Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2010

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in November 2010. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/October 2010 or Project:Votes for deletion/December 2010 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Created with copyrighted material from http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Most-Beautiful-Beaches-Of-The-World/1574017 and multiple links to www.beachtraveller.net. Additionally, I believe the concept really couldn't become anything but an unmanageable subjective list.

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:33, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Created with copyrighted material. This event is not on the order of the World Cup or the Olympics, etc., occurring always in the same place around the same time. It's more of an attraction and hence does not merit its own article.

  • It is a major festival and tourist attraction. A valid travel topic article could certainly be written on it, but without the externals links, the date in the title, or the copyrighted text. (WT-en) Pashley 01:19, 30 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete An article about world-class snow festivals might be a worthy travel topic, but I don't think Harbin's festival is itself worthy of its own article. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:59, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:35, 11 November 2010 (EST)

  • Delete. The article says that this is a "spot by a river". A quick Google search isn't turning up much, so I don't think this meets the Project:What is an article threshold. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:38, 30 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Could we create an article for Pedong and merge the content there? (WT-en) LtPowers 09:53, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:38, 11 November 2010 (EST)

Except for the 3 short suggestions under Give, it needs to be merged with Volunteer. No substantial additions in two years now.

  • Merge and delete - (WT-en) Texugo 10:45, 16 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Volunteer certainly needs to be an independent article, not a redirect to this as it is now. Once that is done, though, I'd be inclined to keep this as a stub — there are ways to make a difference other than volunteer work, so it is a valid travel topic. (WT-en) Pashley 09:26, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Rename to Volunteer and clean up. Per the Project:Deletion policy keeping a travel topic as a stub isn't an option - the guideline is that a travel topic that doesn't progress beyond outline within a year should be deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:49, 23 October 2010 (EDT)
    Anyone else care to comment? It is well past 14 days. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:33, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
    I agree with your suggestion, Ryan. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:47, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Result: Renamed to Volunteer. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:05, 11 November 2010 (EST)

  • Delete. Apologies for the triple listing, but these are all related. Per Project:Using Mediawiki templates: "Before a new Mediawiki Template is put into general use it needs to be discussed and accepted as good or preferably best practice". These three templates are generically named templates that are useful only in one specific article that is itself a likely VFD candidate. I would very much like to keep the template namespace as clean as possible, so if this sort of template is going to be introduced it should be discussed and templates that are at least somewhat re-usable should be created instead. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)
No worries. I'll leave. I had no idea of the rigid controls I was getting into. Please delete my page. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Kenanders (talk • contribs)
  • These templates were not yet in general use; it appears they were experimental in nature, and I think contributors should be allowed to experiment. Sometimes that means creating helper templates, and we shouldn't be discouraging that. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:53, 13 November 2010 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:05, 27 November 2010 (EST)

  • Delete. The author marked this page as "please delete". I've obviously chased him/her off, which is unfortunate, but the page in question likely would not have met the Project:What is an article criteria. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:20, 12 November 2010 (EST)
    • Perhaps we ought to leave at least a welcome message to a new user before tagging their good-faith efforts with gaudy deletion templates. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:31, 12 November 2010 (EST)
      • Actually, the user blanked the page before the VFD appeared, according to the history . Whatever we do with the page (I also suggest delete), the same should be done to the similar Tools, created by a different user account but otherwise the same course of events. — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 14:42, 13 November 2010 (EST)
        • I think the fact that I marked some of the supporting templates as VFD was the catalyst that led to the user blanking the page and leaving. There is a larger discussion that should happen elsewhere about how to find a balance between making life easy for patrollers while not chasing off new contributors - in this case I probably could have been more patient, but at the same time I'd be hesitant to put into policy anything that might discourage the handful of regular users who do spend time patrolling. If anyone wants to start a discussion on this matter please leave a pointer to it on this VFD and I'll happily contribute. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:16, 13 November 2010 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:05, 27 November 2010 (EST)

  • Delete. The original author marked this as "please delete". -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:16, 13 November 2010 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:05, 27 November 2010 (EST)

Stand alone article for a park in Providence, Rhode Island. Doesn't meet WT article criteria. There is some ok looking content that could be incorporated into the relevant city article. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 03:35, 26 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Providence/South Providence. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:31, 27 November 2010 (EST)

3 entry’s by same anonymous user

edit

Pen island Graffiti

Peodoland Graffiti


Sheridan land‎ Graffiti

Result: Speedy deleted all three - (WT-en) Texugo 08:01, 29 November 2010 (EST)

  • Delete. Per a recent comment by Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Diliff the user in question uploaded at least one image that was not properly licensed. The variety of image sizes and quality in this user's contribution history make all contributions likely copyvio suspects. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 15 November 2010 (EST)
  • Delete None of the images has any attribution or specific licensing. Agree with your reasoning about image sizes. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 23:29, 15 November 2010 (EST)
  • Delete. Even if one or two of them are okay, enough of them are obvious copyvios that I don't feel comfortable leaving any of them here. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:11, 16 November 2010 (EST)

Result: All images deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:15, 29 November 2010 (EST)

  • Delete. Disambiguation page for three bodies of water, but per Project:Bodies of water lakes don't get their own articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 23 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Pashley 01:20, 30 October 2010 (EDT)
  • If this is deleted, are we okay with people getting a list of search results when they look for "Lake James"? It doesn't come up with two of the three pages listed on the disambiguation page; Northern Indiana is listed but "Lake James" doesn't appear in the blurb. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:47, 5 November 2010 (EDT)
I was about to delete this article and just noticed this comment. I'm personally OK with search results for cases like this one - I think it's better to rely on search for corner cases rather than trying to manually maintain a disambiguation page for all non-article destinations, but since the disambiguation policy page suggests discussion and consensus for handling corner cases then this discussion would be the place for any discussing. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:28, 18 November 2010 (EST)
You're okay with the search results even though they don't come up with two of the three pages currently listed on the disambiguation page? (WT-en) LtPowers 08:40, 19 November 2010 (EST)
100% OK. Just as I don't think we need to make sure that a search (or disambiguation page) for something like "Hard Rock Cafe" shows every single location, I don't think "Lake James" is a destination that is worth creating an index for when our search index will suffice. Coming at this from another angle, there is a "Saint James Lake" in Minnesota - if we keep the disambiguation page, should that be included? What about the likely dozens of other places with the same (or similar) names - at what point do we draw the line? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 19 November 2010 (EST)
That seems contrary to the principle behind Project:The traveller comes first. We should be taking pains to get the reader to the destination he or she is looking for, not throwing up roadblocks. (WT-en) LtPowers 18:34, 19 November 2010 (EST)
But per our rules, none of the Lakes James qualify as destinations. To illustrate, if one of them were, we would have a page for it, and no mention or possibility of reaching the other two non-article lakes. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Likewise, if we're speaking in hypotheticals, if there were only one destination that had a Lake James, we'd redirect it and the reader would have no problem finding the correct article. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:16, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Right, but the reason we do that as a matter of policy is not for the sake of navigation, but for the sake of saving time on this page, as anyone can make a redirect. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:42, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Getting the user to the right article ought to be a bedrock principle, not a mere side effect of a rule intended for editor convenience. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:38, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Where I disagree is threefold:
  1. I don't think we should be anticipating everything a user might be looking for. Whether such an effort would be useful for travelers is debatable since it would likely lead to a great deal of inconsistency in how disambiguation pages are managed and created. Invoking the slippery slope argument, if lakes are valid topics for disambiguation pages, are hotel chains?
  2. I don't think disambiguation pages for attractions are particularly beneficial to travelers except in the case of major attractions. Using the example above of "Saint James Lake", the user still won't find what they wanted on the "James Lake" disambiguation page. For the majority of these cases relying on the search engine seems entirely valid.
  3. On a wiki I don't think you can discount the value of having clear editorial guidelines by invoking a possible benefit to users. Our Project:External links policy clearly eliminates content that would be beneficial to users, but on a freely-editable site it's often preferable to have clear rules to help avoid a profusion of questionable contributions.
Summing up, I think that at some point we simply need to say "the search page is good enough", and the recent changes in the disambiguation policy were an (apparently failed) attempt to define that dividing line. Note that if search isn't turning up an article with the name "Lake James" in it (as you mentioned) then that's a technical issue with search, but not something I think we need to create a disambiguation page to work around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:39, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Well I tend to consider most geographic features to be likely search terms. Maybe all of the Lakes James are minor enough that no one would ever search for them; I don't know. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:56, 20 November 2010 (EST)
I'm going to move this to Project:Disambiguation pages#Geographic features since it seems there remain some unresolved concerns. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:52, 21 November 2010 (EST)
  • This is another case of disambiguating non-articles, and I don't think we have concluded that discussion. Following the logic I argued in the linked discussion thread, I would like to delete per Ryan—but we should wrap up that discussion first. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:08, 5 November 2010 (EDT)
I've added a suggestion to Project:Disambiguation pages#Non-articles that tries to find a compromise between the two positions being argued. Further comments would be appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:52, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:55, 30 November 2010 (EST)

  • Delete. This clearly doesn't meet the Project:What is an article criteria, but I didn't speedy delete it as there may be some chance that the user is trying to create some sort of itinerary or travel topic. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:51, 25 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Would the user be interested in creating an article about current opportunities on having a trip around what was once Roman Empire in the circumstances it was done during that era, named something like "Travelling Roman way", instead of a hypothetical "time travel" scenario? Sure, it doesn't guarantee that it won't be vfd'd once more, but let's see how it would evolve this way. For example, is there a place where you can take a litter today? People still hitch ships, for example, which might make you feel closer to Roman times when done in Mediterranean. Or a restaurant or region which specializes in Roman cuisine, like Tallinn's Olde Hansa Restaurant, which specializes in medieval cuisine and uses no electricity. Major highways in parts of Europe still closely follow what was once major Roman routes, so what about an itinerary like Via Egnatia? Then you could go on telling about visiting Roman sites that are still (partially) intact, like Pompeii, Parthenon, or Ephesus. Otherwise, delete — one of Wikivoyage's goals is to be an up-to-date guide, and travel info out of date by two thousand years isn't much within that context, to say the least (no matter how interesting it was reading that "get in" section — and shouldn't it be "get around" really? :-) – (WT-en) Vidimian 20:29, 25 October 2010 (EDT)
  • I wrote this article. I believe that Wikivoyage should have a hypothetical scenario for a historical sense. Even if no of course it is not possible to travel there it is of course common knowledge to be a fictitious scenario yet one based on accurate historical information. There should be pages that stretch the bounds of one's imagination. That was only the beginning of the article which is meant for major expansion and further detail in other locations at the time. Such as the city Rome. PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE A HISTORICAL TRAVEL SECTION. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 67.184.17.210 (talk • contribs)
There are numerous articles on Wikivoyage that aren't traditional travel articles (see On the trail of Marco Polo or The Wire Tour for two examples), so if you re-work your article to be more about how a modern traveler could vacation like a citizen of ancient Rome instead of a travel article written FOR a citizen of ancient Rome then it would fit in with this site's goals. However, if your plan is solely to re-create a period travelogue then it would probably be more useful to simply defer to the actual travel writers of the time; expanding the scope of Wikivoyage to include fictional "historical" articles would definitely require some discussion at Project:What is an article or Project:Goals and non-goals, and I suspect that there will not be a consensus to expand the site's scope for this type of subject. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:50, 25 October 2010 (EDT)
I would venture that, even if it were updated as a modern-day itinerary or travel topic, the topic is far, far too vast. I'd much rather see itineraries for individual Roman roads or articles like Exploring Roman Brittania. (WT-en) Texugo 04:39, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
I agree with Texugo. There may be some great itineraries/travel topics that could be formed around seeing ruins, artifacts, etc. from the Roman Empire however, as a single topic, it covers too much territory. You even stated in the article that it will cover "Italy Gaul and Britain Iberia Northern Africa Egypt Middle East Asia Minor Greece Eastern Europe" An article that has a traveler going from England to Syria to Tunisia and all over Europe definitely needs more structure and greater purpose than simply the fact that each has remnants of the Roman Empire. Similarly, a British Empire itinerary would not make a sensible itinerary, because a traveler would be going to Australia, Hong Kong, India, South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, the United States, etc. These topics don't really have courses to follow, they would just be lists, I feel. Although the article is cute to read, the focus needs to be on how modern travelers can see all of the sites listed in an itinerary. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:35, 26 October 2010 (EDT)

I'd say keep if anyone wants to work on it, otherwise delete. It could develop into something quite interesting.

On the trail of Marco Polo is (I think, having written it :-) a good example of an article based on history that becomes a reasonable itinerary. The Roman article could be split into smaller ones, following say Julius Caesar or Hannibal about. I'm not sure that's a good idea, but it might be worth considering. (WT-en) Pashley 00:56, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:58, 30 November 2010 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2010&oldid=1890667"