Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2013

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← February 2013 Votes for deletion archives for March 2013 (current) April 2013 →

Not referenced from anywhere, contains bad redirects.Traveler100 (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. I thought this sounded familiar. They should have been deleted with the main article that was deleted, and hence, they can be deleted speedily. Texugo (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned 282-byte outline itinerary from 2010. K7L (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged and redirected to Manali. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article created by IP user. It's not clear whether this article passes muster per Wikivoyage:What is an article? ("We prefer that attractions, sites, and events be included in the article for the place where they're located"); a look at the external links at the bottom, as well as a Google search, were useless in determining whether it passes the sleep test.

Result: Merged and redirected to Chumphon. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC here is not a discussion forum, it merely points to discussion elsewhere. K7L (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pointer should be to the discussion page of the article. I understand why Ikan Kekek posted here though, it is a quick place to get feedback like this, even though it is (strictly speaking) cheating. --Inas (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Chennai; no meaningful content to be merged. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I move that we deleted this article related to a tiny settlement in Mae Hong Son Province, Thailand. Info on this subject can easily be comprehended by including it in adjacent towns. Seligne (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged and redirected to Mae Hong Son Province. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Template flagged as an experiment for over a month and does not currently seem to be in use in any articles. The goal appears to be a replacement for the TOC. Note that Template:Go is very similar and was created for discussion purposes (those discussions are still ongoing at Wikivoyage:TOC). -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I was the creator and a better template is now come into use today at South Island -- Alice✉ 00:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Result: Speedy deleted per author request. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Funen per Wikivoyage policy on real places; no meaningful content to be merged. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional location. —The preceding comment was added by Traveler100 (talk • contribs)

Result: Speedily deleted. Texugo (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template was mentioned in passing when discussing two other pointless templates, but was never formally vfded. Do we need this? — Ravikiran (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. As Peter explains, this is useless. From those who want to keep this, can you please give a good reason for it to exist other than that someone "expects" it to be there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Objection withdrawn.[reply]

    • In my mind, not having this template is sort of like not having a USA redirect - people expect there to be an article at "USA" so we put a redirect there to help them. Similarly, users of other wikis expect to be able to tag something as {{delete}}, and it does us no harm to keep this template - anything that gets this tag is just going to be speedy deleted - so it's a convenience for non-admins used to the norms of other wikis. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is that not a valid reason? New users from other WMF wikis come over here all the time and find things that need to be deleted. Scripts such as m:User:Hoo man/Scripts/Tagger exist for this very reason. Virtually every other WMF wiki has this. We don't want to make someone dig around for 20 minutes to try and find the speedy deletion template or the admin noticeboard (which there is none here, keep in mind), and failing that, have to try and find an admin (and there is not a list of admins here either, or a category containing a list of admins, or a userbox identifying that someone is an admin. Keep in mind that the only way I know some of you are admins/crats is because I have a global .js installed that tells me so). Keep in mind that some of these people might not understand English either. People from other wikis are used to having those sorts of things. I've deleted some empty file description pages that a non-admin went through and tagged, and people need userpages deleted all the time. That plus copyvio are reasons why simple RC patrolling is not sufficient to catch all of them. If you want editors to come from Wikipedia or any other WMF site, you need to make it easy for them to edit, and deleting {{delete}} is a sure-fire way to become one of those "hated" wikis like Commons, Meta, or the English Wikipedia that editors stay away from. --Rschen7754 00:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Special:ListUsers/sysop. Anyway, I guess I don't see what exactly this template accomplishes, since we don't have a Category:Delete me now and admins vet pretty much every new article. So we should provide a GNDN template just so other users don't get confused? LtPowers (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we do have a Category:Speedy deletion candidates which is linked from the recent changes page.Texugo (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the combination of the arguments that "people expect it" and "it does no harm" makes for a compelling case. It tends to get recreated (we've deleted it or at least discussed deleting it before), and it may prevent users from creating vfds for things that would get speedied anyway once an admin glances at recentchanges. So the needless addition of template:delete may save the needless addition of vfds, ultimately saving everybody time ;) I'll switch to keep. --Peter Talk 03:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it annoying, but I do get your point. It is the lesser evil. I guess I'll withdraw my objection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I was unaware of that category. Do other admins know to check it periodically? LtPowers (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I check it occasionally. Lately it has mostly shown image pages without corresponding images, which I believed are tagged by a bot. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, a lot of people don't know about that log page either... The point I'm trying to get across is that in quite a few of the 24 IRC channels that I idle in, I've heard many complaints from other Wikimedia editors regarding some aspects of editing the English Wikivoyage, and specifically ones relating to the reluctance to have a speedy deletion template. --Rschen7754 04:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Veering a little off topic, but if you could relay those types of complaints in the pub or somewhere similar, we could try to work on making things less frustrating for other Wikimedians. --Peter Talk 04:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I actually do think we are above that. We are writing travel guides, for people who want to read travel guides. --Inas (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are actually proposing we start creating Cityname hotels, Cityname restaurants, Cityname attractions and Cityname activities redirects for any and every city article we have, then it's better to delete this. Personally I find that idea absurd.Texugo (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my stance, as we have to be consistent and I don't think going around creating tens of thousands of articles like that is a good idea. JamesA >talk 03:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is a direct copy of the Wikipedia article. Secondly, this is a list article, and WV abhors a list article. Thirdly, this information should be in the contact/connect section of our country guides. There is no reason to consolidate it globally. Any of these reasons should be sufficient to Delete --Inas (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted, then recreated as a redirect to Bridgeport (California) by User:Inas. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted - I went ahead and did this, as I didn't see any need for a category that'd never be used and that is about a redirect. JamesA >talk 12:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion at Deletion_policy#Unused_Geographical_Categories (as you obviously agree with me! :-) --Inas (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned soft redirect that doesn't seem to serve any purpose, though I may be wrong! --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer soft. --Inas (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be another copy of the Russia (Asia) kludge, where "Siberia isPartOf Russia (Asia)" just to get the proper breadcrumbs for Asia instead of the European ones. Is it in use? K7L (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made it. Yes, it is an attempt to allow eastern Russia to have an "Asia", rather than "Europe" breadcrumb. There was some discussion at Talk:Asia about the confusion caused by continental boundaries not aligning with national boundaries.Travelpleb (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a travel topic and it reeks of sleaziness (and not from the "visa hound")... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to Neutral - There are compelling arguments, although I can still foresee controversy (possibly through the media) over articles like this. Some people find this sort of practice inappropriate or even abhorrent. JamesA >talk 12:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Rschen7754 20:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with ChubbyWimbus --Inas (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to play devil's advocate with this one and say keep. In my view, it's a topic that certainly had the potential to be handled sleazily, but was instead dealt with in an objective, nonjudgmental, and matter-of-fact way. Also, the mere fact that it is useful to a very specific group of people does not make it "completely irrelevant" or "not a travel topic". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As Andre says, this can be viewed as a travel topic; I just don't know if we want to include it. If we do include it, we could just as easily also have "Marriage in the US for foreigners" and a lot of other related topics, which would include information on how new spouses of Americans can get a green card and so forth. Handled well, they could be interesting and useful to some readers, but they would be niche articles that might be better handled on another site. Another option is to reduce the length of the article and include some of the basics as a section of the China article (and similar information in other country guides), rather than in its own dedicated article. I think there needs to be a policy discussion about the scope of the topics we wish to cover, but I don't think it's self-evident that this is an irrelevant topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People do travel to tie the knot. Niagara Falls (Ontario) would be an infamous example, as would Las Vegas. Tacky, but not necessarily a crime. As long as we don't venture into WV becoming a source of legal advice, I don't see an issue with this. K7L (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not completely sure, but I definitely lean toward keep. This is not surprising since I created it in the first place in response to Talk:China#Marriage_Section. I do not think trying to move this stuff back into the main China article will work; you cannot say enough to be useful in a section short enough to fit in an already-too-long article. Also, this is quite specialised info; there are arguments both ways about whether it belongs on the site all, but beyond doubt it does not belong in a general article.
Meanwhile, I have asked an admin on a China-only discussion site (http://raoulschinasaloon.com/) if they want it. Pashley (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did not answer, so I went ahead and posted it at . Pashley (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm straining and failing to come up with a rationale for why this is related to travel. Nothing in the article is about the act of travel—just about bureaucracy involved in foreigners marrying in China. Quoth Jpatokal circa 2006: "that is kinda borderline for a travel guide." It seems like a good article on the subject, so it would be nice if raoulschinasaloon or others want to pick it up, but it seems out of scope here. --Peter Talk 05:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm switching to weak keep. While this is... "kinda borderline for a travel guide," I think there are good reasons for embracing an inclusive approach to our travel topics, and there aren't compelling reasons not to. I guess that will be a question for a future scope-defining discussion, if we ever feel the need to make our scope more defined. --Peter Talk 08:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge difference between Niagara Falls and China/Asia as 'marriage destinations'. People go to Niagara Falls to tie the knot AFTER they've found a partner. They do not travel to Niagara Falls for the purpose of FINDING a bride. As this article's opening states: "Travellers in China may decide to marry a local. Quite a few foreign men marry Chinese women and some foreign women marry Chinese men." This is essentially sex tourism and particularly in the context of developing Asian countries, it relates very closely with mail-order brides, sexual slavery, human/sex trafficking, etc. Travelers from abroad who are not looking for wives are not likely to "decide to marry a local" while on their tour. These are predominantly going to be people who are out to PREY on the locals, and those "who meet over the internet" are highly suspect of sex trafficking on both sides. I don't disagree that this could be helpful to a legitimate international couple and after the heading the content becomes more informative, but I think keeping an article like this is a slippery slope as the implications are treading a fine line between general marriage info and promoting illegal activity.
With that said, even if the article was strictly about marriage laws/requirements with no allusions to sex trafficking/tourism, it is still outside the scope of travel. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm naïve - to say the least, I personally have no experience or interest in such things - but I didn't see any "allusions to sex trafficking/tourism" anywhere in this article either overt or veiled, and describing the article per se as an allusion to those things is, IMO, an unwarranted assumption. An article for people who travel to China and serendipitously fall in love with a local may have an extremely narrow target audience—perhaps a smaller target audience than an article aimed at sex tourists would have—but on the other hand, people who want to travel to China or anywhere else to engage in sex tourism are going to do so with or without Wikivoyage's blessing. I think the content of the article ought to be the barometer of what it's assumed to endorse or not endorse, and the content of the article, unless I am missing something, seems completely fact-based, cut-and-dried, and most importantly, aboveboard.
Certainly some valid points have been made about whether this article is out of scope, but on the single issue of whether this article is an implicit endorsement of sex tourism I can't get on board with users like ChubbyWimbus and JamesA. I also think it's salient to point out that its author, Pashley, is a trusted contributor to Wikivoyage with a lengthy and sterling record.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with any blunt statement or implication that foreigners marry Chinese citizens only as some form of exploitation, or conversely that Chinese citizens marry foreigners only to get green cards or their equivalents in other Western countries. And I do have personal experience of at least speaking with other foreigners in China about this. On my first trip to China in 1987, I met an American man while on a train trip, who told me that he had been teaching English in Shanghai and met a woman who he eventually fell in love with, and they were engaged. He told me that her Work Committee had to approve their marriage, that he was fortunate that her Work Committee was liberal, and that he knew another American who fell in love with a woman whose father was a Communist Party official who was very anti-American and separated them by thousands of miles and forbade them to see each other anymore. Of course, that was a long time ago and things are very different in China today. But traveling to China to teach English is one form of travel, and certainly just as valid for us to cover as moving to a foreign country for retirement. And nowadays, there are many foreigners in China working in the private sector, too. The way an article is phrased is subject to editing and arguably no reason to delete the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made no blanket statements. It's in the tone of the article, namely the intro (which is what I stated), and just because you know some people who fell in love, doesn't invalidate the existence of a problem. The "I know some people" argument is very tired and dismissive of something that is a very REAL problem in the world. I know Filipinas who are married to foreign men who have legitimate relationships but that doesn't change the fact that human/sex trafficking is a HUGE problem in the Philippines. I also have met and listened to victims of sex trafficking. To say "I know someone who isn't like that so too bad for those who are victims" is very sad. Maybe I'm more keen on tone relating to this problem because it interests me, but that's how it sounds/feels.
I am not accusing Pashley of actively promoting anything dirty or illegal. I completely recognize the good intentions of the article and I do think there were actually attempts to divert the article from what I've stated (with the remarks of true love and such). I want to be clear that although I was highly critical of the article itself, I am not accusing Pashley of anything. I appologize for not making this part clear.
But you can dismiss that argument in favor of the simpler "It's not a travel topic" which seems to be prevailing anyway. It's useful, but getting married is not a traveler thing, it's a getting married thing. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please dial it back and stop putting words in my mouth - with quotation marks, yet. If you feel like I owe you an apology and mistook what you were saying, I'm sorry, but I think it's important to separate the discussion of whether (a) this is a travel topic and (b) whether it's appropriate for Wikivoyage from wild assumptions about what people feel about sex trafficking. I, for one, take strong umbrage and feel you owe me an apology. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that Wikivoyage was actively trying to support human trafficking. All I said was that the tone of the article makes it feel (to me) sleazy and in the case of article tone, perception is more important than intent. The intent is not and was not anything like that which I understand and acknowledge but the perception remains. I didn't mean to derail the discussion, but I thought adding how the article came off to me would be further evidence that the topic is outside of our scope.
And I do appologize for making presumptions about your intent in posting the anecdotes. I had perceived your examples to be an attempt to dismiss trafficking as an issue at all (let alone being referenced in the article). Points about people someone knows are often brought up in order to silence people who bring up controversial/uncomfortable topics, so I guess it hit a nerve, but clearly there was a misunderstanding. I should have assumed good faith, not simply because it's policy, but moreso because I respect you as an editor (as I do Pashley, as well). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate that. But let's keep in mind that tone can be edited. I haven't made a strong argument to keep this article, though. I just didn't think it was obvious that it wasn't a travel topic. To me, the issue of whether we find this topic appropriate to cover is more salient, and I think that's a policy discussion. I respect your knowledge and point of view on this. I'm still not convinced one way or the other on the appropriateness of the topic for this site - irrespective of tone - but think the discussion is a worthwhile one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. A brilliant article, but it doesn't belong on a travel site like ours. I would caution against deleting it until some other website (not a mirror) has taken a copy. This, that and the other (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were 590,000 foreigners living in China as of the 2010 census , or over a million if you count Macau, Hong Kong & Taiwan as foreign. About half were staying more than two years. Another article mentions 250,000 foreign students, expected to be close to a million by 2020.

That is a significant community, considerably larger than many "cities" we cover, those people are obviously travellers, and they are the target of the article. That should probably be made clearer, since it has been horribly mis-perceived above by people I know to be otherwise sensible. Lack of clarity is not a reason for deletion, though. Pashley (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're really travelers anymore; they're immigrants. Traveling to China is one thing; getting married in China is another thing entirely and out of our scope. We have enough trouble keeping up with customs laws without having to worry about marriage laws too. I think this one is a Delete. LtPowers (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For perhaps a final comment by myself on this vfd: In regards to the slippery slope of this, it makes me think that we could end up with a Marriage in the Philippines article that, unlike this article (which I agree could have it's tone altered in a way that had no implications), could have an unsalvageably bad tone (or worse, real advice) relating to aforementioned issues surrounding many foreign marriages there. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ChubbyWimbus and LtPowers. This discussion reminds me of the what is a traveller discussion we had in Learn. We didn't quite pin it down there. However, once we start talking about green cards, immigration rules, citizenship etc, it is clear we're talking about residence and no longer about travelling. I understand the arguments of Ikan Kekek, that we shouldn't delete articles based solely on their tone. However, it is fair to have presumption against articles that don't have content relevant to the traveller and aren't about real places. It isn't reasonable for this kind of article to blank it or expect someone to rewrite it. --Inas (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Following your and LtPowers' reasoning, shouldn't we also delete Retiring abroad, a star article? If being an expatriate and working in China for a couple of years is not traveling but residence or even immigration, what is spending the last 15 some-odd years of your life in a foreign country called? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retiring abroad seems like a "final trip" ;) It's often done for the purpose of enabling more travel, more of the sort of exploration that our site deals with. Marriage is something that seems to me very independent of travel. --Peter Talk 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if I take your argument, is it your opinion that an article about working as an expatriate somewhere - which can enable a different kind of travel than that of someone who is purely a tourist - would be a travel-related article? Where do you propose to draw the line? I could also make the argument that there are people who retire abroad not in order to travel where they move, but just because they prefer living there, and that in that sense, it can be purely a move - a one-way trip, ending in a long residence somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-indenting) Keep. All these topics are only related to travel, if only slightly. Marriage in China is related to travel, because it's written from the perspective of someone from outside of China. Teaching English is related to travel, because it's written from the perspective of someone teaching English outside the country of residence. The same goes for Retiring abroad: the only reason it's related to travel is because it's about retiring in a different country than someone used to live in. These articles are pretty much in the same category and should be taken together.

Oh, and I read some comments that we're talking about immigrants here. Actually, retiring abroad would be about immigration, but it's perfectly possible to marry in China without migrating to that country. Globe-trotter (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd be okay with Buying a house in China? Adopting a pet in Ireland? Fixing your car in Brazil? As long as they're written from the perspective of a foreigner? LtPowers (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am if travelers happen to do those things. We have Buying a car in Australia. Marriage in China is more related to travel than the articles we have about retiring or working in such countries. Of course we could opt to delete all these articles, but we should at least be consistent in it.Globe-trotter (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Buying a car in Australia is something that is done by many many backpackers. There are markets held where backpackers leaving sell their kombis to the backpackers arriving. It is a real part of the travel experience for this important subgroup. How the average joe would buy or sell a car in Oz is completely different, and has no place in our guide. I don't think Retiring abroad is a valid travel topic. It isn't about travel. We need to look to our goals here, not refer to these kind of non-mainstream articles to try and set precedents with them. --Inas (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retiring abroad, not to go too far off on a tangent hopefully, is a way of furthering one's physical exploration of the world, which is our principal focus. Marrying abroad isn't. --Peter Talk 23:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I care only slightly about keeping the Marriage in China article. However, Inas's text above from "I don't think ..." on seriously offends me. I have been told that in Quaker meetings, people have been known to say "Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world, but thou art standing where I am about to shoot." I feel as if I should be saying that to several people in this thread.

As I see it, a very important aspect of the site is that it is for travellers, not just for tourists. Articles like Teaching English, Working abroad, Retiring abroad and War zone safety, all of which I have contributed to, are much more important and interesting to me than, say, Disneyland.

Someone commented above about foreigners living in China that "I don't think they're really travelers anymore; they're immigrants." Nonsense! You might just as well argue that anyone who stays less than a few months in a place, let alone books a three-week guided tour, is not a real traveller, just a tourist. I certainly do not think that, but it is considerably closer to my view than the quoted statement is.

Please do not imagine that people living abroad are out of scope for us. I know several contributors are in that category, and I'd say we want more like them. I would guess that quite a few of our readers are expats as well. Pashley (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peterfitzgerald posted this above: "Retiring abroad, not to go too far off on a tangent hopefully, is a way of furthering one's physical exploration of the world, which is our principal focus. Marrying abroad isn't." Is this site only about physical exploration and not also about cultural exploration and interchange? Also, if you are traveling to marry or marrying while living abroad, you clearly did some physical exploration of the world to get there, and in some cases, you will stay abroad with your new spouse. I haven't yet taken a position on whether to keep this article on this site or not, but none of the arguments for deletion have convinced me yet, so as long as that's the case, I guess I am a weak keep vote, for now, unless we can find a more appropriate site to give it to. But I think that it is a valid travel topic, and the question for me isn't whether it's about travel, but whether we want this kind of content on this site. And on this, I am still uncertain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the physical-spatial dimension is what makes us distinct, actually. Cultural exploration and interchange, while comprising much of what is best about travel, can and do happen all the time without traveling. You can explore cultures using Wikipedia, have a cultural interchange via web chat, etc. That said, I'm beginning to reconsider my delete vote here—the examples like "getting a haircut in Japan" are swaying me towards a more inclusive view, since how to get a haircut in X country articles would be useful, and not harmful.
And Andre ↓ I'm enjoying this discussion too much to stop ;) --Peter Talk 07:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Pashley's take on the issue. But, if this conversation is going to morph into the issue of what our scope should be, rather than whether a particular article falls within our scope, perhaps it'd be best to take the issue up on a different page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think though that every issue involving non-natives in a country constitutes having an article simply because it could be useful. For example, Going to the Dentist in Japan, Getting a Haircut in Japan, etc. could be very useful for a non-Japanese living in Japan as these are both very nerve-wracking experiences for someone who needs these services however, in spite of their helpfulness, I would say they are outside of our scope as these are not related to travel. Marriage falls into this category to me. It's useful for non-Chinese but just like I wouldn't say that someone from Quebec who weds someone from Toronto is a 'traveler' if the wedding is held in Toronto (or they end up living in Toronto), I also would not say that a Dutch woman who marries a Chinese man in Nanjing is a traveler.
The only portion of this article that I believe could possibly relate to travel was the mention of people who ONLY wish to have a ceremony abroad, but in that case, it would not be a 'Marriage in China' article. It would be more suited to 'Weddings Abroad' or some heading that makes the topic clearer. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(A Response to Peter's comment/weak trending views above) This is Wikivoyage, not WikiHelper The discussion seems to be devolving into establishing a definition of 'traveler' that is so loose as to encompass anyone anywhere who may need help with anything. We can attach 'in X country' to millions of verbs, but attaching a location doesn't (or shouldn't) make it a travel topic, and there are millions of things that are 'helpful as opposed to harmful' that are not travel related. Getting a haircut is an example of this. Sure, it'd probably be helpful information for someone but our goal is not to help people with daily living. We have to draw a line, and while our flexibility is often a strength, we still have to maintain structure and boundaries. We're a travel site. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Going to the Dentist in Japan belongs in Japan#Stay healthy and Getting a Haircut in Japan in Japan#Cope if there's something unusual worth noting. K7L (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To ChubbyWimbus' latest arguments: Where do _you_ suggest we draw the line? Is retiring abroad traveling? Is working abroad as an expatriate for a couple of years traveling? How about for 10 years? Is going abroad to go to university or graduate school traveling? I think all of these things require travel and should be topical here. But what about immigration? That's traveling, too, and I'm not sure we should summarily exclude it as a potential topic, but we would have to carefully police it for pitfalls of seeming to give legal advice and touting by businesses looking to prey on immigrants.
So what topics should we summarily exclude? This also gets to my reaction to K7L's remark directly above: I don't think we should prejudge which travel topics might become long and interesting enough to require their own article. I got a haircut in Japan while I was there, and it was a fun and interesting experience, different from getting a haircut in the US or any other country I've been to. Now, of course I didn't travel to Tokyo in order to get a haircut; that's true. So is our standard going to be that travel topics have to be restricted to things you travel in order to do or see? In that case, what are people who are retiring abroad traveling to do or see? Retire? That's sort of analogous to work - or to simply moving, immigrating or taking up residence in a place, as we've discussed above.
Again, I just find the arguments against not fully convincing, so far. And as long as no-one makes an argument that really convinces me, I guess I have to remain a weak vote for keeping the article, despite whatever doubts I have about it.
If anyone can give a clear and consistent proposed definition of the allowable scope of travel topics that excludes this one but includes Retiring abroad and potential articles about working abroad as an expatriate and studying abroad, I'd really like to see it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Ikan Kekek. As I alluded to before, what is needed here more than anything is to define the limits of our scope, a discussion which belongs elsewhere. Failing that, this debate will likely continue to circle around indefinitely. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As others have pointed out, much of the above is more a discussion of project scope than of this article. I have therefore started Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?#Scope and suggest we continue it there. Pashley (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article does stay, it should definitely move to a better title such as Getting married in China. Pashley (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While there is the potential for sleaziness in pages like this (especially places like the Philippines, Russia, or Ukraine), that shouldn't over-rule the usefulness of such pages. There are many people who actually travel oversees with their partner to get married (like the Caribbean, Las Vegas, or for the very affluent Fiji or French Polynesia). Discussion of legal requirements for two foreigners being married in a foreign destination is fine and I support the notion of renaming the page to Getting married in China to reflect this. Discussion about marrying a local would be ok only with respect to the requirements for a foreigner (what paperwork they would need), not the requirements for locals or for bringing the local back home. An overview of marriage in the target country would be acceptable, describing the traditional marriage ceremony and (in a few countries) what a wedding ceremony for a foreigner entails (for destinations where it is common for couples to travel to to marry, like Jamaica or Fiji). Where the line should be drawn is specific info on finding a partner, like "dating services" and especially anything that smells like buying a bride or sex tourism. AHeneen (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (copied from Wikivoyage:What is an article?#Scope): Finally piping in with an opinion on this one, and I come down on the side of Inas and ChubbyWimbus. Obviously things like retiring abroad, working abroad, and marrying abroad are partially travel-related (in scope) and partially about living in a place as a resident (out-of-scope). Retiring abroad and Working abroad are both useful articles which cover the general travel-related side and give some helpful research tips for the rest, without going into excessive detail, as there are no "Retiring in X" or "Working in X" articles. In exactly the same way, I think Marriage in China should be retooled as Marrying abroad, covering the general requirements essentially common to all destinations (certificate of marriageability, document translation, visa types) and giving some general research tips for finding more specific information offsite. Texugo (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This discussion has been idle for a few weeks now, and ongoing for awhile. Wikivoyage:Consensus states that in the case of there being no clear consensus, then the status quo should be kept. The status quo in this case would be keeping the article. Thoughts? JamesA >talk 03:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it because I voted "keep", but q.v. Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#Deleting, or not. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted, unfortunately. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Please give your reasoning; I'd like to see the argument and for us to consider it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the transit systems of a given Metro area are a proper content fork. It's actually a more compact way of explaining the transit system rather than having parts of it repeated over and over again, to say nothing of being a more unified way where it makes the most sense to explain the fares and ideosycracies of the system. Furthermore, this has been deleted at Wikipedia, partly due to the belief that it would remain here Purplebackpack89 02:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge appropriate information to Portland (Oregon) and then delete. Personally, all else being equal, I'm of the opinion that discussions of regional transit systems should go in Region articles, with discussions of transit in City or District articles limited to the routes that run within the borders of same. That's certainly the template I am/will be following in writing the Buffalo district articles, and in the suburb articles once I get around to writing them.
Furthermore, if Wikipedia editors have misconceived where the "scope boundaries" of Wikivoyage lie, that's on them, not us.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The transit systems of a region or city should be described within that region or city guide. We don't have articles for transit systems. Again, the wiki search will return the best result for the reader. --Inas (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the policy on urban transit systems should be like that for airports. Cover them in the city article unless they are really large & complex. You could make a case for giving the Shanghai metro (11 lines, 250+ stations, 400+ km of track, millions of passengers/day) its own article, though that has not been done yet & I don't think it is necessary. This one is not even close, so delete.
Would such lists & perhaps schedules as well be appropriate for Wikidata? Pashley (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. It's been our policy, though, to leave the maintenance of this type of data (which is big and changes often) to the transit providers themselves. --Peter Talk 21:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or edit so massively that it would be unrecognisable. Articles about bus networks need to tell the traveller how to use them and maybe list the routes that are useful for sightseeing, and are really useful when good information is not available from the operator in English. So a List of Tricity bus routes might be useful, and List of North Korea bus routes would be good. But here the operator has a website. AlasdairW (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't have articles on transit systems, and when we give information in the city articles, it's really better to give the information likely to be useful for the traveller, not a comprehensive list of every line and stop. And that list of historical lines is even more irrelevant. Texugo (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted per Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#Deleting, or not (no consensus to merge/redirect, therefore default to delete). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or rename. If we redirect it, where to? Or should the article be renamed "Platte River Valley," so as to fit within the confines of What is an article? We don't have articles purely about bodies of water, but it is certainly possible to have an article about a river valley, so maybe we should less this article develop. Your opinions, please? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, this is a tricky one. It's a real place... but given it spans two different regions of the U.S., maybe it's best to leave it empty and let the search function come up. LtPowers (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean. Leave what empty, and if people search, they would find what? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the title without an article or redirect, so when people search for the title, they get our search function. I'm not sure how to explain it more clearly. LtPowers (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how having a search end up with a blank title and no redirect is of any help to travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the search page. You don't think that's more useful than a redirect to United States of America? LtPowers (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yes, I can see how that can be useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just love the ways we've dreamt up to work around our bodies of water policy. But using river valley instead of river and redirecting the river to the valley is pure genius! :-) --Inas (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected and all content moved to Platte River Valley. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And three years later, we haven't even created the article we were going to merge it into. And this content wouldn't be relevant to the article anyway - it isn't even about studying abroad. Please just vote to delete and put this one out of its misery. --Inas (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 110%. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete this time. Pashley (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted; out of scope. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Template flagged as experiment for over a month and does not currently seem to be in use in any articles. We already have Template:Copyvio (which is itself up for vfd) so I don't see why we would ever need a second template that does the same thing. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. I took these off Vfd on 5th March intending to speedy them at that time, but, in error, I failed to archive them or actually delete the pages. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. We already have Template:Warningbox, which was created so that there would be consistency in how warnings are presented in articles, and there is no good reason why this particular warning needs to be different. Based on recent actions I'm concerned that we may be getting trolled, but given the author's long edit history a VFD nomination seemed more prudent than an outright deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second being...? —The preceding comment was added by Alice (talk • contribs)
Comment The two clear advantages of transcluded templates are that they can eliminate screeds of HTML (which can be very intimidating to casual editors and very easy to mess up) and provide a quick and consistent way of changing what appears on hundreds of articles by just changing the template.
The latter is also one of their greatest weaknesses too. Until very recently, when the {{warningbox}} was transcluded it automatically inserted text about relevant government travel advisories if the editor was unwary. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do since they're usually used for for country level articles. In this case, though, I substituted (rather than transcluded it) and then edited out the (currently) irrelevant parts. I then suggested that the best way to deal with the situation where there were no relevant travel advisories in force, is might be to have a Philippines/by_boat_warningbox as a subpage.
There was a recent conversation at the Pub where the consensus seemed to be that, generally, these government advisories were a "good idea", but we have to walk a tightrope here (especially since some advisories are subject to political influence and nanny-stateism) between our current xl policies and our common duty of humanity to warn the traveller where unexpected and severe dangers may exist.
I am a bit surprised by the luddite proclivities of some of our old guard here. They need to learn that the technology implemented by the Wikimedia software editors is our friend and try and think things through. The only part of warnings that need to be perhaps consistent throughout the site is their look and feel so that frequent readers can quickly recognise different styles of warnings (if we decide to have different styles). In this case, the warning section about "carry your own life preservers" is more quickly understood if it comes after some background information. A wizened Sooty that lives in a Nordic cave (when not commuting between Glasgow and Singapore, that is) -- Alice✉ 04:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - Where was the consensus to start doing things this way? The agreement which you speak of was to include government travel warnings, which we've done as part of the normal Template:Warningbox. I don't even know how that's relevant to this subpage. Plus, where are the screeds of HTML? The only code that should be present is: {{warningbox| }}. Additionally, why does this need to be replicated multiple times? It belongs in the Filipino by boat section, and that's it as far as I know. JamesA >talk 06:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that you are being a little unfair as to my motivation for introducing this sub-page. It's introduction was intended to deal solely with the sudden appearance of superfluous (and other, non-existent) text speaking about "Government travel advisories:". That situation has now been dealt with by this edit to the {{Warningbox}} : http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWarningbox&diff=2202519&oldid=2200323 after my editing caused the problem to become known.
I still think using the general warning template is an inferior solution since, in the case of our Philippines article it separates the warning from the background information, but that's only a trivial point. The general point is that there seems to be an obsession in trying to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach.
You will note that I have not objected to the deletion of the sub-page now that the {{Warningbox}} has been appropriately modified. -- Alice✉ 07:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
My apologies for the misunderstanding and thanks for the clarification. I tried to fix that myself but didn't know how, so thanks to LtPowers Ryan. If you have any further recommendations for improvement of the template, you can write them on the talk page or ask me. :) JamesA >talk 08:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. It's very difficult not to get things wrong from time to time when there is a limit to what can be quickly explained by typing and you do not get any other sensory clues; all this sock puppet and troll nonsense might be very quickly resolved if I was to walk into an airport lounge that my accusers were seated in, dressed in my rather distinctive uniform complete with my official photographic ID round my neck.
Incidentally, not to subtract anything from the good Lieutenant's template skills and general helpfulness, it was Ryan that made the pertinent change -- Alice✉ 09:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Oops, apologies and thanks to Ryan! Alice, I'm not aware of your current situation and try not to take either side on the issue. But please refrain from the continuous snide remarks and complaints. I know you are frustrated, but refraining will help your cause and maybe resolve the situation sooner. JamesA >talk 10:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy deleted per author request. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about ethnic groups is not reliant to a travel site. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, out of scope. Move relevant content elsewhere and then delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We can delete it if we like, but it isn't clearly out of scope or irrelevant. Scrape a little here, and you'll see that this (somewhat unfortunately in my opinion) is all about tourism. In fact this cultural trait is arguably preserved for little other reason. --Inas (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there is information in this article that's useful for travelers, but I think the core question is, does an ethnic group merit its own Wikivoyage article? I think the answer is clearly "no".
Wikivoyage:What is an article? explicitly states that people do not get their own Wikivoyage destination article. If we were to treat Padaung as a travel topic, we might say that WIAA? is ambiguous on whether it passes muster. But it's worth mentioning that according to Travel topics, there is very little precedent for giving an ethnic group its own article, the sole exception being Roma (people); in fact, for the same reasons given here, I would argue in favor of deleting the Roma article too, or at least retitling it and rewriting it pretty much from the ground up.
Add the article's severe mos issues as the icing on the cake and, IMO, Padaung really doesn't have a leg to stand on. I've changed my vote, as you can see above—and frankly, given the paucity of actual information in it, I'd wager that the article is already pretty much redundant as it is.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that these "Giraffe women" are now approaching a pure tourist attraction, and that these women and girls are paid, so that tourists can go to the villages and see them. Its an ugly face of tourism, in my opinion, where tourism not only experiences the local culture but actively influences it. But there isn't much doubt that this is run as a tourist attraction. --Inas (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It desperately needs rewriting (see Talk:Padaung#Tone), but I agree with Inas' comments—the "giraffe women" (ugh) are a tourist attraction, are viewed (by outsiders and arguably by themselves) and marketed as such, and the topic format is useful since their culture spans national borders. When an interesting culture is spread out in such a way that it can't be easily covered in our region articles (like that of the Roma, Tuaregs, Inuits, Pueblo Indians, etc.), this type of article can be useful for any traveler interested in that culture. --Peter Talk 05:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As Inas and Peter both said, they are an attraction, and per wiaa, attractions do not get their own articles. If they are not an attraction, then they are people, in which case there should also be no article. I believe the useful information about the Padaung is not so voluminous that it can't be contained in appropriate destination/region articles. There are a whole bunch of tribes in India, the Middle East, the Amazon, Canada, Mexico, etc. that also cross our geographical hierarchies and are not any less interesting to the tourist, but I don't think that means we should start making articles about all of them. Articles about New Mexico Pueblos or Navajo Nation are one thing because they are places, but I don't want to see us start making people and tribe articles. I think it is very very clearly out of scope. Texugo (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What say you to Roma (people) --Inas (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would get rid of that one too. This kind of thing can and should be treated in Understand sections of Europe and the regions and countries where it is notable, with the museums, etc. listed in the appropriate cities. But as a people, I don't think it is any more deserving of its own article than, say, Hmong enclave in suburban Los Angeles or Japanese Peruvians, which is to say, not at all. Texugo (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmong enclave in suburban Los Angeles is specific to one city, so can be put in that city, much like other destination city-level landmark attractions like "National Gallery" or "CN Tower". There's nothing to indicate that w:neck ring follows a municipal or other political boundary. K7L (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there are specific treks run by specific operators from specific cities that you use to see them. Texugo (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a tricky one. I don't accept the thrust of Texugo's argument. We have articles like Indigenous heritage in Australia that people have never questioned. I'm sympathetic to Peter's argument that cultural experiences are a valid travel topic for exploration here. I'm sure I could create another travel topic on the best way to experience Native American or Maori culture, and it wouldn't raise an eyebrow. However, I'm an unashamed cultural relativist, and I think that this topic could be given a better treatment in the context of a regional article. So, with that said, should it be redirected? I think that Padaung is an unlikely search term. Once this information is included in regional articles the default wiki search provides a better answer. So, should the text be merged? I don't really think there is much there worth keeping. --Inas (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect I think the difference between this and the Roma (people) article is that the Roma article is actually about places like museums that focus on that culture. The name could probably be changed to something more appropriate but the topic is not offensive. The Indigenous heritage article also states that it will showcase "sites of historic, cultural, natural and religious interest that relate to indigenous Australia".
The Padaung article is completely different. It's not showcasing anything except people. The purpose of an article about ethnic people is treating people as an attraction, somewhat like an ethnic zoo or a carnival Freak Show. Ethnic communities like this one, the Maasai in East Africa, Native Americans, etc. are all very much a part of travel but we need to remember that, regardless of how strange/different/primitive people view their cultures and ways of life, they are people and we should treat them as such. They should be given due mention in articles that pertain to them, because then we are talking about local culture, but making them into their own article is disrespectful an dehumanizing, in my opinion.
I don't think this can be redirected, because they are too spread out to point to one article and redirecting to Southeast Asia (the smallest region that encompasses where they live) is not helpful to anyone. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Myanmar or Delete but mention briefly in Myanmar. Either solution is fine with me. I have yet to weigh in on this, pro or con, because I really wasn't sure where I stood. ChubbyWimbus' comment immediately above rings absolutely true to me, emotionally, but I guess where I come down is that the Padaung people - properly called Kayan (see w:Kayan people (Burma)) should be briefly mentioned in the article about Myanmar, probably under "People," and their neck rings can be mentioned there, too (perhaps something like this: "The Kayan [also known as Padaung], whose women and girls are known for the multiple neck rings they wear, are one of the numerous minorities in this diverse country."). That's probably all that needs to be said about them in a travel guide, unless there are museums or cultural centers that explain something about their history or/and culture, and it doesn't seem like those - if any - are so numerous they'd need a separate topic article to cover them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted with relevant content merged to Eastern Myanmar. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template was mentioned in passing when discussing two other pointless templates, but was never formally vfded. Do we need this? — Ravikiran (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Template:Copyvio. Tags like copyvio and merge sit around for a long time. That's not a problem with Template:Merge, but a copyvio gets really hard to decipher years later, as our site is copied and mirrored--copyvios should always be taken care of on sight, and this template discourages that. --Peter Talk 19:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Inas. I'm neutral on the utility of this template, but if we decide not to keep it then it should be converted to a redirect to either Template:Vfd, Template:Speedy or another appropriate target to ensure it isn't re-created by a well-meaning user who expects it to be here. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be redirected if not kept, so that the copyvio issue is dealt with. --Rschen7754 22:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. My reasoning is that there are people that may put a copyvio tag on when they may not be so comfortable deleting content and may want someone else to confirm that they have it right. Of course, as soon as copyvio is confirmed, the content should be deleted. Perhaps we should put that in the template. --Inas (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the article history contains no usable content once the copyvio text is removed, the page should be deleted, not pasted over with {{smallcity}} with the copyvios preserved in the article history. For legal reasons, if the owner of the copyvio text complains later, that will require revision deletion - a selective process which is more admin work than if the copyvio were deleted-on-sight when it was originally created. I'd also prefer not to keep the "forked from WT revision" footer if it's pointing to copyvio text on that site which slipped under the sonar. K7L (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Of course that is only relevant if the entire article is a copyvio. --Inas (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Region Shephelah moved to Shefela.

Is that the right name? WP has Shfela with both the others redirecting there but only Shephelah mentioned in the article as an alternate spelling. In a Google fight, Shephelah gets 62 K hits, Shfela 47 K, Shefela 24.5. Pashley (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge as useful and delete. Yes, this is a real place, but it's an estate and the article is promotional, so unless someone can convince me otherwise, I am against redirecting it. The problem is, where should the information we want to keep be merged to? Here's the location information for this estate: Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "merge and delete" under our license, as we need to maintain attribution if we keep the text. K7L (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your solution? I don't think we want a redirect from the name of a commercial property, but there could be an entry for it in some "Go next" section to some other article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't you just need to attribute the authors in the edit summary? --Peter Talk 05:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my name is Pedro Rio and I'm the author of Herdade da Comporta's page. First of all, I would like to thanks all your contributions in order to this page be fit with Wikivoyage standards. I'm already exploring the page and I accept that the page must have some changes to continue to be published here in Wikivoyage. Can you please tell me what changes must be done? I think that Herdade da Comporta is a place that must be knew by Wikivoyage followers because is a really nice place to visit in Portugal. Herdade da Comporta is one of the oldest agricultural estates of the country and now it is developing a touristic offer with a strong care about the environment. Regards Herdade da Comporta (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pedro, and welcome to Wikivoyage. Thanks for your contributions so far. You may wish to look at Wikivoyage:Don't tout and Wikivoyage:Article templates for some basic pointers, as well as mos if you have more time. You need to change the article to have all of our standard headers, like every other article. So instead of Food and cuisine, it should just be Eat. By the way, are you a tourism official from Herdade da Comporta or Portugal? You may be interested to read Wikivoyage:Welcome, tourism professionals. Please let us know if you have any more questions. JamesA >talk 13:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Comporta and clean up. Jjtk (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we don't want a redirect from the name of a commercial property, rename to something innocuous ("move without leaving a redirect") and then do the merge or rewrite from the article at its new title. So long as we have the revision history (or at least the author list) for any text we keep, we've complied with the BY in CC-BY-SA. K7L (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful NPOV/ non-spam information to a regional article on Comporta (which doesn't appear to exist yet) or the article on Portugal as appropriate and delete. Film at 11 (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem solved? Jjtk's edit looks like it solved the problem. Under the circumstances, I withdraw my vote to delete and thank Jjtk for fixing the article! The one thing that still needs to be changed is a move from Herdade da Comporta to Comporta. Are we all in agreement that there should be no redirect? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jtjk - I'd had taking care of this on my to-do list for a while, but I'd been procrastinating. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged and redirected to Comporta per User:K7L's comments on the need to maintain attribution under CC-BY-SA. Thanks again to User:Jtjk. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Place type templates

The templates {{cityguide}}, {{districtguide}}, {{parkguide}}, {{regionguide}}, {{countryguide}} and {{continentguide}}, which were created for some old unused RDF process, have now been removed from all mainspace pages. These templates should be deleted so they are not incorrectly used, such as misunderstanding with the status templates {{guidecity}}, {{guidedistrict}}, {{guidepark}}, {{guideregion}}, {{guidecountry}} and {{guidecontinent}}. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Island of New Zealand regions have been reorganized, the South (New Zealand) page and category are no longer required. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. These old regions may have links into them. They are clear and easy candidates for redirection. --Inas (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to South Island. There may not be a city or town called "South" anywhere in New Zealand, and South (New Zealand) may not be exactly equivalent to South Island - but "South (New Zealand)" as originally defined does represent a real place. Our policy is to redirect articles about real places and I see no reason to deviate from that policy here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the angst some have about WV's poor Google rankings relative to WT, is there benefit in deleting an otherwise harmless, but unnecessary, redirect in order to reduce the number of links back to WT? Nurg (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could delete it to eliminate the backlink to WT, then recreate it as a redirect. LtPowers (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a redirect the footer text shouldn't matter since the page that loads is the redirect target; as a result a delete / recreate should be unnecessary. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonetheless, it's there, and it might be indexed by search engines. There's also the implicit backlinks in the history. LtPowers (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • SEO isn't part of our deletion policy, right now, and I don't think discussions on it belong here. There is history in the article, and there is no saying that in a week or a month or a year we might decide that we want to return to it the way it was. Until we adopt a policy saying that in case of redirects we can remove the history for SEO purposes, then I don't see there is any alternative here but to redirect this real place. --Inas (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to South Island by Traveler100 on 11th March, but not archived until now. Per our deletion policy, Wikivoyagers are advised to please not take action on VfDs without consensus in future. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree and unused. --MGA73 (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to save it, is there an article where it would be well-used? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marc removed it from Chicago/Near North because it is an outdated view . I think it's good to leave these types of nominations up for a day or two to give people a chance to use them, if they want, but this one is a clear case for a speedy delete. --Peter Talk 15:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. --Peter Talk 15:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A remarkably silly title for an utterly useless redirect to "Singles travel". A page at Solo travel redirecting to Travelling alone would make sense, but this does not make any at all.

Mea culpa. It appears I created this piece of idiocy; a user created a spammy/promotional "Solo (or Singles) travel" page, and I moved it to Singles travel and cleaned it up a bit, but I left this behind.

Delete Pashley (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Solo travel doesn't exist, so nominating it would be odd. Travelling alone, while not great, is a legitimate travel topic & looks OK. Singles travel should arguably be nominated, but it has not been yet & that would be another discussion. Pashley (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. Pashley (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree and unused. --MGA73 (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrightable works, such as literary, musical works, paintings, designs and decorative writings, architectural works and buildings, carpet and rug designs, sculptures and photographs are in public domain in the following cases:
  • In the following cases works fall into public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation: (Article 16)
  • In cases where the work belongs to a legal personality or rights are transferred to a legal personality.
Since the the tower was built by and currently owned by a w:legal personality (government) and it was completed in 1971, it is not copyrighted. The photographer has licensed it CC-2.0 (Originally from Flickr). I have requested its undeletion on Commons: commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Azadi1.jpg. AHeneen (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and another good reason not to speedy delete is that perhaps someone finds out it is actually not non-free. --MGA73 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted locally, restored on Commons. --Peter Talk 17:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree and unused. --MGA73 (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete/move to Commons, then delete — I don't know where this was deleted on Commons, but there was no file using that name which got deleted. SA copyright isn't clear about when copyright expires for a statue: "If a literary, musical or artistic work, or an adaptation of it, has been published, performed in public, offered for public sale, or broadcast, its copyright expires 50 years from the end of the year in which the first of these acts is done: section 3(2)(a)...However, publication does not include performing a cinematograph film, musical work, or sound recording; broadcasting a work; exhibiting a work of art; or constructing a work of architecture: section 1(5)(d)." (commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#South_Africa) At any rate the statue was erected in 1912 and the creator died in 1946, so copyright expired in either 1962 or 1996. The file should be moved to Commons then deleted here. If the file was deleted on Commons (under what name? where's the deletion nomination?), then it should be nominated for undeletion. AHeneen (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying this, AHeneen. Goes to show that it always pays to do one's homework. I withdraw my votes in favor of speedy deletion for this nominee and the above.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted locally, restored on Commons. --Peter Talk 17:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have speedy deleted these, but just want to confirm that all three are referring to Wikitravel Extra which, of course, is no longer relevant. Someone more knowledgeable than me about Mediawiki should probably go to Special:PrefixIndex, namespace=Mediawiki, and look for any other unnecessary MW pages. AHeneen (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy deleted. From the history and the URL on MediaWiki:Extra-url it looks pretty clear that these messages are unnecessary on Wikivoyage. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2013&oldid=4920841"