Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2016
| ← August 2016 | Votes for deletion archives for September 2016 | (current) October 2016 → |
- Delete. A one line itinerary that hasn't been editied for nearly two years. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WV:Deletion policy ("itineraries that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year"). -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Outcome: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure whether this is the right way to deal with policy pages, but this particular policy is incredibly convoluted, hard to understand and apparently nobody follows it at any rate. Hence I propose deleting it and either starting a new policy on that subject from scratch or simply not having a policy on that subject until one becomes necessary. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. It's clear from the last two threads at Wikivoyage talk:Bodies of water that you don't like the current bodies of water policy, but a deletion nomination is emphatically not the way to change things. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed that a VfD is not the way to go about this, but it seems to me as if Hobbitschuster saw this nomination more as a Hail Mary attempt to draw attention to what is admittedly a somewhat confusing and quite inconsistently applied policy. Whether or not the community agrees with HS on what the policy should be (last I heard, he simply wanted one that was consistent), this is a question that deserves a definitive answer, I think. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep because if nothing else, there are examples given that should be merged somewhere else if we choose to merge and redirect this policy page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep for now. I didn't notice this discussion before, but reading up a bit now, it seems there have been some constructive answers. It looks like people don't mind losing the separate page, but do think a little guidance on bodies of water is warranted. There just hasn't been any concrete proposal. @Hobbitschuster, I think that if you simply write up a proposal of a few sentences to include the basic info in one of the general policy pages, you will find little opposition to redirecting this policy page there. I'd say that's the way forward, if this matter bothers you, rather than a vfd. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think we should first decide whether we need a policy for bodies of water, given the development of this wiki in recent years. Then we should either build it up from the bottom (i.e. without any regard to the current policy whatsoever, because it is quite clear that it means different things to different people and is about as clear as mud viewed on a rainy night) or have one or two lines in our "what is an article" page to clarify anything that needs to be clarified. As has been mentioned, I have tried to change the policy (or at least get some consensus as to what it emans) before, but those attempts have not yielded any perceptible results. I really do not care what the resulting policy is at this point, but I do care that the current policy is either changed or abolished. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Outcome: Speedy keep. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)