Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2019

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← February 2019 Votes for deletion archives for March 2019 (current) April 2019 →

I've pointed out some specific problems with this article on the talk page. I think they're probably solvable, but I'm not sure how to deal with them because the larger problem is that, aside from the brief "Prepare" and "Get around" subsections, this isn't a travel article. I asked on the talk page and didn't get a clear answer as to how this article is supposed to serve travellers or how we can rework it to serve travellers. If someone has an idea for how it can be turned into a travel article that isn't redundant with our other existing articles (such as Biomes and ecosystems), that would be good. Otherwise, I think the best solution is deletion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, if we deleted all our global-scope travel topics, as you propose to do, we would at least cut our number of travel topics in half, hours of work would go to waste, and plenty of interesting, relevant information would be lost. Deleting all the global-scope travel topics would require months of discussion about which travel topics fall into the "global-scope" category and which do not; therefore, I think it is pointless to go through and delete every single one of them, which would not do Wikivoyage any good, IMO. I am perfectly fine with the proposal to merge and redirect this article, but outright deleting this travel topic and/or a great number of other travel topics of the same nature, like Musicals, Seinfeld Tour, etc., seems like trying to fight against the incoming tide. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing that. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 23:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why delete this article, rather than merge and save the content? Unless you think the text would not merge well, which I understand. As I see it, opposing global-scope travel topics is a short step from saying they should be deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not looking to impose my opinion on the whole community. I think it's good that we're of different minds on various questions. Hopefully, in discussing these things, we can come to a compromise that will benefit the site more than an extreme in either direction. There's good incremental progress to be made just by disagreeing, and I think my stance on this issue has made us more aware of article content that isn't directly pertinent to travel and has resulted in some improvements being made.
On this specific object-level issue, I'm not sure the merge target is all too useful to travelers by the same criteria I brought up on the talk page of the VFD article. Hopefully, I'm consistent in my reasoning. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 23:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and to clarify on my own part, my intention in the above is to effectively defend my point of view that such travel topics should be kept. If there were no travel topics of this sort, I would probably oppose them, but I view is that, now we have travel topics for Chess, Musicals, etc. (many of which I did not create) we might as well keep them. Sometimes, putting forward an effective argument can sound confrontational, but the intent is to clearly get across a point, which sometimes requires being a little on the blunt side, not to tear others down.
I do, however, think we should be cautious about deleting articles that took large amounts of work for someone, and, frankly, if I had recognized that several months ago, I might have had a different standpoint on many of the VFD discussions we had. I think it's important to recognize, when an article is being deleted, the time and effort that has gone into creating it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that we could have an article on Climate, but this is far from what I think that it should be. Consider the traveller who wants to find somewhere to sit on the beach in February, with temperatures around 28C. Perhaps the Köppen climate regions map would help her if it was explained, but generally I find little information to help this traveller find countries to visit with the right climate. I don't think that adding a few basic paragraphs about geography helps - if geography is going to be part of the same article then explain how various geographical features impact the climate - e.g. how mountains influence rainfall. AlasdairW (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Result: merged and redirected. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simply a list of cities with no information that serves the traveler and feels more like something out of Wikipedia than here. Per the article's talk page, no way suggested to make the article useful (ping @Traveler100, Mx. Granger, Ypsilon: discussion participants). Even if there were, it would be more appropriate on one of our existing articles on the subject or the relevant country pages. Suggest delete as nominator. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 03:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article could do with more content considering the number of pictures on the right side of the page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!, Ikan Kekek: This article is a sort of exception. Since all the text comes from the page history of Public transportation, we can (and should) attribute to there, so merge and delete seems to be an acceptable outcome. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 12:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a viable alternative, as long as User:Yvwv didn't make any changes to the wording when copying. Thank you for explaining. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with merging the relevant content to Urban rail adventures. But only the relevant content—some of the prose in this article wouldn't fit there. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteI mostly see dates that something opened, which is such readily available knowledge that it doesn't require attribution. Is there actually anything substantial to merge? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only a list with information that should be on city pages. If data is merged to other article(s) no redirect should be created as title is meaningless and useless. Also information came from that article in the first place no need to preserve history. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. No harm in redirecting to Urban rail adventures, per TT and Granger. The list should probably be removed in the process, but the remaining content should still be merged (which I sort-of recommended in my first comment in this discussion thread). Just that now, I take the view the article should be made a redirect, rather than simply deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge into Urban rail adventures. The latter is supposed to focus on transport systems that are somehow exceptional or outlandish (in a positive sense) and thus "are an experience in themselves". I do not see anything "adventurous" in the list of cities with rapid transit as most of them are nothing special. The few explanatory texts may be collated with the "get around" sections of the respective cities, but I assume they are mostly redundant. --RJFF (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with RJFF and others that a random list of cities with rail systems does not belong in "Urban rail adventures" as there is not adventurous identified in the list. Ground Zero (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge into Urban rail adventures. Some of the information is outdated (e.g. Chicago has used a card system for payment like New York for several years), and if I need to know about rapid transit in a city most people are going to look at the city article (not search for a generic rapid transit article). —The preceding comment was added by Zcarstvnz (talk • contribs)

Result: deletion. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 14:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same as Template:Not done. Apparently just an X that was turned into a template eight years ago. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No accommodation, barely a WP article, what is this doing here? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, discuss a merge/redirect on its talk page. You're not a newbie, so you know this is an inappropriate nomination. Please stop nominating real places for deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ikan Kekek—there's nothing wrong with redirecting, so I vote to redirect. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was created as an experimental template but has not gone anywhere in over 4 years. Also nominating Category:Change breadcrumb to subregion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 14 days. Any thoughts? Only a couple votes needed here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not in use.--Traveler100 (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has no information apart from list of towns. Not linked to from any article. Is this even a known term from the area? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "Metro(politan) Area" not used around an American city? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created in late 2014, and no changes were made after December 2014 until yesterday. Some of the requested banners were created between 2014 and 2019, but no one annotated these changes until I updated the article yesterday. I then added all of the remaining missing banners, so all requested banners are now in place. This page isn't publicized, no one seems to know of its existence, and there does not seem to be a reason for it remaining active. I only found it by chance while looking for something else. Zcarstvnz (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to update it with a bunch of new banner requests? Pashley (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not since no one is finding this article. What does seem to be working is a group of individuals working on creating custom banners. Since 21 January 2019, when there were 11,161 articles needing custom page banners, the list has been pared down to 10,704 as of this morning (down just over 4%). The number of new banners created is probably higher because the 11,161 figure does not include any new pages that already have custom page banners. You can see the current number of pages needing a custom banner on the Maintenance panel page (look for Banner image). I hope that you will join us in creating some banners. Zcarstvnz (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Along with:
Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions - List 2
Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions - List 3
Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions - List 4
Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions - List 5
Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions - List 6
Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions - List 7
Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions

This nomination is for the deletion of all eight (8) pages listed immediately above. Each of these pages has less than 10 edits since creation. Since no one is providing file name suggestions to use to create banners, these pages are unneeded. Each page lists 2,500 articles that still need a custom pagebanner; however we have the Maintenance Category of Category:Has default banner to track all of the articles that still need a custom page banner. I have not gone through these pages to see how many of the 16,957 pages listed need custom banners. As of this morning though, only 10,704 pages still require a custom page banner, so it is obvious that these articles are woefully out of date, and this further indicates how unused these articles are at the present time. Like my previous nomination for deletion immediately above, I found these articles totally by chance. The last page listed is the controlling page for the other seven (7) pages. Zcarstvnz (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Zcarstvnz and Pashley. I think we probably have too many collaboration/project pages considering the size of our wiki, and as a result some get abandoned. It would be better, IMO, to have fewer, but more active, project pages, and this would be a major step toward accomplishing that goal. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SelfieCity: Note that Pashley's comment was made on the nomination for deletion on the article above this series. Zcarstvnz (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On top of everything Zcarstvnz says, the process for creating banners is not as complicated as what the existence of these pages applies. Maybe if we had an editor base the size of English Wikipedia's, it would be worthwhile to make suggestions and debate about which pagebanner is best for each article. But in a community of only three dozen or so active editors, realistically you can just plunge forward and 99% of the time no one is even going to notice, let alone argue with you about it. In that other 1% of the time, the disagreement can be hashed out on the talk page of the respective article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Zcarstvnz: I understand, but both nominations are for the deletion of similar pages, correct? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SelfieCity: Yes, both are for similar pages. I just wanted to make sure. Zcarstvnz (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I assume you added the horizontal lines between nominations to avoid confusion. Good idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after checking that all the articles that have suggestions now have banners. I added a number of suggestions about 5 years ago when this was a useful way of suggesting images without dealing with the technicalities of creating the banner. Now that Commons has the crop tool it is much easier to create a banner, the lists are not of much use. Petscan has also improved so finding articles in a particular country, county etc without a banner is a much easier way of finding articles to work on in a spare hour. It might be worth keeping Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions as a general page for occasional editors to post suggestions or requests for banners for articles. AlasdairW (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AlasdairW: Yes Done -- I verified that all suggestions made as of this morning were completed. Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Thanks also for making some banners based on outstanding suggestions. Looking at the lists again it looks like only List 1 had a significant number of suggestions made. AlasdairW (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to keep the generic Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions and delete all the others. Pashley (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main page and delete the subpages. Collecting banner suggestions is still a worthwhile purpose for the page, as evidenced by this discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think should be placed on the page, then, if we keep it? (To be clear: I'm not at all opposed to your vote, I'm just curious.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A list of banner suggestions. Or to put it another way, what do you think should be placed on the new page in your userspace? It seems to me that whatever you're envisioning could be placed there, we might as well just put on the existing page in the project namespace instead. I can make a mock-up/proof-of-concept if you're interested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that sounds like the best possible thing to do. @WhatamIdoing: --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I just added a suggestion (three possible images for one article, because of course until you start cropping, you don't know what's really going to work best) to Selfie's new page a few minutes ago, and Mx Granger very kindly cropped and uploaded a suggestion that I made at the Pub yesterday.
I think that having a place to make a suggestion is a good idea. I do not think that it should be an overly complicated or bureaucratic thing. IMO the ideal process looks like Person #1 says "Here's an idea, in case someone hates searching but doesn't mind cropping and uploading", and Person #2 saying "Done" or "Sorry, those don't look like they'll work so well", and moving on. Whether the suggestions happen on "the" page or on the talk page doesn't matter to me. Whether they're archived for posterity or just blanked when done also doesn't matter to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I don't even think those who suggest source images should worry about following the rules for page banner images: if you suggest an image that's only 500 px wide, someone can just come along and remove it. That will encourage people to be bold and add source images to the list. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locally uploaded file. Something went wrong when cropping, so I request that this one is deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can just delete it, no need to go through vfd for this IMO. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think this will be a controversial deletion - per Granger I don't particularly think community input is required here (just overwrite it without the crop issue). Hiàn (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I created this article as an idea for organizing park articles in the U.S. but 1) I lack knowledge of the area and 2) a different organization of U.S. parks, monuments, etc. was created. As it stands, all the national parks, wildlife areas, etc. are included in part of the the network Mx. Granger set up. Unless someone wants to run with this article, I don't see much point in it remaining, so I think it should be either deleted or redirected. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the content of this article is already covered by other articles, there is no use of keeping it. Maybe this could be merged into other pages. SmileKat40 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can rapid delete as delete requested by author and only contributor, as well as not a specific place and no links to it. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2019&oldid=4924211"