Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2021

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← September 2021 Votes for deletion archives for October 2021 (current) November 2021 →

Per the one year rule Tai123.123 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Merge and redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Merged. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be usable or close to usable. What would be the benefit/reason to merge the information to Annapurna Circuit? I will support a merge if it makes sense from a traveler's perspective, but I don't see this as a stubby outline in its current form. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could be made usable with the addition of a map and geo. It's currently merely linked under Manaslu in Annapurna#Other destinations, which is probably not the ideal way to handle it, because who would be looking for it under "Asia itineraries", its current breadcrumb path? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could make it prominent, but isn’t breadcrumb under “[continent] itineraries” the normal procedure of itinerary categorization? I would support adding wikilinks if this is the best way to increase the Manaslu Trek article’s visibility. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be normal, but it's not where people are most likely to look for it. Merging may be the wrong idea, but is there a way to make this trek breadcrumb to Annapurna Circuit or Annapurna? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that’s easily done. Create a category for Annapurna Circuit and change “isPartOf” parameter of the Manaslu Trek to “Annapurna Circuit,” and within a few hours or days the category page will update. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Not deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Visits in Norway (outside main cities) are often organized by drive or road number, rather than by a specific places (such as a village). We got articles on European route E39 and E6 through Sweden and Norway, which are itineraries (E6 is in fact a bit too long as a leisure trip!), whereas roads 63 and 55 are kind of destinations in themselves. Erik den yngre (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the option for a Road 55 article sounds the best. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Late reply, but I personally think Rte 55 goes well as you said. I've done this route before, but it's been a while now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, as it's been now worked on by Erik den yngre. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikivoyage:Bodies of water, "we don't write destination guide articles about bodies of water". While someone could write an article about this as avtravel topic or an itinerary, this article isn't either of those. In an encyclopedic way, it just lists the countries around the Somsli Sea. Ground Zero (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "[reply]

Delete Tai123.123 (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered by Category:Wikivoyage humor and Category:Joke articles. I don't see the need for a duplicate category. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe change Category:Wikivoyage humor into Category: Wikivoyage jokes Damianlewis21 (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moving categories is easier said than done. It's not like pages where everything will automatically move. With categories, even if you move the name of the category, the pages in it will remain in the old one. All this is, is a waste of time, fixing something perfectly fine. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quezoncity.jpg – likely from an unfree source. The indicated source is http://www.everystockphoto.com/photo.php?imageId=3596742, but it is not sure if the image itself is freely-licensed or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it up to us to check whether a site called "everystockphoto" is being honest? I don't think we want to do what's too often done on Commons, which is to assume bad faith on the part of the uploader, such that something that's presented as a free image for whatever reason might not be and therefore has to be considered copyright violation and summarily deleted. So can you provide actual evidence that it's a copyrighted image? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: stock images are usually not free and do not comply with freeness required by Wikimedia Foundation as defined by Definition of Free Cultural Works. Stock images are usually used in accordance with licensing negotiations from the original photographers, typically by media plan or agreed use. Most stock images are not commercially reusable (which is a chief requirement for free CC licenses). As per Wikivoyage:Non-free content#Exemption Doctrine Policy, the two types of unfree elements allowed here are limited quotations of texts and images of copyrighted public works of no FOP countries. However, such images must be taken by uploaders themselves, or by Wikitravel uploaders. To quote: "2. Photographs of copyrighted artwork and architecture must be otherwise free; contributors may not upload images taken from non-free sources just because they depict copyrighted works that are allowed under this policy." —The preceding comment was added by JWilz12345 (talk • contribs)
I think you mean Wikivoyage uploaders. I know of at least one page that has absolutely free images that anyone is free to download and use in any way they like, without even having to give permission. What do you know about the terms this particular site imposes on users who download photos from it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about the site, but given that stock photos usually are non-free by the Wikimedia definition, and that most people who haven't been engaged at Commons (or in the free software movement) don't understand the difference between free for the press and free in the Wikimedia sense, I wouldn't trust an unknown uploader to have got it right, unless there is some evidence. –LPfi (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing it with a better image would be the best solution, one everyone could agree with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, the image has been replaced. I used a distant view of the high rise buidings to avoid the FOP concerns. AlasdairW (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super, much better image. The nominated photo can be deleted now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected questionable file. The claimed origin, c:File:Rabaul Harbor And Tavurur From Volcano Observatory.jpeg, was deleted on Commons not because of FOP (no copyrightable architecture and public artworks seen here), but because "Media missing permission as of 9 April 2011." My undeletion attempt there (now archived: c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-10#File:Rabaul Harbor And Tavurur From Volcano Observatory.jpeg) went unsuccessful, on the grounds that license review here or on Wikitravel cannot be proven. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intercity buses in France (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Similar to the #Cycling in France article, this travel topic also contains no useful info and needs urgent TLC. The only useful info is the companies but France#By bus 2 seems much much more explanatory than this article, and has much less emphasis on "no services to Germany". If somebody works on this within 13 hours and 23 hours, I'm find to withdraw this nom, but... I think it's been given ample time to improve. And personally, I think the stubby thing should be deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be merged and redirected without second thought. The information should be developed in France#By bus, and only when the section gets too long a separate article be created. –LPfi (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. And we don't need to discuss it here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merged and redirected. See Special:Permalink/4304820 for the article before merging. I left out some information on history etc. –LPfi (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Yeah... nah, this is not an encyclopedia. Unless someone is actually going to make this article travel related like all our other sport related articles, sadly, I see deletion is the only option. This isn't Wikipedia 2.0. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some assurance, I'm happy to withdraw this nom if it's worked on, but if it were the way it is in 13 days and 23 hours, it's currently OOS as travel topics still need to have some travel content in it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When I have been trying to detout Rishikesh I have been hoping for some information on what information is relevant and what is only touty language ("accredited by X" – never heard). For that destination there is Yoga in Rishikesh, which indeed has places to visit listed, but no info on how to choose between them. I don't want another tout magnet by including destinations, unless there are some very clear criteria for them. The travel relation would come in the form of telling what to look for and what to look out for, when checking possible travel destinations.
    I don't know to what extent people going abroad to attend a yoga school need information on a level we are able to provide, but I would like a guide here, instead of having to try to distil the information from Wikipedia. Writing the article needs an author who knows or is ready to put time on studying the subject. If we don't have any, I suppose there is no use keeping the stub, but I hope the article could be written.
    –LPfi (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently, it's just not a travel article. It's not a good idea to keep articles that are travel-related but are not travel articles unless and until they are made into travel articles. Some of our travel topics are information-heavy but very light on travel as it is. We should discourage this when possible, so deleting this article is best. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think we shouldn't be creating articles as placeholders, except for good reason, and this is just a placeholder. The article does not tell anything a reader interested in travelling for yoga wouldn't know, so finding it through a link or search engine is just frustrating. Rather than creating such stubs, editors could tell their ideas on the talk page. –LPfi (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per my statement around 1.5 months ago, I said I'll nominate it for deletion if there was no travel content added. To this date, there's still yet zero places listed apart from countries which all this belongs in simple.wikipedia, not in a travel guide. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the expansion of historical travel articles, Wikivoyage has yet to settle on how to present large-scale history, in particular colonial empires, to the reader. Many historical articles have an emphasis on the historical narrative, and it feels as if we are missing out on Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first. One way to salvage the material from this article, is insertion into the chronological series of early United States history, American Civil War, Old West, industrialization of the United States and postwar United States. /Yvwv (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how that would salvage anything. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be an appropriate framework, but the article still has to be worthwhile. I don't know how this could be developed into a travel guide. I don't think anybody is going to visit e.g. the Dominican Republic to see traces of American colonialism ("American" quite confusing in this context), and if you are going there for other reasons, the History section of the country article should probably tell more on the subject than the colonialism article can tell. On the other hand, enough should be included in articles about the USA to remind people of this aspect of the country's history – and a bit on neocolonialism wouldn't hurt, also covering other colonialist powers, but where? In discussion on colonialism and in Travel in developing countries? –LPfi (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in Talk:African-American history, many Wikivoyagers have a commitment for inclusive writing. The right way to do it might not be to start new travel topics; another option is to add material to the existing ones. Articles about destinations in Puerto Rico and the Philippines could certainly be expanded with more text about American colonialism. /Yvwv (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that works fine, especially given the history section for Puerto Rico doesn't talk much about the US history. Haven't read some of the others like Palau, but seems like merging and completely paraphrasing it works. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikibooks needs citations, and encyclopedia pages are deleted on sight. Wood be good for Wikiversity though, although I don't do much apart from anti-vandal work there. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article about American colonialism should contain places in former colonies that are remnants of American occupation/rule or important historic events related to the colonization/colony itself. This article has none of that. It would be more work to try and "rework" this article than it would to just delete it and let a future user with the motivation to make it relevant recreate it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Granted, it is not currently much of an article, though contrary to claims above it does have some links to places where the history is visible. We have quite a few links to various colonial empires; I see no reason to leave the US out. Pashley (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least those articles have reasonably good travel content in it. This one doesn't, and it's been given months for it to be worked on, but still no travel info. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should perhaps be moved somewhere instead of deleting, as there is quite a lot of good information, usable for writing a travel focused version. Ideally somebody would start doing the change, but it is quite big an undertaking, so I won't be holding my breath. –LPfi (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. There is a copy on User:Pashley/AC though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone will be using this extra-region at all. Not only is this now a non-existant jurisdiction, I don't think this is a common search term now. It would have made sense in 2006 when it was created, but not today. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. Moreover, itineraries don't have a "do" section. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is questioning that the route exists, but the article is not usable, so I don't see how it's useful to keep the article in its current form. We could merge some information and redirect the term to the relevant Washington region article, or someone could add a clear, usable definition of the route to this article, but just leaving it as is isn't much of a service to travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: no consensus. No route identified, nor is "real route" a valid reason to keep. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling in France (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

A stubby topic with no travel content whatsoever. The only useful into is France plays host to the iconic Tour de France, the top cycling sports event in the world, but I and probably most others had already known that before. Similar to my comments about Yoga, if it were to remain like this, it may as well be deleted. If someone worked on it within 13 days and 23 hours, I might withdraw this nom. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Article deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a more elaborate article about the history of organized labor in the United States there could be some references to one of the founding members of the AFL-CIO. That is not the case. /Yvwv (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, the American Federation of Labor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brenner Pass (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Per the one year rule for itineraries. While this does have lots of information, almost all of it is in the understand section as well as the get in section, with little info on the route itself. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, as its been worked on by GZ. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trail of Tears National Historic Trail (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Per the one year rule of itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article mainly lacks information on the route + preparation which is just as bad as not having this article at all. It could be merged into a future United States Historic Trails. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the article to the newly created United States Historic Trails. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on expanding it. Please stand by. Ground Zero (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Speedily kept as its being worked on by GZ. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lusahunga (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

While we do have a policy not to delete real places, this one has to be an exception. There's no English nor a Swahili Wikipedia article as well as a Commons category for this place, and looking at google maps, it seems to suggest that it's just a rural locality with nothing in it. There is an article on zh.voy but that's even in a worse condition than our one. There's no proper way to verify this place, and I would generally oppose redirecting it into Northwest Tanzania given that's far too broad of a region, and similar to the Iditarod Trail waypoints, this article fails wiaa. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or even speedy keep. It is not an exception, but exactly the sort of thing that policy is intended for. Pashley (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first point in "What does not get its own article": Tiny or sparsely populated villages and hamlets that have no cultural or natural attractions, or hospitality venues.
While we'd ideally redirect this article, there's no good place to redirect this article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I agree that this is a rare case in which deleting an article is appropriate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care. First comment, though, I'm not sure that SHB2000 was looking at the right place on the map. It is quite clearly a small town. The town and its hinterland (the district ward) had a population of 37,234 in 2012. That said, it does not appear to be much of a tourist destination. Ideally we should have an article for the much bigger town of Biharamulo, and that could include the Lusahunga area. In the meantime, I don't particularly care if this one is deleted. Nurg (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nowhere to sleep or eat or shop. Nothing to see or do. All we are telling readers is how far they have to go to find a city that has any those things. If the article at least told readers how to get out, that would he something, but it doesn't. Wikivoyage is not a highway distance chart. Ground Zero (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Mapnik map, there is a "Adam Store" shop, a market, a bus stop and a church. There is also "Rusahunga pines farm", which some online sources claim is an attraction, but I couldn't find any details. WP has no articles within 10km of here. As the article has no useful information, I don't mind if it is deleted (or redirected). AlasdairW (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Create a stub for Biharamulo and redirect there. See w:Biharamulo. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created the stub but did not do the redirect. Pashley (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected it, as the article is no longer eligible for deletion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected, as no longer eligible for deletion since Pashley started the Biharamulo article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great Glen Way (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No info about the route, and is not properly formatted. Needs TLC. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, as its near usable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was started by banned Brendan. Unfortunately, I did add a listing to it not realising he started this article, making it no longer eligible for speedy deletion. I'd ideally speedy this, but I'd prefer to go via vfd. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rather just speedily deleted it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails our event criteria as well as wiaa. Lists don't meet either the event policy or wiaa. Wikipedia does a better job in that then us. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as relevant and redirect to Kerala#Festivals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; merge and redirect. Pashley (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Merged. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While yes this is a real national park it doesn't help tourists as we have individual for all three components, Mt. Fuji, Hakone and the Izu Islands. It could be turned into an extra hierarchal region and have links to all 3 other articles or be deleted Tai123.123 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also all sleep sections are listed in the fuji 5 lakes article. Tai123.123 (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot help much here; I've travelled in Asia, but alas I haven't visited Japan yet.
Since is a national park, I'm inclined to think this should have a park article if possible. On the other hand, we do have extraregion articles with quite a bit of text, e.g Lake Tai or Himalayas. Pashley (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand what Tai123.123 is saying. I also feel that the Japanese "National Parks" are useless. Some points about them:
1. Most are not coherent destinations. No one says they are going to "Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park". Ever. Or "Daisen-Oki National Park"/"Ise-Shima National Park"/etc. Saying that would be nonsensical. You would say you went to Mount Fuji. Or Hakone. Or the Izu Peninsula. Or just Shizuoka. They are not like Yellowstone, which is a distinct destination that you can actually pinpoint on a map and if you tell people you're going to Yellowstone, people will know exactly where you're going.
2. Many are so expansive to the point of being meaningless. "Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park" is a good example of this. It spans over half of Shizuoka (prefecture) and Yamanashi (prefecture) plus part of Kanagawa, along with a bunch of islands.
3. Going along with point 2, they encompass many cities, so there aren't any destinations in "Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park" that wouldn't be covered more sensibly in another article. Even in Japanese tourism ads, they are placed with the other destinations in the city and may or may not even mention that they are part of the park at all.
4. Again, going along with the above, there are no clear ways to "enjoy" a lot of these "park". Sure, you can plan a trip to Hakone, but it's not as if nature is even important (or at least is not always the most prominent attraction) in much of the "park" area. A lot of the "park" consists of "In this town, there's this one place, and in that town there's that place". Most end up just mish-mashes of random natural features in a region. For example, Rakujuen Garden in Mishima is part of this exact "national park". This garden is almost directly outside of Mishima Station in the middle of the city. It's a garden (man-made), so of course it has natural features, but to say you were in a National Park after visiting the garden? It's technically true, but it's also ridiculous. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChubbyWimbus, Thank you for articulating my points much better than I could've, could I make it an extra region with a lede paragraph and links to the four primary destinations that make up the park, as I feel a conventional park template wouldn't work here. Also @LPfi, @SHB2000, I feel you should read ChubbyWimbus's as it explains my points better than I did. Tai123.123 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still inclined to vote keep, as a park article. Yesterday, I started a Wyrrabalong National Park article. For the most part, its just an urban park which doesn't get much visitors in the first place and it only has an area of 6.2km2 (by comparison, the parks these size I've been to in the US and Canada are only usually a municipal park). But yet I still think it should have its own article.
Even more, a few months ago, I started a Sydney Harbour National Park. It's only got an area of around 3km2, and it can easily be merged into Sydney/Harbour Islands. But obviously not, because it's a star article. No one usually says "I'm going to Sydney Harbour National Park". Usually, most say where they're going in the park (such as North Head or Middle Head/Gubbuh Gubbuh or whatever), or just say "Sydney Harbour" which isn't the same as the park. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These articles (I mean most of our Japanese national park articles) never should have been created to begin with, but now that we have them, I don't think our policy permits deleting them. They are "real" places in terms of being real designated national parks. We could put them all together in a National Parks of Japan article where they can be named and described. Then if someone is interested in them, they can add destinations. If the destinations become too numerous and/or a user takes genuine interest in a specific park, they can create an article for it. This article, for example, was created in 2004 and nearly 20 years later still has no real content. Places to sleep between Yamanashi, Shizuoka, and Hakone is not really content about Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park. Someone could easily copy-paste the "Sleep" listing in Hakone to create more false content. These kinds of articles should be focused around the "Sees" and "Dos" first and foremost, and this one has zero listings. Others have the same or just a couple. An article for Japan's National Parks with all of them listed would be a good incubator article and a nice way to see them all together. If we do that, this and most others, should be merged into the new article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TTCF, we can delete useless articles. But I suppose some travellers will find the name of the national park somewhere, so it is a useful search term. As the park has parts in several regions, a redirect isn't particularly useful. Instead we can have "a lead paragraph and links to the four primary destinations that make up the park" as Tai123.123 puts it. I don't see any problem with having the page formatted as a park article. A guide park article requires "different choices for which parts of the park to visit, and information on multiple attractions and things to do", which is the primary intent with this article (and these can be Mount Fuji, Izu Islands etc. and not listings from those articles). Then it should tell about how to get in and around, and have accommodation listings. Most of the transportation and accommodation can be handled by references to the linked destinations, but some isn't covered by these, and some of what isn't covered suits the park article better. The page banner and Go next are hardly problems. So I think we can have quite good a park article without unduly doubling information or removing it from from the proper destinations.
I support the creation of a National Parks of Japan article, but I think the national park articles should be kept anyway. If they have pointers to the real destinations they are usable (in the common sense of the word), The understand of the main article should explain that the parks as such are not very interesting, and should probably link the real destinations in addition to the park articles. The only problem I see is that somebody might start copying listings from the destination articles to the park articles, but we can probably make it very clear (in the Understands?) that listings are found at the real destinations rather than in the park article.
–LPfi (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We sort of already do that with Kosciuszko National Park (although it's not complete yet). Don't see why we can't do it for this one. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. We do have Pyhä-Luosto National Park, so if necessary, we can turn this article into this exact format, but I still think all parks should have their own articles except for some random parks with no POIs in Australia or Israel. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current Pyhä-Luosto disambiguation page is not a good example, as the national park article should be written – there is nothing special preventing it. Some of the destinations in the park are easily reached from the adjacent ski resorts, so listed there, but they should instead refer to the national park article proper, as soon as it exists. However, it is not high priority for me and I don't think anybody else intends to write it. –LPfi (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChubbyWimbus @LPfi @SHB2000, I rewrote the article to be an extra region on one of my user pages, could you please check it. It's found here, User:Tai123.123/Fuji Tai123.123 (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this were to be an extraregion, I'd prefer to keep some of the text though, somewhat like the examples Pashley suggested above. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still prefer the solution I outlined above, regardless of whether it is called a park or extraregion. The current setup is close to a disambiguation page. If doing it that way, I think the cultural importance of Mount Fuji should be emphasised: travellers should primarily be approaching a holy mountain. This applies to all holy sights, more importantly the stranger one finds the holiness. –LPfi (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer that too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the solution you outlined, do you mean creating a NP of Japan page and not focusing on individual articles. Tai123.123 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also you can edit the template I sent above if you want to further much Fuji’s Importance (yes I know you shouldn’t edit other people’s user page but I give consent). Tai123.123 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a "national park", I think the cultural aspects of the mountain are actually better deemphasized in favor of the natural aspects. Its cultural/spiritual significance got it registered as a World Heritage Site, but it is the nature that got it registered as part of a national park. What is said about Mount Fuji should be focused on enjoying it for its flora, fauna, lakes, etc. The park has nothing to do with "holiness" and should definitely not be framed as such. Mount Fuji is also just one part of this "park", so it should not be depicted as the sole or even main feature of the park. You cannot even see the mountain from most of the Izu Peninsula and maybe also the islands. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But what this park is about should be explained in that article, and what national parks in Japan are about in general should also be explained somewhere. I have only just learnt they are different from those I know about. –LPfi (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi I can't find the reason all these different destinations were shoved together in one park. Like @ChubbyWimbus mentioned it's a were hodgepodge of places both natural and man made. Tai123.123 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same as LPfi here. While national parks that I'm familiar with can include 1.7km2 parks like Malabar Headland National Park, and I too have just learned that Nat Parks aren't the same everywhere. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Pashley (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same. LGTM. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Made an extraregion by Tai123.123 and ChubbyWimbus has started the National Parks of Japan article. Any further comments about this should probably go in the relevant talk page, as there's pretty clear consensus not to delete. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This term seems politically controversial to both sides, no articles link to it, and it contains no travel information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @The dog2: who started this article to comment. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to plan a travel itinerary around "Greater China", and if they did, this article doesn't give them any useful information about doing so. Ground Zero (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is a term widely used in business circles. It is actually very common for the Shanghai office of a company to be responsible for distribution in Taiwan and Hong Kong as well. Yes, I know the overwhelming majority of young Hongkongers and Taiwanese are pro-independence and reject the Chinese identity, and this term may be offensive to them, but nevertheless, it is still commonly used in corporate settings. So let's say the Taipei office of a MNC reports to the Shanghai office (which is actually very common), they would list the Shanghai office as the "Greater China headquarters". Therefore, I'd say keep. The dog2 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True... but how relevant to travel is business? We do have Business travel, but... SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    People do travel for business meetings, even though I understand this has diminished quite a lot due to COVID. But one classic example of where this "Greater China" thing comes into play is the Pfizer vaccine. The vaccine was actually developed by a German startup company called BioNTech, but because they are a small company, they don't have the capability to distribute their vaccines globally, and therefore licensed the global distribution rights to Pfizer, except in "Greater China", where they licensed the distribution right to Chinese company Fosun instead. This became problematic because in business parlance, "Greater China" includes Taiwan, and the Taiwanese government refuses to deal with Chinese companies, so that led to problems in the procurement process, since Pfizer would also not sell vaccines Taiwan due to the fact that they don't have the distribution rights in "Greater China". The dog2 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your example relates to pharmaceutical licensing, and not to business travel. Wikivoyage should not try to be an encyclopedia of everything. Ground Zero (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is an actual geographical region though and not a travel topic. But anyway, it is common in the corporate world for the Taipei office of a company to report to the Shanghai office as the "Greater China" headquarters, so in such a situation, executives at the Taiwan office will be making regular trips to mainland China for business meetings. The dog2 (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this kind of information could be added to Taiwan#Understand, but I can't see a good reason to have a stub article about the term. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, perhaps a suitable compromise will be do redirect to the East Asia article, and have a sentence under Countries and Regions stating what the term means and when it is used. The dog2 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced. No one is looking for travel information under this name, and what business you can do where is not really our thing to tell. –LPfi (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ But in business contracts, whenever it says "Greater China", it is understood to include Taiwan and Hong Kong. Yes, I get the point that the overwhelming majority of young Hongkongers and Taiwanese are pro-independence and find this term deeply offensive, and that the overwhelming majority of Westerners want to show solidarity with the Hong Kong and Taiwan independence activists, but it is a fact that in the business world, this term is still widely used and there is no ambiguity about what the term means. I am not taking a political stand against Hong Kong or Taiwan independence here. I am just pointing out that it is what it is, and until the business world changes its parlance on its own, it's not our job at Wikivoyage to campaign against the use of the term. Our only job is to reflect what the situation is. If the Hong Kong and Taiwan independence activists want to campaign against the use of this term, they should be free to do so on Twitter, YouTube or wherever, but not on Wikivoyage. The dog2 (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone doing business in "Greater China" already knows that the term means PRC+Taiwan+HK, so in addition to providing no useful travel information, this article serves no-one. Ground Zero (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I have offered a compromise. We could redirect this to East Asia, and explain in the disclaimer box that the term "Greater China" is often used in business settings to encompass mainland China, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan. And I also don't mind if we add a disclaimer that the term "Greater China" is offensive to Hong Kong and Taiwan independence activists. The dog2 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced that this article, even as a redirect, is of any benefit to anyone. We shouldn't be creating articles for every geographic term that exists. My vote remains "delete". Ground Zero (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Taiwan, Macau, and Hong Kong are already mentioned in the China article, so even if for some reason a traveler doesn't remember their names but is interested in the "alternative" Chinese destinations, they can easily find them. I doubt someone will look up "Greater China" but not bother looking at the China or East Asia articles which both list these 3 destinations very prominently. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could consider starting the article Territorial disputes in East Asia and mention the aspects relevant to visitors: visa rules, border checks, etc. /Yvwv (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if that article were to be created, it could cover DPRK/ROK disputes as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That title doesn't sound travel-related to me. Whatever is relevant in it should be covered in Visa trouble or a similar article with worldwide scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ikan Kekek. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Pashley (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't support a creation of that article. But if it were started then... But I think Visa trouble does the job SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: 7 deletes, 1 keep. Deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This itinerary is not properly formatted, and has little information on the route itself. TrailsWA doesn't seem to have much info on this route as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding what the route(s) are. If the route can be clarified, we could keep the article. Otherwise, it should be merged as relevant and redirected to South West (Western Australia), I figure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also having a little trouble figuring out what the route is. Not a bad idea to merge it in the SW WA article. Maybe @Graham87: might know more of this route given he's from Busselton (town in SW WA), and might have a better suggestion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: Nope, I don't know any more about this track than what's on Wikivoyage/Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I guess redirecting or deleting seems the only viable solution SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: 1 delete, zero keeps. Deleted SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks a proper route. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and article statement: “The border area can not be crossed, so the full itinerary cannot be experienced end to end.” --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although no specific route is described, it doesn't seem too difficult to find a route between the listed spots. They seem to be a sufficiently famous collection of sights close enough one to another to make a feasible itinerary. Your probably having to skip two of them doesn't ruin the itinerary (you cannot visit all the points on the Struve Geodetic Arc either). I hope somebody will improve this so that it becomes a real itinerary, but I don't see any need to delete it. –LPfi (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My initial thought was to delete this, or edit it to remove the two points in North Korea, as readers are unlikely to be able to visit these. However as the route is 500 years old, i think we should keep it as a list of 8 sights, but be clearer that only 6 sights can generally be visited. It might work better as a travel topic, as it is about the 8 points, not the route between. There are WP articles in several languages (but not English) - Javanese and Indonesian look the most useful for expanding the article. AlasdairW (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like it to cover all 8 sights. This is a series of historic sights. The hard division of Korea is probably temporary, over the course of history, though we may not live to see reunification. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even without reunification, it may get possible to get a permission to visit those sights and to cross the border. There is no harm in mentioning the two that are hard to visit. We do that for the Gulf of Finland points of Struve Geodetic Arc. I also think the article is more useful as an itinerary than as a travel topic. For somebody who knows Korea, making it one in more than name should be quite easy. –LPfi (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar reasoning to the previous nomination. The article text of Eastern Canada states in the second (of two) sentences, “This region is so vast and diverse geographically, that anything that can be said of Eastern Canada probably also applies of all of Canada, so there is no separate guide on Wikivoyage to Eastern Canada.” Therefore this appears useless as these regions can be found via our Canada article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added Western Canada for the stated reason. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete (edit 12:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC): I now choose to redirect per subsequent comments), while I did nominate Eastern Australia a while ago, the issue with E and W Canada is that these terms are not used as much as "East Coast US", "West Coast US" or "East Coast Australia", and not to say how ambiguous it is. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Canadian opinion:
Eastern Canada is ambiguous. I'm from Ottawa, and called that "Eastern Canada" on Facebook (our article agrees) & I was taken to task by a Maritimer who insisted Ontario & Quebec were "Central Canada" and only Atlantic Canada should count as Eastern. I see no point either to making this a redirect to Atlantic Canada or to making it a complicated disambig page. Delete.
Western Canada is unambiguous & widely used. Keep. Pashley (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Eastern Canada should be referring to Atlantic Canada. Yes, the article incorrectly stated that Ontario and Quebec are in Eastern Canada. Yes, it should be revised to correct the error. No, that reason shouldn't justify deleting the page. Western Canada is correct. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to disagree with that though, since I always thought that Ontario and Quebec were also part of Eastern Canada, until yesterday and Manitoba and anything west of that is considered Central Canada. I'd see what @Ground Zero: would say about this re Eastern Canada. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to Canada. The terms are used differently by different people. When Albertan cars sported bumperstickers in the 1980s that said "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark", they weren't talking about Atlantic Canadians. If we have to have an article on Eastern Canada (and I think that definitional articles are a waste of the reader's time), it should reflect the various definitions. By redredirectingbthe reader to Canada, they land on more useful information.
As far as Western Canada goes, that term is used for the four Western provinces, but can include Yukon and NWT. Same thing: I would redirect it to Canada, where the reader will be able to choose the regional articles they are interested in. Ground Zero (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And sometimes Manitobans point out that their province is at the geographical centre of Canada, but few people take notice of what Manitobans say. Ground Zero (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Canada, per Ground Zero. Canada has more useful information also for those who would find the right article from the disambiguation page. –LPfi (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected to Canada. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I did nominate this article a couple of months ago, I'm nominating this a second time for an entirely different reason. Similar to the E/W Canada situation, I'd argue this is ambiguous. While this article represents it in a way that all the eastern jurisdictions are listed, we run into a whole load of issues:

  • Queensland is not always considered as "eastern", and sometimes Eastern Australia can only mean the jurisdictions that use AEST/AEDT time zone (New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and two other territories).
  • South Australia is also sometimes considered to be part of Eastern Australia (Radelaide is considered to be one of the four state capitals of Eastern Australia).
  • Sometimes Eastern Australia only refers to mainland states and territories, so Tasmania and Macquarie Island wouldn't fit in here
  • Renaming the article to "East Coast Australia" also poses a problem, as the Australian Capital Territory does not have a coastline, and then again we have the Tas/MI issue. And even more, Victoria (state) wouldn't be listed here since it only has a south coast, not an east.
  • I suppose redirecting this to the Australia article may help, but that does not really explain "what eastern Australia means"

It is a commonly used term in Western Australia (the only state not mentioned here), and maybe the Territory? But... it's far too ambiguous. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest (United States of America) and South (United States of America) have similar boundary problems. The fact that some people use a term to indicate different locations doesn't mean that we should get rid of the pages. This is really just the problem with people complaining that the official city boundaries are not the ones used in the Wikivoyage article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SW US to me also includes California while S US also includes Florida to me. But those aren't extraregions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Florida is part of the Southeast geographically and part the South historically but not so much culturally now. California is not part of the Southwest; it is a West Coast state. However, part of Texas is Southwestern. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still consider Texas to be southern given it's literally in the south. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said part of Texas. The most "Southern" part of Texas is the eastern part, where there were huge cotton plantations that were tended by enslaved people before the Civil War, not the huge areas of open ranch land in the west. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept, but with explanation of the ambiguity. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pointless template. Doesn't really save any effort typing {{Own}} than just typing Own work. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep When numerous files were deleted due to FoP reasons on Commons, I had just paste the code. Not a valid reason for deletion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Commons needs such template to provide translation. Apart from "own", there are many commonly used templates. I am not sure we want to create templates here for all of them, and one might want to check the validity of the description – while doing that, removing the braces is not that big an effort, I think. It is irritating to get a lot of red text at saving, but I believe avoiding it is a loosing game. –LPfi (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue though is that images could get deleted any moment from Commons, so wasting time by having to manually type "Own work" may be time consuming. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also could do what @Ikan Kekek: does at times when they locally upload files for this very same reason, but I'm not very comfortable messing with attribution for obvious reasons. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But usually, here's a typical commons description:
{{Information
|description=en:Al-Akbar a Surabaya Mosque fr:La mosquée Al-Akbar a Surabaya.
|date=2016-11-30 09:04:33
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:Lasthib|Lasthib]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}
The location, photo, otherdate and all that isn't really used for locally hosted files, but the "Own work" is. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that authorship information needs to stay, and {{own}} is the most common template. I'd very much have also the other information saved. On the other hand, leaving the template(s) redlinked is not the end of the world. Rather, I'd leave it redlinked until author information is corrected. Indeed, author=[Commons user] and {{self|CC-BY or whatever}} are nearly always incorrect in files threatened by deletion at Commons because of freedom of panorama issues – we seldom have the architect as Commons user, and that's why we need to host them locally. –LPfi (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is your suggestion that we should copy all the Commons templates here? I think it's quite acceptable for different Wikis to have somewhat different interfaces, and I simply copy the relevant text from the Commons files pages in a coherent way which does not break the attributions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, but those templates which save time, including {{own}}. Much better to use this template then remove the curly braces and then have to type "Own work". I wouldn't though, want to copy langswitch for the descriptions as it won't work here and for the descriptions, technically we should only be having the English version although I don't think anyone follows it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Just an FYI, but if the consensus is to delete, I am not going to delete it and I warn the same to whoever is going to delete it to avoid legal trouble. By deleting it, you break the attribution which would used to say "Own work" but now all it will say is Template:Own which does not provide the correct attribution. While I wouldn't go against consensus, I will not do something which can get us into legal trouble and breaks CC BY SA. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be corrected – but on every individual file. Usually files are uploaded locally because the uploader is not the author of the work depicted. Until the template is replaced by the correct description of authorship, the file is a copyright violation. –LPfi (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the template is usually used in the source field, while the photographer is attributed in the author field. The source field is mostly for internal use, so a broken template is no big deal (other than that it gives a bad image of us if common). –LPfi (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically no, because for any viewer, when clicking the image, it comes up with the author info and the source, which are the two key things needed for attribution. The author field is something that is a different issue, but then the source info is what would be missing by deleting this template. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: It's well past 14 days, and there's consensus to delete (3 deletes, 1 keep and LPfi who's neutral), but I don't want to break attribution links. Do we keep or delete? I personally won't go against consensus, but this is a much harmless template that if deleted, breaks source links and attribution. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replace links, then Delete. I am still in the belief that this template is used in the source field, not in the attribution field, and thus deletion will not break attribution, but it does not hurt to check. The source field is mostly for internal use, so a broken template there is no big deal, but it doesn't hurt to repair the descriptions there while checking the attribution, and if the source field also has legal implications, then doing that might be important. –LPfi (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is used on seven pages, I'm taking care of those. I also think "source: own" is as good as "source: own work". –LPfi (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: Six of the seven files are attributed to Wikivoyage users without user page. Am I correct in assuming the links should go to user pages on Commons? The seventh is a blue link, but I assume it is the Commons user page that was linked before the move. I wait until having an answer, as there is no hurry. –LPfi (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs to go to Commons, but in general, I'm having the feeling of "why do we need to fix the sources of all files when this is used on something that's perfectly fine" sort of feeling.
As far as I know, the source field is important to know where we got the image from, and the author alone is not good enough (and it quite annoys me when we have external news sources use these images and solely attributes "Wikimedia Commons" and not the author). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source field is important for checking validity of copyright information, and sometimes important for getting better versions or complementing the description. "Own" is as good as it gets for own photos – you won't be able to check the original in my memory card. For attribution, image agencies are often cited without mentioning the author, so extending the practice to Commons images is understandable, although frustrating, violating the licence, and illegal in Finland (probably in all EU).
Important though is that we get the author right. A JD at Commons should not be attributed as JD at Wikivoyage. If they are redlinked here, there is no way a third party can know that they are Joe Doe at example.com, the page prominently linked at their user page at Commons, or even to know that JD at Wikivoyage is the same person as JD at Commons (them for some reason knowing the latter). Cf attributing my Commons images to "LPfi" at WT!
–LPfi (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be a wise idea to revisit this later? Given that WOSlinker's obviously doesn't understand why this template was created and hasn't made any comment on this discussion except their own nomination, and their reason for deletion also is not a valid reason for deletion, maybe revisit this in a month or so? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: I'd like to fix the attribution of those images sooner rather than later. For the template itself, there is no hurry, but I don't see there is any reason to have this discussion here for an additional month. –LPfi (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost one month now, and this discussion is going nowhere so I'm closing this. But to LPfi, once you've fixed everything, feel free to do whatever you need to do with this template (and feel free to delete this template if needed once you've finished) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another cardinal point disambg page. Mid West WA should just be placed in a hatnote (something like For the Mid West in Western Australia, see Mid West (Western Australia) since I doubt anyone outside Western Australia would be thinking of Mid West WA and this also just opens a can of worms to a lot more "Mid Wests" to be listed there. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, merely because Central Wyoming has a redlink for another town named "Mid West". SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/October_2021&oldid=4924200"