Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2023

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← April 2023 Votes for deletion archives for May 2023 (current) June 2023 →

Why would we need a link to a page in fr.wikivoyage about docents? Further discussion at User talk:Verdy p. I suppose this soft redirect is not eligible for speedy deletion, so I'm nominating it here, but I doubt the nomination will be controversial. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise this was inter-language, but that does make me think it isn't relevant to keep here. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't Wikidata superseded having interwiki links, though? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata helps when you have found the local article. If you don't speak fluent English, then finding it may be difficult. Anyway, I think a more useful link would be WV:Wikivoyage en Français.
If someone starts to type "Wikivoyage:Que'est que...", they probably think they are there. When they realise the articles are in English, they should be able to replace the "en" in the URL with "fr". OK, I accept that most people don't edit URLs, but still, having redirects for enough pages that someone typing in French would hit one of them is, eh, awkward. Let them just type "Paris" and use the iw.
–LPfi (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Verdy_p thought this was needed for some specific use that I just don't get. If they hit the page in English they can use the iw. If you think they need a separate link, then just specify the fr-voy target in that link. Can they stumble upon the redirect without typing the name in, automagically via a docent link in the margin or whatever? I don't think so, but it seems Verdy does. –LPfi (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear concensus to delete. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I understand the impulse to make redirects that are convenient to the creator (SHB2000), but "All" is a word with a specific meaning that is not "avoid long lists," and I don't want this site to emulate other Wikis such as Commons by using confusing acronyms that damage communication, just to save a few keystrokes for one or even more than one admin. I'd make a similar argument for Wikivoyage:OUTSIDE, with the addition that ALL CAPS is a violation of Wikivoyage:Capitalization, but at least the usage of that word is more defensible in context, so let's see if we have consensus to delete this redirect, first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I detest the use of such acronyms at Commons, where I mostly have to click the link, which makes for frustrating disruption in reading discussions. If the redirects were to be used only to get to such pages easily, I would think live and let live, but fighting their use in discussions when they do exist is too hard. Much better that one person copies and pastes the name of the page they presumably have open (to check that they cite it for its actual content) than having ten readers interrupt their reading, click and close. –LPfi (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – w:WP:CHEAP and is the initialism for avoid long lists. Also, redirect shortcuts in all caps are generally the standard, and deleting such redirects would make things even more complicated for users who are active on multiple English-language or multilingual wikis outside en.voy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, WV:CAPS does not apply to redirects, FWIW. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creating redirects is cheap, but the cost of them invading discussions is high. If I would trust this kind of redirects not to be linked from discussion I would have no problems with them, but I fear they are created for such use. –LPfi (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this practice is common on every other English-language Wikimedia wiki, plus Commons and Meta. Why do we want to be the odd one out? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because we want non-regulars to be able to follow our discussions, and we don't want regulars to have to learn all those shortcuts. I think we are special in that all other projects in English probably are offsprings from Wikipedia, importing practices with the user base. Wikivoyage has another background (like Commons, where conflicts with en-wp culture are common). This really is what we should discuss: do we want to follow the practice? If we want, then we should create the redirects, if we don't, then we should at least not use them in discussions. –LPfi (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"[W]e want non-regulars to be able to follow our discussions" – and the result is many non-regular users are surprised by our lack of shortcuts and templates, because most of our non-regular users come from other projects where the use of shortcuts are common. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we should discuss this larger issue at the Pub, with a larger audience. How many feel crippled when they don't find the Wikipedia policies or their local counterparts by their established Wikipedia shortcuts? How many, conversely, are frustrated by those shortcuts being thrown around. At Commons, references to Wikipedia policies are a common source of frustration, and I, for one, am frustrated when I have to look them up. If we had a consensus on the shortcuts not be used on talk pages, then I'd be glad to allow their use for private navigation. What I don't like is one user saving time by not writing out or pasting the page name and having three or more users look it up. A posting has one author but (hopefully) several readers. –LPfi (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of anything, using words like "ALL" to mean something other than "all" is just plain bad, in my opinion, but I also agree that the main problem is using these obscure abbreviations in discussions. It's very inconsiderate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should replace acronyms by words in the shortcuts. I use WV:TDF a lot, but I could just as easily use wv:time and wv:date, which are already shortcuts. These would give the new reader a clue about what it refers to. So WV:TDF should be deleted. WV:ALL could be wv:lists instead. Ground Zero (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we have GZ's suggestion, but also retain the status quo by keeping the current acronyms as well? That way, we won't have swathes of redlinks, continue the current trend without having to learn all our shortcuts over again, while also having the benefits mentioned by Ground Zero? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current trend? You've created a number of shortcuts, so I'm quite unclear on what the current trend is. Also, as I've previously stated, I don't think "because they were used" is a justification for keeping confusing links. If that were the case, how could we ever delete anything? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a bunch of deadlinks is a bad idea, but keeping new acronym shortcuts is not a good one either. Maybe we agree (1) experienced users should stop using the acronym ones, (2) remove the acronym shortcuts from the policy pages to discourage their further use, and (3) only delete acronym shortcuts created since the beginning of this year. Ground Zero (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that as a practical compromise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right to me. Pashley (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As one of two users who "excessively" use these shortcuts in edit summaries (I won't name the other one to prevent canvassing), I will agree to not use these links raw, both in edit summaries and in discussions, provided that no existing links are deleted. By that, I may still use something like "revert [[WV:TOUT|touting]]", meaning the shortcut won't be directly visible unless you browse the url.
  2. Okay. Fair point.
  3. As stated in point 1, I would like to keep all existing ones, or at least the redirects that I created (if this proposal gains enough support, I won't use shortcuts raw as stated).
Otherwise, fair compromise. Obviously, I won't entirely agree given that this means more work for me in the future, and the back of my mind tells me that we're only digging our own grave (by deleting new shortcuts in use), but whatever – I'm in the minority here. Maybe one day we'll learn in ten years time. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If that were the case, how could we ever delete anything?" – because these links have been used thousands of times in edit summaries, unlike other links which have been primarily used outside edit summaries, which means these links can be fixed. In my last 10,000 edits, at least 193 of them have a shortcut in some way or form (or about 2 per cent) – deleting them would mean trying to find what that shortcut means trying to look through the deletion logs, clicking the VFD discussion, then scouring through the discussion to find out what it means, and then get the answer. In all honesty, what you're proposing sounds like you want to make things less confusing but end up making things more confusing as a side result, but I'll get to GZ's solution. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to Ground Zero's proposal (above, of 01:14 today). If we can avoid listing and using bare obscure redirects, I don't insist on anything to be deleted. However, I would prefer them not be used at all (if you have precoded summaries, you could use the full page names as easily) and any not-yet-used one to be deleted. –LPfi (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Ground Zero's 01:14 proposal. I would suggest that the documentation for the shortcuts also says that they are ratained for compatibilty, not new use. AlasdairW (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty much neutral on this, somewhat to my surprise. I will have no objection to either a keep or delete decision.
In general, I think new gadgets for sophisticated editors -- shortcuts & especially templates -- should be added only with great caution because they are confusing for other people. Certainly the standard for keeping those should be far stricter than for articles or redirects in main space. For example, I was horrified that we kept Template:Spaced en dash.
In this case, though, I cannot see that it is likely to do any harm or confuse people & it might be useful. Pashley (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: consensus to delete. Ground Zero (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a travel-related article, seems promotional too. Timothytyy (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Yes Done. Pashley (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the above nomination – abandoned since Jan 26, 2022, minimal content, has a (dynamic) map but is incomplete (cc Yvwv, the creator of the page). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination upon AlasdairW's improvements. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/May_2023&oldid=4668195"