (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not try and crop the statue out? There should be enough resolution to go around... --Rschen7754 05:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not on the photo's behalf, nor making a statement one way or the other about the policy being called into question, but rather a vote to annul the nomination because the VfD page seems to me an inappropriate place to have forced a policy discussion that should have taken place elsewhere. Texugo (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus of sorts?

I think we have a broad agreement here that the photo should be kept on a provisional basis, and that arguments for its deletion on fair use grounds, while possibly meritorious, belong at Wikivoyage talk:Non-free content. This nomination has been cluttering the VfD page for almost two months and absent any objections, I'm going to archive it accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept because no one objected to the above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeju loveland.jpg

Copyrighted work not used in any articles, so should be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swaziland-Money01.jpg

Copyrighted work not used in any articles, so should be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are very few images in the Swaziland article. Perhaps a better solution is to link this image in the article. What do you all think? Also, money is a copyrighted work? I thought the only issue with money related to counterfeiting, not photographing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair warning - 14 days has passed since this article was nominated for deletion. Ikan or anyone else who has particular feelings about whether this file should be deleted or not (I don't), you're invited to add this picture to the Swaziland article; otherwise, I'd like to delete it as proposed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the photo can't be of practical use to a visitor, and therefore shouldn't be added to the Swaziland article. I'd still like to know what the copyright laws are on images of money, though. Can you please inform us? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a complex subject, but there are some country-specific details at commons:Commons:Currency. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't suggesting that there should be no images of money on this site, are you? Just checking. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/03#Swaziland banknotes and the response was basically banknotes and other government publications are protected fifty years from publication; Wikipedia says the Swazi lilangeni began circulation in 1974, which means copyright expires in 2024. I've also nominated commons:File:Swaziland-1Lilangeni.jpg for deletion to try to get more community input on it. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That settles it, then. Deleting and archiving nomination. Further discussions regarding the broader issue of fair use vis-à-vis images of bank notes can presumably be found at commons:File:Swaziland-1Lilangeni.jpg. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2014&oldid=4022524"