Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2019

April 2019 Votes for deletion archives for May 2019 June 2019


Vietnamese content is of little relevance for English language WV, and it doesn't have anything to do with travel anyway. 2001:630:E4:4220:F908:D1D0:2CB3:80F9 12:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[]

  • Apparently this page has been deleted, already. I will archive this nomination as deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[]


Of no relevance to the WV reader and phrased like advertising. 2001:630:E4:4220:F908:D1D0:2CB3:80F9 13:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[]

  • Apparently this page has been deleted, already. I will archive this nomination as deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[]

Template:Visible anchorEdit

Created by one user in 2014, no discussion by anyone else on the talk page, used in 4 articles which could probably be switched to the more common Template:Anchor. Labeled as experimental in 2014. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[]

Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense and sub-pagesEdit

The cognitive dissonance inherent in the existence of this page has always vexed me. We can't both be opposed to vandalism and host shrines to vandals. Now, to complicate matters further, we've got a new user who's gone ahead and created their very own "bad joke" article, despite the fact that the page is ostensibly intended only as a repository for "found vandalism" that we consider too amusing or well-written to be deleted. Now I'm not insinuating that this new user didn't mean well or was acting in bad faith; in fact, that pretty much goes to the heart of the point I'm trying to make here. It's easy to get confused. Let's avoid sending mixed messages, especially about vandalism. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[]

  • I think we ought to remove the nonsense pages written by individual users but keep our own joke articles organized on the page. So overall, I vote keep. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Oh, sorry, should have checked closer. Yes, WV:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense should definitely be deleted. My vote, therefore, is delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Which, come to think of it, only adds another layer to the confusion. "Vandalism is not allowed, but if you're really good at vandalism, we've got our own page where your edits will be preserved and enjoyed forever and ever. But you're not allowed to create an article specifically as a joke - it has to be a disruptive edit to an actual article (but remember, vandalism is not allowed!) Except one day a year you are allowed to create an article as a joke..." All those twists and turns just to avoid deleting something someone once long ago found funny? It's ridiculous. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, and I would support doing away with the April Fool's Day tradition, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Anyone else? Ground Zero, what do you think? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[]
I was holding off on commenting until I finished reading it. There was some funny stuff there. But it seems that the consensus is strongly against fun and humour, so I guess it will be deleted. Ground Zero (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[]
I don't think it's fun and humour that we're against. There are two things, though: 1) we're a travel guide, and 2) even with the deletions of the bad jokes, we will still have WV:Joke articles. Plus, if there's any of the "bad jokes" that really are funny, we can keep specifically those and delete the rest. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[]
I'm not against fun and humor; I'm against double standards and in favor of clarity on what principles we stand for. Either we're against vandalism or we're not. Either joke articles are allowed or they're not. If we're twisting logic into pretzels to justify the existence of this page, there better be a really compelling upside. I just don't see one here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[]
We can be against tagging but in favour of street art. But I agree that arguing over this line has little benefit to a travel guide. --Inas (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Keep please! I log back in to Wikivoyage after long and this is the first thing I see on my Watchlist! Wikivoyage shouldn't become boring and bureaucratic like Wikipedia. We can be against Vandalism and yet be in favour of jokes. We can be against vandalism, but be gentle with the vandal, laugh at his or her joke, and gently steer them towards better edits. This was what Wikivoyage stood for, and I would be in favour of continuing the tradition. Ravikiran (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[]
I understand "this was what Wikivoyage stood for" back when site traffic was a small fraction of what it is now and we weren't linked to Wikipedia and its sister sites under the WMF umbrella. But it's a whole different ballgame now, and we've evolved to meet new challenges we never faced back in the old days. With all due respect, our experiences in dealing with the more extreme types of vandalism that have come to the forefront during the time you were inactive - especially with persistent long-term abusers who find their way here from Wikipedia - has really brought into stark relief how laughably inadequate the old policy of "be[ing] gentle with the vandal, laugh[ing] at his or her joke, and gently steer[ing] them towards better edits" would be if it were still in effect today. Having a page that incongruently celebrates vandalism - however funny, however well-written - is really out of step with the unfortunate reality of what we've had to deal with lately. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Not to be too blunt or rude here, but I invite anyone who can turn our recurring vandals into constructive contributors. If anyone wants to do that, go ahead, but I think what we've learned from years of experience is that we can't "gently steer [vandals] towards better edits." Users who add to the top of the California article, "Destroy X" etc. are never going to become good contributors. Prove me wrong. According to page information the whole list at WV:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense gets 57 views a month. If we delete it, we'll still have WV:Joke articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[]
To be clear, though, please don't try to turn our recurring vandals into constructive contributors, because WV:Deny recognition says not to do so. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. I think we can still enjoy jokes and unintentional humour. I doubt these "double standards" confuse anyone. The persisting vandals are hardy going to write joke articles, and if the do, that is much better than them vandalizing. I suppose very little or none of the content suggested for deletion was written as vandalism. Rather they might have been test edits. I hope we can still make a distinction between vandals and bored by-passers. I think the latter can just be reverted in most cases, but following the old policy when dealing with these does no harm (other than that the time could perhaps have been better used). --LPfi (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[]
So "Jozona is the 51st state found by ranch workers. It's main atraction is the John Kerry funslide located on Apple Head Street. On June 13th 2005 Congress aproved the state constitution." was a test? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Weak keep. The page is funny and harmless. I agree with LPfi's reasoning about double standards. The idea that because we're becoming a big site like Wikipedia we can't have pages like this doesn't hold water—Wikipedia has a page like this too, see w:Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN. We shouldn't get so intense about fighting vandalism that it stops us from enjoying ourselves. (By the way, it is possible for someone who starts off with a joke article to become a productive contributor. For long-term abusers it's probably hopeless, but for one-off vandals it's very much possible.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Weak keep. The page needs to be massively trimmed. It should have an introduction. It should not contain content added by vandals, but good faith edits which end up being funny. It is appropriate sometimes to use moderate humour to describe things, particularly what not to say because of how a local may misunderstand. These funny excerpts would not be removed and can be quoted on this page. It may also be ammussing to compare advice written today with that when the site was much younger. AlasdairW (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. It seems that I was premature is calling a consensus, do I'll clarify my position. I agree with AlisdairW that a culling would be good. I think it is clear from the page that we are not rewarding vandals, and that these edits were aimed at injecting humour, rather than at being disruptive. There are one or two (taking the subway to Iguazu Falls) that probably should have been left in the articles. Ground Zero (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Weak Keep Well, the editors DO need to enjoy themselves. But other than that, i do not see why this topic is necessary. Especially in a travel guide. One of the other reasons i am voting for keep is because, even wikipedia has a humorous page where we can see bad unblock requests. Arep Ticous 02:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[]
DENY obvious vandal edits, Weak keep on good faith contributions such as satires on actual places, or traveller concerns when wrtitten. I would also suggest a rethink of the All Fools Day article approach. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[]

Itinerary for travelers with childrenEdit

Redirects to Charlotte with children. Obviously not an appropriate redirect, should either be deleted or instead redirect to Travelling with children. --Nathan868 (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[]

  • Delete I don't think that a seperate article is required for 'travelling with children'... and it contains the basic things. We always know who qualifies as a child... and it is also that the page mostly contains links to other articles. Arepticous (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Redirect -- this discussion isn't about the Travelling with children article. If there are problems with that article, we should fix them -- it is a perfectly valid travel topic. Ground Zero (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Delete this redirect. I don't think that either article is actually an itinerary, and those looking for general advice can find Travelling with children just as easily. The redirect has no history that matters, having always been a redirect. AlasdairW (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • We cannot delete this redirect per copyright as we need to preserve attribution for the content in Charlotte with children that originated with this article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[]
    @AndreCarrotflower: In this case, since there was a page move and not a manual merge, all the proper attribution info is already at Charlotte with children, if that changes anything. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 22:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[]
    Yes. The caution is good, though in this case there's no copyright issue, as ARR8 points out. Still, I'd say weak keep as a redirect to Travelling with children—it does no harm. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[]
@Mx. Granger: This originally redirected to Charlotte with children, so technically it would not be a "keep vote" that you are making but instead a "redirect" vote. Makes sense? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Okay, I guess we can delete it if necessary. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • @Mx. Granger: Also worth stating that the user who made this nomination Plunged forward and changed the redirect target from Charlotte with children to Travelling with children even though this discussion continues. So I understand what went wrong. To be clear, the original redirect target was Charlotte with children and it should remain so until a consensus is reached here (per policy, in 14-21 days). @Arepticous: "Travelling with children" is not the topic of discussion but instead the redirect is. @Nathan868: Please remember in future that you must wait until a discussion here is complete before making the necessary adjustments. Thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Is this being kept for attribution? If so, the attribution is specifically for Charlotte with children, right? So changing the redirect to a separate article would remove its use as attribution. I do agree however that the title "Itinerary for travelers with children" does not make sense as a specific redirect to Charlotte. The likelihood of Charlotte being the destination of choice is slim-to-none for such a broad search. If attribution is what it is for, that should be dealt with first if possible and then this should probably be redirected specifically to Travelling with children#Destinations since it is specifically about itineraries. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[]
    ChubbyWimbus' solution looks like the best one to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[]
    There is no attribution factor here. The desired outcome can be put in place directly. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[]