Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2016

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
← February 2016 Votes for deletion archives for March 2016 (current) May 2016 →

Ryanair (redirect)

This redirect has been bothering me for quite some time, as it violates our "we don't generally have articles on businesses" rule. And I don't want to see even a redirect for Delta airlines or Veolia or whichever company we might come up with. And of course in addition to that I don't particularly like the article it currently redirects to, but that is neither here nor there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. People shouldn't get redirected from airline company names. Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a likely search term on this site. And people who put it into google or other search engines are more likely to be looking for the website of the corporation itself. But I do think there is a more relevant issue than this single redirect at stake here. Obviously (as can be seen by the vfd that was cited in favor of keeping this, where just a few posts above other airline redirects were deleted) there is disagreement as to what should and should not get a redirect. I say no airline should get a redirect and have yet to hear a convincing answer as to why American Airlines should and Delta Airlines shouldn't. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are historical reasons for the airlines which do have redirects. United Airlines, Ryanair and Easyjet were articles that were merged or moved. American Airlines started as a redirect to Airlines in the United States - a case where a tradename and common speak can get mixed up. AlasdairW (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per policy (and I quote) "Companies, even those holding a de facto monopoly or those owned by the state (hotels, restaurants, bars, stores, nightclubs, tour operators, airlines, rail or bus operators, etc.). Monopolies that are likely to be used as frequent search terms may be created as redirects to the relevant article, such as Amtrak, which redirects to rail travel in the United States." - That seems crystal clear to me. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidance you've quoted is about what subjects get their own articles. The current nomination is for a redirect, and while the policy confusingly cites "monopolies", it notes that redirects for "frequent search terms" are valid. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you find the current wording of policy confusing, please raise that there. And I still fail to see how there is any consistency in having redirects for Ryanair, Easyjet and American Airlines yet not having them for Delta airlines, Lufthansa and Wizz Air. I think we should either get rid of them all or create a whole bunch more of them and adapt our criteria accordingly. It is rather easy for me which side to chose. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is saying it is consistent. What you haven't explained is why consistency is so important in this case. Redirects are largely invisible to users of the site. In many cases, they're in place because an article was merged, which is a very good reason to keep them. That doesn't mean all similar redirects need immediate creation just to keep pace. Powers (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency is important because it is hard to enforce an inconsistent rule. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to derail this discussion but I think this is an important point: with a few exceptions (no copyvios, don't tout, a few others) this site shouldn't have "rules" that require enforcement. We've got guidelines that represent best practices to be followed in case of disagreement, but I think it's likely to drive away contributors if we start treating those guidelines as inflexible rules that require enforcement. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you make a good point in saying we are not "rules heavy", but I do think that our longstanding policy against having articles on companies is a rather logical (though maybe not inevitable) consequence of "don't tout" and "be fair" - Articles on companies (especially on a wiki that has a deliberate "no footnotes" policy) can quickly turn into either glowing advertisements of said companies or skewering indictments. Sometimes both at the same time and sometimes there is an edit war over that. I do not want this and I think it should be made clear that we don't want that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Save for search--John123521 (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete repeat of the Okinawa Prefecture article except it doesn't include the outer islands. Any issues with merging it? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okinawa Prefecture is redirected to Okinawa, and this article should be, too, with anything not already there merged. I don't see the need to have a Vfd discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. Just a few redlinks that needed "merged". Any need to leave this here or just move it to the talk page? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Merged by proposer --Traveler100 (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2016&oldid=2982045"