Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2021

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

Obsolete according to Traveler100. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been replaced by {{PartOfItinerary}} --Traveler100 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, Template:Itinerary was ostensibly deleted 5 October 2019, yet at some point, it was redirected to Template:Itinerary skeleton. I think it can be deleted without further debate. Does anyone want to contest that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps have a look at the code. The previous code was:
:''This article is an '''[[Itineraries|itinerary]]'''.''
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|[[Category:Itineraries]]|<!-- Don't categorize when not in main (article) space. -->}}{{#ifeq:{{#invoke:wikibase|disambig}}|false||[[Category:Pages linked to a data item for a disambiguation]]}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}[[Category:Hatnote templates]]
</noinclude>
The code for {{itinerary skeleton}} is:
{{pagebanner|Itinerary}}
'''Itinerary''' is in [[Region_name]]. 
==Understand==
==Prepare==
==Get in==
==Go/Walk/Drive/...==
==Stay safe==
==Go next==
{{outlineitinerary}}
{{PartOfItinerary|}}
In which it is significantly different from what it was in 2019 before it was deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an argument to keep Template:Itinerary skeleton and (re?)delete Template:Itinerary? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps have a look at {{park}} or {{smallcity}}. I can't exactly remember why I created this template back in April, but it is meant to serve a similar purpose to the two I mentioned, where you just enter {{subst:itinerary}} just like you would for {{subst:smallcity}}. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, are you saying you recreated the deleted template and someone redirected it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page logs, I created it back in April, but it was so long ago that I can't even remember. Also an FYI, but as a test, create a redlink, don't click publish, but have a look at the header. If this template is deleted, it may mess that header. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, we're talking about Template:Itinerary? If you recreated that as a different template than the one that was voted to be deleted in 2019, it's no longer really the same file. But do we need the redirect? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but then if we delete {{itinerary}}, then we'd have to delete {{smallcity}}, {{park}}, {{airport}} and so on. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That template redirects to Template:Itinerary skeleton. It is not functioning on its own. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, templates like {{park}} redirect to Template:Park skeleton and so on. None of these shortcuts work on its own. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess I don't understand quite what changed in 2 years, but if these templates are needed, so be it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Itinerary}} was recreated without consensus to undelete, so I have deleted as it had been made a redirect. As for the skeleton template, I’m not fully clear on the rationale for deleting it in 2019, though I realize I ought to know. Is it that itineraries shouldn’t have templates? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 09:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am totally confused. Why shouldn't itineraries have skeleton templates, and why wouldn't there be a redirect as for the other skeletons? The reason stated in the nomination was "this template is no longer necessary", as replaced by {{PartOfItinerary}}. But PartOfItinerary does not have the same functionality as the current {{Itinerary skeleton}} to which this was a redirect, and there were two keep votes and no delete vote (the closing admin seemingly leaned on the confused discussion). –LPfi (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, I have someone who understands what {{itinerary}} was. It just so happened to be that I created a totally different template that just happened to have the name of a template which was deleted some time ago. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So @SelfieCity:, mind you consider undeleting {{itinerary}}? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 09:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article should be deleted as there is no objective criteria for what is off the beaten path, along with that nothing in this article couldn't be presented in each individual article. Tai123.123 (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. This is really an annotated list of links. We don't need objective criteria, but the list has to be plausible enough to be useful. Is it, or could it be edited so as to be useful? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before -- see Talk:Off the beaten track in Japan. I think it would be a good idea for Tai123.123 to review that discussion and respond to the arguments that led to the article being kept when it was discussed in 2014. (The article has had few edits since then.) Ground Zero (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't realize it was posted before, feel free to delete Tai123.123 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tai123.123: it's okay to renominate an article, but you want to be sure to respond to the arguments raised before to convince other editors to change the decision. Ground Zero (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ground Zero Sorry, for bothering you guys Tai123.123 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can but it seems it has been kept before Tai123.123 (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I quote AndreCarrotflower's statement for the RfD for the Esperanto phrasebook:

All the rationales for deleting the Ido phrasebook apply here: Esperanto has no monolingual speakers, is not the official language of any country, is not terribly useful as an international auxiliary language in a world where English has de facto taken over that function, and the chances of a traveller needing to speak it to get along in a certain place are zero. Therefore, this phrasebook is out of scope and should be deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And I think the same applies to this as well (except the official language bit which I'm not sure on). I thought Sanskrit was a dead language until I stumbled across this. According to the first line, it says that it's an ancient language in which many Hindu religious texts were written, but it never says that anyone speaks it. Most people who speak Sanskrit can almost always speak another language as well, and I don't think a traveller would ever have to find themselves needing to know Sanskrit is basically 0%. And I should also mention that Esperanto had at least some speakers, albeit not used. Sanskrit is not. Even Esperanto has its own Wikivoyage. Sanskrit doesn't and will probably never get one, since a) it's a dead language, but b) even Norsk was rejected. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: "even Norsk was rejected"? To what does this refer? To the Bokmål/Nynorsk split discussion? The reason not to split was simply that the languages are close enough and partly geographically intermingled, so that there is no use carrying two phrasebooks instead of one.
Comment Sanskrit, on the other hand, is "widely taught today at the secondary school level", according to Wikipedia, across language communities I suppose. I don't know how widespread actual (basic) proficiency in Sanskrit is, and whether it is concentrated to certain communities – which could be good or bad for those carrying a Sanskrit phrasebook – but, given the many languages in India, it could be useful in areas for which you don't carry a phrasebook of the local language. You don't need to meet first language speakers, it's enough that you meet people who understand your phrasebook phrases.
–LPfi (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring that Norsk is well spoken, but yet the proposal was rejected by the language committee. Now at least Norsk is spoken in some areas. Sanskrit is dead. This was just a comparison to the Esperanto language. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Norsk is Norwegian for Norwegian, and there is both a w:no: (Norwegian, mostly Bokmål) and a w:nn: (Nynorsk). The issue discussed by the language committee, as I understand it, was whether to change w:no into w:nb, i.e. make the "Norsk" WP version officially and clearly Bokmål, and the discussion was about how to treat other variants of Norwegian (such as Riksmål), which can be seen as independent or as variants of Bokmål. Some articles in w:no are written in those variants and perhaps shouldn't be called Bokmål. It was deemed to be enough of a mess that any change to status quo would be a mess too. –LPfi (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First of all, there was no consensus to delete the Esperanto phrasebook, so by current standards, it would not have been deleted (Ido is another matter, only a couple of hundred speakers, none native). Second, I refer you to w:Sanskrit revival:
Sanskrit revival is the accumulation of attempts at reviving the Sanskrit language that have been undertaken. This revival is happening not only in India but also in Western countries like Australia,[1] Germany, the United Kingdom,[2] the United States and in many European countries.[3]
Sanskrit is one of the 22 official languages in India.[4] In 2010, Uttarakhand became the first state in India to have Sanskrit as its second official language.[1] In 2019, Himachal Pradesh became the second state to have Sanskrit as the second official language.[5] There are 2,360,821 total speakers of Sanskrit in India, as of 2011.[6]
w:Sanskrit could be cited for a counterargument: "There are no known native speakers of Sanskrit." But I can't see deleting a phrasebook for a language with well over 2 million speakers. I could see emphasizing ritual language readers might hear in ceremonies, though; that's a different question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: if there were no consensus to delete the Esperanto phrasebook, then why was it deleted? Second of all, I'd not think about the rituals because the last and only time I went to India, they refused to let me into three temples (before I gave up) because I was irreligious (meaning only 1.35 billion people would ever have a chance of getting into one) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy has been amended since, formerly consensus was needed not to delete. –LPfi (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think number of speakers is the relevant number. Number of native speakers is irrelevant, unless those second language speakers are native speakers of English, which I suppose most aren't. What counts is whether people you want to communicate with understand your phrasebook phrases, and would be inconvenient to communicate with in other ways. –LPfi (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000, I'm not a Hindu and have visited many Hindu temples, where no-one asked what my religion or beliefs were. Only in Varanasi was I told that non-Hindus couldn't go into temples. Besides, 1.35 billion people is a hell of a large number! Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I guess that it might only be a thing in the south (all three of my attempts were in Mathura and Chennai where all three of those which I tried said that non-Hindus weren't allowed in). Oh, but with the 1.35 billion (or 1.2 billion according to w:Hinduism by country which says 1.35 in the lead paragraph and 1.2 in the Demographic estimates section), almost all of them are in India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Very few outside those. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still arguing for deletion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. If Esperanto was deleted, so should Sanskrit. If Sanskrit was not deleted, I believe that Esperanto should be restored. Plus, we don't have a Latin phrasebook, and Latin is at least spoken a lot more than Sanskrit and is the official language of the Vatican. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand that it didn't take a consensus to delete the Esperanto phrasebook (there was ultimately a slight majority in favor of keeping the Esperanto phrasebook, yet it was deleted per then-existing policy), but it would take a consensus to restore it, and that's why it won't happen? As for Latin, are you seriously arguing that it has over 2 million speakers? Your evidence for that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you're seriously comparing Vatican City, a single neighborhood of Rome, with Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, which have populations of some 200,000,000 and 6,864,602, respectively? I really think you're wasting your time on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there was a strong majority (about 80% of discussion participants if I remember correctly) in favor of keeping the Esperanto phrasebook. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From WP, "Sanskrit has been taught in traditional gurukulas since ancient times; it is widely taught today at the secondary school level. The oldest Sanskrit college is the Benares Sanskrit College founded in 1791 during East India Company rule.[44] Sanskrit continues to be widely used as a ceremonial and ritual language in Hindu and Buddhist hymns and chants." These seem to be good reasons to keep this phrasebook. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The focus of this phrasebook is clearly wrong, as evidenced by the fact that it remains virtually devoid of content 14 years after its creation; "Stop, thief!", "I plan on staying X nights", and "Do you accept credit cards?" are not sentences a traveller in India will ever need to express in Sanskrit. For those, they'll use English, Hindi or one of the many local languages. Therefore, if the Sanskrit language is widely used in ceremonies, rites and academia, but not at all in everyday life, then a totally different approach needs to be taken compared to all our other phrasebooks in order for it to serve the traveller.
So I guess my question is what would that look like? How do you write a travel phrasebook for a language like Sanskrit that isn't used by travellers to communicate their basic needs or to understand everyday interactions, but nonetheless may be culturally useful or interesting to learn? What types of words and phrases should it cover? If somebody can answer that in a convincing way, then this phrasebook would be worth keeping. But the existing empty shell that, without a change in focus, will probably continue to be an empty shell for the next 14 years doesn't serve the traveller and would be better put out of its misery.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do Indians learn when they study Sanskrit in secondary school? Do they read old ritual texts or do they get proficiency also in everyday language? If the latter, it may be more practical for a traveller to use the Sanskrit phrasebook to ask those everyday questions than to figure out how to ask them in the right one of "the many local languages". Given of course there sometimes is a significant chance a person you need to communicate with (or somebody around) knows Sanskrit better than English.
For a different focus of the phrasebook, we should have somebody to identify key phrases that make it easier for travellers to follow those rituals. Something like "Let us pray", "Hallelujah", "Amen" etc. if it were for Christian services.
–LPfi (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Rangan Datta Wiki: who might know a bit more. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If some people object to deleting this, how about instead of deleting this, making it a travel topic similar to Australian slang (which as Ikan Kekek mentioned, travellers may hear in rituals, ceremonies etc.). Since saying "Stop! Thief!" or "I'm calling the police" isn't exactly in scope, and have little use, and something like what LPfi mentioned except for Hindu services. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People can hear Australian slang in rituals? ;-) But seriously, that's worth discussing at Talk:Sanskrit phrasebook after the article is kept. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not ;). I was just using that because that's the only language based travel topic based on a phrasebook (and maybe the Lazymans phrasebook ;)). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My favourite phrase from a printed phrasebook was in a section called "On the slopes". The expression was "Look out! I've lost control!" Imagine the situation arises, so you pull out your handy phrasebook, flip to page 79, practise the pronunciation a couple of times, and you're all set. A language topic may make more sense than a phrasebook. Ground Zero (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted in a Welsh phrasebook, written pre-Internet: "The word I need is not here; this book is bloody awful!"
Replying to user:LPfi, if it really were "more practical for a traveller to use the Sanskrit phrasebook to ask those everyday questions", wouldn't we see other practical Sanskrit phrasebooks out there? Wouldn't the Lonely Planets and the Rough Guides etc dedicate a few pages of their India books to 'colloquial Sanskrit' if such a thing existed? A language-based travel topic, with some words and sentences that the traveller will encounter in the right places, makes infinitely more sense to me than a phrasebook.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Phrasebooks for languages like Sanskritt help travellers understand the culture of places they visit. When more complete these will help a traveller understand a service in a temple, and possibly other cultural events. Similarly you don't need the Māori phrasebook when visiting New Zealand, but it enhances the visit. We don't have a policy requiring phrase books to be complete (or a certain % of phrase complete) within a time limit. (Possibly the list of phrases should be changed for this type of phrasebook, but hat is a separate discussion.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlasdairW:, although Maori is a special case. It doesn't have any mention on "stop, thief!" or any of that. Sanskrit is written like an ordinary phrasebook. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Sanskrit uses the standard list of phrases in the template. I would support having a different shorter standard list for "cultural phrasebooks". Nobody is going to say "Do you accept British pounds?" in Navajo. AlasdairW (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That point needs a separate discussion. There is no procedure that I know of to remove unnecessary phrases and add new phrases to individual phrasebooks after they have been added to the template. I think this is a special case of that problem (unless the article is transformed into travel topic); there is no procedure to reinsert a phrase lost because somebody thought it was unnecessary. It is not clear what phrases of the standard list are useful or not useful for "cultural phrasebook". I also assume that varies by language. –LPfi (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edit would be manual. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I don't think a "cultural phrasebook" template would work, for the reasons given above. Each phrasebook for a language that isn't strictly practical or necessary is going to need its own set of words and sentences.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is of huge cultural significance to India (and even in many Southeast Asian countries), and you are very likely to encounter Sanskrit in religious ceremony. Also, Sanskrit speakers certainly do exist, and I have personally met someone who is a fluent speaker of Sanskrit, albeit not a native speaker. And also, knowing Sanskrit helps a lot when you want to learn the languages of South Asia and Southeast Asia, since many of them contain many Sanskrit-derived terms. And as a side note, if somebody wants to write a Latin phrasebook, I have no objection to that either. The dog2 (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iditarod Trail waypoints

One of a series of skeleton articles that falsely claim that waypoints along the Iditarod Trail are villages. These were created by an unregistered editor who also falsely claimed that the Iditarod Trail is a road that can be driven in a vehicle. It is only navigable by dogsked, snowmobile, and maybe trail bike. Ground Zero (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another waypoint, as above. I can find no evidence of an actual village here, i.e., one with a place to sleep or eat or buy anything, and no point of interest. Ground Zero (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another waypoint, as above. I can find no evidence of an actual village here, i.e., one with a place to sleep or eat or buy anything, and no point of interest. Ground Zero (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete all, per WIAA.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. I suppose these waypoints are very relevant for those doing the Iditarod Trail, especially Moses Point, which has an airfield. If nearly all the waypoints fail to be relevant on their own, then they might be better as listings in the trail article, but if most are kept (only three are nominated for deletion) then having listings for these while keeping the rest makes the itinerary odd, or doubling the information. The waypoints are now not mentioned in the itinerary, but have Go next couplings (à la routeboxes). The articles do little harm as is, so if there is a chance to have them expanded at some point, I'd leave them alone. Otherwise they need to be merged to the itinerary in a sensible manner, not only these but all waypoints (those kept just need a summary in the itinerary). –LPfi (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ungalik may also be important as a Get in for the trail, as you can get there from Koyuk, which according to Wikipedia is a city of 332 inhabitants. The "city" redlinks, though. –LPfi (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, these are uninhabited places with nowhere to sleep or eat, and no points of interest. The articles provide no information about these places, and they don't have Wikipedia articles. These articles were part of a misguided or deceptive attempt to create a driving itinerary, which doesn't exist.
    • The private airstrip at Moses Point for which you have to get approval for using is 10 miles from the public airport at the actual town of Elim. Ground Zero (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted per failing to meet wiaa. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost an exact copy of {{mapframe}}, except only with less features, nor is it used in any articles and should be used in any articles. The main contributor of this template only has 10 edits on Wikivoyage, and I don't think this is even worth considering to be moved into anyone's userspace. An unapproved template, as well as a duplicate. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is a special variant of Mapframe, adapted for use on Destinations. This used to have a map of the world, with all the destination articles marked. Then mapframe was altered to disable the layer= parameter, and some time later Mapframe2 was introduced to overcome this, and restore the map of destinations. In June 2021, the map again wasn't working and the template was removed from the article. See Talk:Destinations for a several discussions on this. Ideally this would be fixed and the template restored to Destinations. If the result is to delete this template, please move it to my user space, and update Talk:Destinations#Destinations_works_again. AlasdairW (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could undelete it if necessary, but the aforementioned page is reasonably effective at the current time. I still support deletion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is clear that there is a reason for this template, and it is not making it difficult for walk-by contributors, as those don't need to edit Destinations, and there mapframe and mapframe2 are equally hard to grasp for non-regulars. If there is consensus on Talk:Destinations that we don't want this template, then it is probably unnecessary, but keep until then. –LPfi (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, as LPfi and Alasdair have made good arguments on this template. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly out of scope. This doesn't even need to be merged to Bangladesh given that:

  1. This is not an encyclopedia
  2. Unlikely search term in a travel guide
  3. Out of scope.

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to a redirect per above comment. Neutral between keep/delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we want articles or redirects for region names that are no longer in use. Redirecting "the Town of York" to Toronto is unnecessary in a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A search on "East Bengal" produces mostly links to a football club that competes in the Indian Super League. It produces a few historical references, but no current references to the region. Ground Zero (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Redirects such as Van Diemen's Land for Tasmania or Nipaluna for Hobart are okay because the name appears so much in the media that unless you've learned the history of Tasmania or studied Aboriginal history in Tasmania, you'd not know (I didn't even know that Nipaluna = Hobart for some time). Others such as Granville (British Columbia) (now Vancouver) are so little in use that those aren't needed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely not an article worth keeping. Deletion sounds fine to me. An alternative might be a redirect to Bengal, but I cannot see a need for that. Pashley (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, as it is no longer eligible for RfD. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dunno. I've never been on it beyond Perth (though I've travelled on the train line that takes more or less the same route). It forms part of the main travel route between Perth and South Australia/Victoria/New South Wales. It has a reputation for being relatively boring, but the Eyre Highway (which is attached to it) has even more of such a reputation (though it's all a matter of perspective). Graham87 (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks usable to me. Promote & keep. Pashley (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. I don't think this is even worth merging into Highway 1 (Australia). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Merged. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for previously stated reason. Tai123.123 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've merged the useful text into the Dangriga article. Ground Zero (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Merged. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries, and it's also improperly formatted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept per GZ's work. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is a one lane track in Outback NT, but with no travel info or what-so-ever. Although this did get a little update by AlasdairW, here's why it should be deleted:

  1. There is absolutely little info on this route what-so-ever. Tanami Road has some info, but that should be handled by Tanami Road which is where the paved road goes up to, and the redirect should be removed from there and leave the itinerary just to the paved route.
  2. If you do some calculations on this, the only service station closed in 2010, meaning about 1100km of no fuel.
  3. Per the 1 year policy listed below, this would be subject to deletion

Since just about any topic can be an itinerary, itineraries must either be actively worked on or achieve some level of completion to be kept. (Sufficiently famous, marked routes such as Alaska Highway or Annapurna Circuit are exempt from this rule.) As such, itineraries that have been at outline status or less for one year without being substantially edited are subject to deletion via the votes for deletion process.

Although this was worked on a little bit, I don't think this was sufficient enough, and this is neither a famously marked route, and letting someone solely rely on this could result in the death of someone (people have died on this route because they didn't do enough research on this route. Let's not make Wikivoyage one of them). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that this warning also shows the fuel points of this route. Unless this was going to be significantly expanded, I'd go with deletion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the one year deletion rule Tai123.123 (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tanami Road already exists as a redirect, but that is not the same as Tanami Track. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are the routes highly divergent? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Tanami Road is the paved route where there's info. Tanami Track starts where the paved road ends. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So that would be perfect to merge whatever is useful from this article, but if no-one wants to create that article, could the information in this one be preserved somewhere outside of articlespace for now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine if it were stored in someone's userspace. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it applies here since this is a real route & a possible search term. In my view, deletion is not even worth discussing. Either keep it or merge into a region article & redirect. Pashley (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But which region? It passes at least three regions? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My question is, who's userspace? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: I moved it into my userspace and deleted the redirect. Might work on it when I get the chance. 13:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has a nice map and "Stay safe" is fine, but it's really short on information. No "Prepare", "Walk" doesn't really have enough information, and there really should be some more description of conditions on the trail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closely the information in "walk" doesn't even describe the full route, and it can't because it partially divides into "sections" and leaves the rest blank. Therefore, I don't think this article is sufficiently comprehensive to suit the traveler, so I will also vote delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that the beautiful static map doesn't show Spring Gap, but the dynamic map doesn't show the trail. I would really prefer for this article not to be deleted, but it needs work. Could it be moved to User:Andrewssi2? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move it into my userspace, and work on it if I find some info on it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Moved to userspace. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Nomination withdrawn as it's usable now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a worthwhile article if improved although I can't really find much info on the itinerary itself (there's a map and a well defined route, but no info what's on the route that I can find) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: nom withdrawn. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here's the discussion on the name of "Erythrea" on Talk:Erythrea which I've pasted below to save a few clicks:

I've never seen this spelling. Have any of you? It does produce some search results, mostly of Eritrea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Same. Never seen it. Looks quite unusual to me, but whatever, this is not an encyclopedia, and should be deleted (via RfD). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, it is just a redirect to Eritrea so dunno. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster has a definition. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Although it says
of or relating to the sea that in ancient geography comprised the Arabian sea, the Red sea, and the Persian gulf
Wouldn't that belong in Wikipedia? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes. On the basis of those definitions, I'd argue that this redirect is not helpful and should be deleted. Alternatively a disambiguation page could be created, but I don't see why travelers wouldn't just search Eritrea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Does this even need an RfD, or can this be speedily deleted? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I think if there's enough of a question to ask that, we should nominate it at Vfd and link this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

And that should explain this nom. Given the lack of clarity, in my opinion, should be deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot.
  • There's no #Go or #Cycle section.
  • Itinerary formatting
  • Map
  • Less encyclopedic material, more travel info
  • And most of all, where can a traveller hire a bike?
That's all I can think of for now, but there's more. If @ThunderingTyphoons!: or @ShakespeareFan00: know more about this route then I'd support keeping it but not at this current state. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not less encyclopedic information – you want some background – but indeed more of the rest, especially the Go/Cycle. It is a bit odd that we don't require anything in Prepare for usable. –LPfi (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Great work! Directions for additional work, should anyone want to do it, could include highlighting the trail on the map, indicating it more precisely in some sections where its course isn't so clear (mainly further south) and possibly putting the markers for the towns on the trail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept as I now vote to keep. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outcome: Merged. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is still thin on information, but the recent edits have got it closer to being usable. Ground Zero (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yvwv, just because it's marked, that does not mean it's not subject to deletion. Looking at the 2011 bulk deletion noms, Newell Highway is certainly a famously marked route about 1100km, but since it weren't notable, it got deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one could find information at least about the Dalarna part and add a couple of intermediate stops with not too big an effort. If that's what's needed for keeping it, I suppose it should be done. To make it really useful some more thorough research is needed, more than I'm willing to do on that route. I suppose it is sufficiently famous to be needed if we intend to cover hiking in Sweden, at least as a placeholder. –LPfi (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
would moving it into Yvwv's userspace be okay? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I'm reconsidering my "delete" vote, because I think a decent "Get in" section would make this article usable in the literal sense that someone could use it to take this hike. Would someone like to add a section explaining how to get to the beginning and end (which could also be the beginning) of the hike? (It would also be nice to explain why the northward order was chosen for the article, rather than the southward direction.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sälen and Storlien should explain how to reach the ski resorts, although information about whether the transport options are available year round should be added. Would it be enough to defer to these articles with a short comment, and concentrate on reaching the trailhead itself? –LPfi (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much so, but it would be nice to also link to the "Get in" sections of those two articles for the convenience of readers wanting to know how to get into those ski resorts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, as it's been improved by Ground Zero, Yvwv and LPfi. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna Quilotoa is a lagoon, or lake, in the crater of a volcano. The map points are placed using Wikidata, andd I don't know how to change it. Ground Zero (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
replace the |lat= and |long= parameters with the one coords that we're supposed to use. I believe if we use our own coords, it overrides the Wikidata one without affecting other projects. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That worked. Ground Zero (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, as it's looking good now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colored box templates

{{Blackbox}}, {{Bluebox}}, {{Brownbox}}, {{Greenbox}}, {{Orangebox}}, {{Pinkbox}}, {{Purplebox}}, {{Redbox}}, {{Yellowbox}} All identical apart from the color. I don't think they are needed though, so I'd vote for delete or move to userspace. However, if they are kept, I think it would be better to merge them into one and just have a parameter for the color. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I realise that I'm losing the argument here and we've got much better things to do so I'm just going to speedy them all. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: The delete comments weigh out more. "Established routes" and "hoping for someone to do it", aren't really valid reasons to keep so deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If information is merged from it, doesn't it have to be redirected to keep the article history viewable? I don't think "merge and delete" is ever supposed to be a thing on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my mistake. Should be redirected. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively you could give attribution to all the relevant authors on the talk page, but that's not advised. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I merged some info (substantially rewritten) into Erlian, but there wasn't much that I could salvage. The information was incomplete. I think this is a personal itinerary that won't be recognized by anyone else, so I vote Delete. Ground Zero (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't delete for attribution purposes, unless we follow SHB's guidance. I think a redirect would be the best way to maintain attribution. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Since content was merged, we need to make the title a redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the information into Erlian, but did not use the original text. The original text was repetitive and kind of confusing. No need for attribution. It looks like the concept of a "Erlian Grassland Tour Loop" was entirely the author's creation, and not something that anyone is going to search for. Ground Zero (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't even paraphrase from any of the text, it would be OK to delete this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. Although the understand section was expanded by Vaticidalprophet, still no extra travel info. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would argue that this is in theory a route and is therefore ostensibly about travel. The issue is that no specific route is shown or explained, and that's why I support deletion at this point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. By "It is more about the movie than about travel", I meant the article as it stands now. If someone who is interested in the subject writes a specific route, I'd be open to keeping it. This was before my time, though. Ground Zero (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Started work on the film sets. The film omits much of the route (all of Texas) so it can never be a complete itinerary. /Yvwv (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's enough here to keep now. Perhaps a route across Texas could be suggested or different possible routes could be mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, since Yvwv is working on it. The route across Texas can be worked out later. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, great. Who wants to add the information so that there's actually a defined route in the article that people can follow? Expecting people to go to an external link in order to be able to take a trip isn't the purpose of Wikivoyage; the information that's really needed has to be in the article. (And I'm replying to you, but this isn't personal to you but to everyone who wants to keep the article while it's in its current condition.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately the commercial site does not describe the route, only the cities it passes, or at least I don't find that information on their site. Makes sense, of course, as on their tours you don't need to know how to find your way. The Danube Cycleway is part of Eurovelo route 6, Atlantic–Black Sea, linked from our article. One could try to go from there, but don't hold your breath for my doing it. Knowing German and Germany would probably help for the upper sections. –LPfi (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: three deletes, two keeps, and it's been given 14 days to be worked on. Therefore delete. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Golden Triangle is a well known itinerary for foreign tourists in India and often aimed at first time visitors so I feel it is iconic enough to keep despite being unedited for over a year, I’m against it being a region as there is a set start and end point (Delhi) and it is often done by train. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for explaining that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the ban Nalan trail can is a real itinerary and not personal and should be kept or could be added as a listing to Luang namtha though I feel it is kind enough to warrant its own article Tai123.123 (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kept SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to add those types of details because I wouldn’t be sure from the map as to the exact location of the trailhead. The map is good but it doesn’t give me the confidence of exact locations that visitor would have. However per my edits and this discussion I think the itinerary is now informative enough for me to also vote to keep. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super! Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, as it's being worked on by Alasdair. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point about itineraries. If they are usable, we keep them. If they aren't usable within a year of creation, we don't. We don't keep an itinerary in the hope that someday someone will make it usable. This one has been around for six years. I've made several of the itineraries in this discussion usable because I think they are worth keeping. If you think this is worth keeping, then feel free to improve it. Ground Zero (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was that we don't need to delete an outline, if it has valuable content and there is a feasible path forward. If somebody can see such a path, somebody else can make the needed work – but in this case I don't see it and don't have the knowledge to follow it, and my time is better used on areas I know something about. –LPfi (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then we agree. The discussion period for VfD gives those who believe an article can be made usable the time to do so. If it isn't done, then we should delete or merge, as appropriate, and move on to other work. Ground Zero (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the tour ends at Hampton Roads, it is intended to cover history up to the Civil War. /Yvwv (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It looks like you are turning this into a coherent itinerary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, as it's been well worked on by Yvwv. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would reclassification as a travel topic make sense? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a travel topic, but it is much more useful as an (assortment of) itineraries – only they were written. As of now, it is still useful for the general description, the pointers to other sources, and pointers to our articles on some of the places involved. –LPfi (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SelfieCity, LPfi: Would the format of Helsinki itineraries work better? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is foremost needed is more content. Ideally we'd have an itinerary for each of the routes, and a common introduction on the current page. If there is some improvement that can be done without actually writing the itineraries, it should of course be done. What is the essential difference as you see it, other than that the Helsinki itineraries are complete? –LPfi (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Helsinki itineraries is more properly formatted, while Nidaros Path isn't really formatted that way. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could fix that. I don't see how to make it better, otherwise I had done it. –LPfi (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do it tomorrow (this message is sent at 23:57 AEST, so that will probably be three minutes) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done. Looks good now, and now I vote to keep this page, and I think this can be closed. (might do it after I get a little bit of sleep) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that looks fine to me also. –LPfi (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, as per substantial improvements. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/September_2021&oldid=4924207"