Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2013

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← August 2013 Votes for deletion archives for September 2013 (current) October 2013 →

A historical region which crosses not only several modern day provinces but also straddles two of Italy's top level hierarchical divisions and includes the Republic of San Marino. I do not see much evidence that this historical region is particularly relevant to modern travel, and except for San Marino, we do not have articles for any of its listed destinations. A merge/redirect may be possible if we can establish that it is important for this to be covered and agree on where to do so, but it should not be allowed to develop as a full region article outside our geographical hierarchy.

Comment - Actually, the Get in section appears to be written about the town of Novafeltria, so perhaps it should be moved to a new article about that town (now done). The list of red links probably doesn't need to be saved as they are practically all tiny villages with populations of 500-2000 people, and the only other thing worth merging is a one-line description of Pennabilli (pop. ~3000), which could be moved to the Emilia-Romagna article (also done). But then where would we redirect it afterward? Novafeltria, perhaps? Texugo (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, what I had in mind is moving the manucipalities list to Emilia-Romagna, Marche and Tuscany regions (or in case of Marche and Tuscany subregions), respectively, and deleting the rest, but you made it more elegantly with the get in section. And I agree, the list of red links probably doesn't even need to be saved - they are all rather small places and in case of need they can be easily added to the regions. Danapit (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't especially appreciate the exasperation. Even among real places there are obviously cases that are not so clear-cut as to what should be done (remember Knowledge Corridor?), and I don't think this page is getting so unmanageably overrun with pointless nominations that it warrants a for-crying-out-loud. I half expected someone to argue for keeping this. Texugo (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Texugo, and furthermore, I see nothing in our policy that says that merge/redirect candidates have to be merged/redirected summarily without a VfD discussion, just because they can be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is fine; this just isn't the place for discussing something that won't be deleted. LtPowers (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned before, there is currently no better central place to discuss whether we do or do not want an article for something that is not a clear-cut case. The fact that the page may end up being redirected after the content is deleted or moved shouldn't automatically consign it to being a talk-page-only discussion that may languish about for months or years before being resolved. We have years of precedent of using this page for such cases, while your strict interpretation that "no real destination title should ever appear on this page for any reason" seems to be quite recent. Texugo (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a consensus-backed thing now? (will be happy if it is) And if so, do we really want to use it for any and every historical region possible? Do we have any criteria? Texugo (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would appreciate some constructive input on the subject at Wikivoyage:Extraregion. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Geographical_hierarchy#Extra-hierarchical_regions and also at several other places on that page; the problem of what to do about regions that do not fit nicely into the hierarchy has cropped up repeatedly. I'd say having a tag for them looks like a good idea. Pashley (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a longer discussion at Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?#Proposal for a Meta-region article template. Texugo (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents (talk). I live in the area, and I can witness that normally travellers hit the whole region rather than a single center. There is also a proper website (not that up to date) for tourism in the area (http://www.montefeltroweb.it/, Italian only). It is more common to go and visit Montefeltro rather than go and visit the Rimini province: when you talk of Rimini, in general you refer to Riviera Adriatica, which has a very different kind of tourism. In my opinion such page could be useful as a summary for the area. It's one of those parts of Italy that are spread across multiple provinces (in this case multiple regions) but that have a common historical background. Consider also that the area was mostly in the Marche when five municipalities decided to detach and join Emilia Romagna in very recent times. I will try in my free time to populate the pages: those which remain too short could be just merged at the Montefeltro level. —The preceding comment was added by Danilo Panini (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, but merge much of the material to lower-level articles. I would tag it {{extraregion}}, but if people feel there is not a clear enough consensus yet for that (I think there is; see links above.) then tag it as a disambiguation page for now; we can always change the tag later. Pashley (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information in this article can be found in their corresponding city articles and I don't think there's a good point to redirect it to Kerala. --Saqib (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not if, as Saqib says, there is nothing to merge that isn't already otherwise covered in the respective articles.. Texugo (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. In which case, the article should simply be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This outline itinerary article has not been edited since August 2010. --Saqib (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This outline itinerary article has not been edited since August 2011. --Saqib (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge as appropriate I'm less sure about this one; it needs some copy-editing and is not as specific. But if no-one who knows the route chooses to update, and the choice is to delete the article, at least the information that's there should be merged into an appropriate article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could be merged with Annapurna Circuit. --Saqib (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a logical merge, on the face of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done. --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not to late I'd like to update this article and thus keep it. I did this trek last week and have updated it on wikitravel. Just to discover there is wikivoyage project available couple of hours ago. --Dronych (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the circumstances detailed above, I think it would be best to keep this article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, keep then. Go for it, Dronych, and welcome here! :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I'm going to close this Vfd and keep the article. --Saqib (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article has not been updated for years. The article is still missing central information to make this hiking tour possible, and it is not safe to do this hiking with out this information (eg. where to find boat, bus, where to get key to cabin and what map to bring). Since the topic is more like a personal hiking report, it is not easy to find and fill in this information. The article meet the requirements for deleting a wiki travel article, since it is an itinerary that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year.

It was also deleted on wikitravel for same reasons: http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Votes_for_deletion#Six_days_hiking_on_Moskenes.C3.B8y Added by 213.166.174.2 12:59, 23 August 2013

Comment I don't think it's strictly relevant here what the other site does ;) Danapit (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment - Incidentally, there is a previous vfd discussion for this one in 2009 at Talk:Six days hiking on Moskenesøy, but I think it has already had more than plenty of time to be developed, if it were going to be. The article has already been tagged for merging to Moskenesøya since April, and I think it can be merged there without further ado. Texugo (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing that the 2009 VFD was even initiated by the article's creator. Danapit (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is going to type "Six days hiking on Moskenesøy" in the search box so then why redirect? --Saqib (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree that a redirect would be pointless. Texugo (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As do I, so I'd say merge anything useful and then delete. Pashley (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done --Saqib (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page should not be deleted; the merged content must be attributed, and there's no way to do that without keeping the page as a redirect. LtPowers (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this was not a speedy deletion candidate and should not have been deleted after less than 24 hours on the VfD page. LtPowers (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LtPowers is right. Why was this hastily deleted? Standard procedure should have been followed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored it, given the attribution issue LtPowers mentioned, but in general, things which have a merge tag for months and have already been merged don't really need to be brought up here and discussed for 2 weeks before being redirected, right? Texugo (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but not without attribution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Moskenesøya. --Saqib (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, you seem to be missing the point of what Ikan is saying. The Sea of Crete itself is a body of water, but the article treats it as if it were a region. This article would have been better titled Crete and surrounding islands, Islands in the Sea of Crete, or something along those lines. However, the overlap of this article's coverage with Crete is such that the most sensible solution is to merge any valuable information then redirect to Crete. Deletion is not an option as the islands in the Sea of Crete are real places. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Crete. --Saqib (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply the boundaries of a former wildlife park. It doesn't seem like this term is really in use today to identify the region. Merge & redirect to Northern Uganda? AHeneen (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily redirected to Northern Uganda. --Saqib (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All listings have been merged into their corresponding district articles. "A Weekend in Philly" is not a search term so perhaps should be deleted. --Saqib (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article history must be retained to maintain proper attribution of the content. LtPowers (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, we can speedy redirect this article. --Saqib (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't know if this is the common way to do this here, but this way of merging and redirecting does not comply with the CC licensing requirements at all. If you merge pieces of the article to other articles without a link to the history of the original and no mention of the original authors, the information appears as being added by user:Saqib, in this case. Keeping the original as a redirect doesn't change that. The original author(s) are not attributed and anyone wanting to re-use the information will give attribution to the merger, not to the author. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the way we do things here. The way to remedy the problem is to put "content merged from `A Weekend in Philly'" in one's edit summary while merging. I don't know whether Saqib did that or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, he didn't, that's pretty much my point, sorry ;-) Sure, if normally a link is provided, only this specific article needs to be fixed. To be nitpicking, I do think it should be an actual link, not just a "mention" of the original article. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the problem you'd like to address, JuliasTravels, but it's been a struggle just to make sure we retain the history. Insisting on the link as well is a step farther... an important step, but one I wasn't sure the community was ready to embrace yet. LtPowers (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of linking to an article that will be redirected to the target article? I think I must be missing something here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To comply with the CC-by-sa license, we must attribute the authors of the content. This is done by maintaining a record of all edits, accessed via the History tab of each page. When copying information manually from Article A to Article B, the true author of the content is obscured -- it appears to be the person who did the copying, rather than the people who wrote the content originally. A link to the now-redirect (Article A) allows the reader to access the history that shows who actually contributed that content. LtPowers (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, I've always tried to move and merge the content with attribution to original author or name of article provided in the summary. But since, this time, I merged the listings using the listing editor, there was no way to provide attribution to original author as there was no summary bar. I feel sorry for my mistake but please feel free to revert my merging. Btw, I would like to see the policy page where its mentioned that article content should be attributed to author when someone wants to use our content outside WV? --Saqib (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I looked it up and Wikivoyage:How to merge two pages indeed states you have to give a link. However, it's not so much a matter of Wikivoyage policy, but just of the Creative Commons license we use. Giving proper attribution to the original author of a work is perhaps the most basic of the terms of use, and I think we should not step over it lightly. Especially being part of the Wikimedia movement, but also since we're (rightfully!) making a fuss about that other website not adhering to the license properly, I do think we should lead by example at least when we're aware. In this case, it's not even hard. I suppose the listings editor is indeed less useful in the case of a merge, for the reasons you state. But when using the normal editing interface, the edit summary could simply be something like "Merging content, see A Weekend in Philly for original authors". JuliasTravels (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case by the way, I don't think you have to redo all the merging, just an extra edit summary stating that your previous edits were merges, with a link, should be legally okay, I guess. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done. --Saqib (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking the listing editor should have a field to add to or modify the default auto-gen summary. LtPowers (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged and redirected to Philadelphia. --Saqib (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better redirect for the currency symbol would surely be Money, which is a real article, that belongs in the main namespace. Not a policy article, that doesn't. Currency already redirects there. $ -> WV:Currency, Currency -> Money? You really think that is desirable? --Inas (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, lets speedy redirect it to Money article. --Saqib (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this used in articles? For example, $20? --Rschen7754 08:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not in main-space articles. --Saqib (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Be Aware

Perhaps could have been speedied. Experimental template created by someone who appears not to know very well how they work, to insert a block of text warning about visiting Fort Worth, Texas.

Result: Speedily deleted. --Saqib (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/September_2013&oldid=2954192"