Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2017

← March 2017

Votes for deletion archives for May 2017

(current) June 2017 →

Amusement parks and water parks in eastern United States and Amusement parks and water parks in western United States

I couldn't find anything in policy that specifically disallows "list" articles of this type, but it's my understanding that by convention, Wikivoyage frowns on them. And in the case of these two articles in particular, this information seems to be simply redundant to what is or could be included in other articles. For instance, there's nothing spectacularly different about amusement parks in the Eastern or Western United States that's different from what would be in the Amusement parks travel topic article; the list of two three most-visited amusement parks at the beginning of the article is encyclopedic information that's more suited to Wikipedia; and the individual listings of parks that make up the main bodies of the article belong either in the respective destination articles, in their own articles in the case of the largest ones (Walt Disney World et al.), or alternatively 20-30 of the largest ones could be listed in Amusement parks#North America the same way parks in other continents are handled.

Merge listings where applicable. There doesn't seem to be any huge stretches of quotable text here or anything else that would need to be retained for attribution purposes, and these aren't likely search terms, so I don't see that keeping these as redirects is a necessity. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're right about our common practice of not having list articles. I can't really judge how likely it is that people actually plan trips around amusement parks though, in which case this article with the map would have added value on top of listings in articles. Either way, if these articles will be deleted, the links on Wikipedia should also be deleted. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that there's a huge segment of travellers who plan trips where they hit up every amusement park in a given region - mostly because the bigger ones, like Walt Disney World, are big enough to require multiple days to truly experience, while the smaller ones aren't really worth going out of one's way for. An exception might be a real theme-park junkie who might check out Disney, SeaWorld, and Universal Studios while in Florida, but you could get all that information from the Orlando article anyway.

Of course, I might be wrong, and that's why I suggested the alternative of merging the most important ones as listings in Amusement parks#North America, much as we do already in Amusement parks#Europe and Amusement parks#Asia. From casual observation, if the author is down to listing such rinky-dink places as SkyZone Buffalo - basically an old warehouse full of trampolines out by the airport - then I think it's safe to say there's a lot of pruning that can be done. That's arguably an appropriate listing for Cheektowaga#Do, certainly not for an article that covers the entire eastern half of the U.S.

If the author or someone else is willing to add some real descriptions to the listings, and - more importantly - explain why U.S. amusement parks are so profoundly different from those in Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, etc. that they need to be dealt with somewhere apart from their overseas counterparts, then I might be swayed to changing my opinion. As it is now, though, I'm not convinced that interminably long lists of some 200 naked bullet-point listings apiece, in the style of the Telstra vandal, qualifies as enough information to warrant U.S. theme parks being split off into even one separate article, let alone two.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could very easily imagine a family basing a road trip on visiting every amusement park in a given area. However, that's a side point. These "articles" are merely long lists. Merge to destination articles as appropriate and redirect to Amusement parks, if we are going to keep that article, which is a bit listy, too, but not nearly so much. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outright, if allowed by policy. There is no need to keep this for "attribution", as we should check the listings that are not yet in the city articles regardless (some of them may have become outdated) and the article(s) contain nothing none obvious besides their listings. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too encyclopedic for us. Powers ^(talk) 02:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can we agree that before the article is deleted, the listings should be merged to other articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them aren't really "listings", but we should check them against the city articles, regardless. And of course check against the websites whether those "listings" are up to date. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Powers ^(talk) 22:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So who is going to do it? anyone? --Saqib (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hobbitschuster DarjeelingTea (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's nothing substantial in this two guides that needs to be moved to other guides, lets close this AfD. --Saqib (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, there may be, but neither I nor anyone else seems to want to spend the time moving it to city guides. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

350+ listings from Amusement parks and water parks in eastern United States have been moved to relevant pages and the page deleted. Will try to finish Amusement parks and water parks in western United States by tomorrow. --Saqib (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

220+ listings from Amusement parks and water parks in western United States moved to relevant pages and the page has been deleted. It was quite hectic job.

Result: 570+ Listings moved to relevant pages. --Saqib (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza

Currently a redirect to Italian cuisine, but it could just as well point to Pizza in the United States and Canada and is likely to cause confusion and make the searchbox unwieldy or confusing when entering Pizz... I therefore suggest deletion. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --Traveler100 (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One option is to disambiguate, as we do for boat travel. K7L (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the disambiguation page idea. Ground Zero (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By far the better idea. It's entirely reasonable that someone would be searching for pizza, and not be looking for the North American variety. We could even turn it into a little joke, and lump Pisa in with the two legitimate article suggestions. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion It's a perfectly plausible search term. If you really are afraid that someone won't see "See also" on Italian cuisine, then make a hatnote at the top. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a plausible search term, but not everybody searching for "pizza" may want to be redirected to Italian cuisine. After all, we have a whole article on North American Pizza. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so the disambig page is the way to give people what they're looking for, short of creating a pizza article (which I don't advocate). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DAB per K7L DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig - It's the most user-friendly solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with disambiguating pizza. Gizza^(roam) 02:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone willing to create a disambiguation page? --Saqib (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Disambiguation page created. --Saqib (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]