Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2021

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← October 2021 Votes for deletion archives for November 2021 (current) December 2021 →

This is another cardinal point page, and similar to the reason that ThunderingTyphoons! gave a few months ago here. On top of that, almost all places that have a north and a central have a north central, even though it may not be in common use. In my opinion, delete per the exact arguments given before. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another cardinal point page, but this one is a redirect. There's hundreds of "South Centrals" in use, despite not used commonly. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another cardinal point disambg page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the talk page of the article (I've pasted below).

I want to quibble with this redirect. In the U.S., "bathroom" is most likely to mean "toilet," and we have an article about Toilets. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I also feel this should be redirected to Toilets (or have links to both articles) Tai123.123 (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Same meaning in Australia. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
And then the problem is that it has a different meaning in the UK. I wish we could have left well enough alone and not had this redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
vfd? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe. But let's see if we can resolve this here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Yvwv? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
By the way bathroom redirects to hygiene while this redirects to toilets Tai123.123 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
We can make a disambiguation page. /Yvwv (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Is that really essential? This is not a term specifically related to travel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Yvwv?
But IMO, I don't think we need this db page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

And that explains this nom. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pashley (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ground Zero (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (maybe as a disambiguation page) – seems like a likely search term for someone trying to find information about toilets. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep When I read "Bathroom" as a travel topic, I thought it might be a fun article compiling some of the bathrooms around the world that are actual tourist spots or are unique/extravagant/cool enough to be worth visiting. Maybe this is an issue with my expectations or an issue with the name or current content of the Toilets article, but that article is rather literal with its approach to the topic, giving information about: what is a toilet, types of toilets, names for toilets and facilities that contain them, how to use a toilet, etc. With that said, "Bathroom" is the word Americans would use, so while I'd like to delete it, I find it difficult to rationalize why we'd give the UK-preferred "Toilets" an article but not redirect the US term "Bathroom" to the article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even in America, bathrooms usually also include a sink (or one is immediately outside the room) and often a shower or bathtub. I think it's best to be specific when describing toilets in an article, even though in the U.S., you would ask someone "Excuse me, where is the bathroom (or men's room or women's room)." Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bathrooms in residences usually contain the shower/bath but not public bathrooms. It is the toilet that makes it a bathroom. The shower/bath and even the sink are not required. Although there is a lot of information about the toilets as machines, it's not an article exclusively about the toilets. It has information about bathroom signs, free vs paid, transgender issues, etc. which have nothing to do with the toilets themselves. It's clearly a bathroom article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly my experience that public bathrooms usually do include a sink. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but frequency of sinks doesn't change the fact that it would still be a bathroom without a sink. They usually have toilet paper, too, but I've been in bathrooms that didn't supply toilet paper. They're awful and unhygienic, but they're still bathrooms. I honestly came here to add a "delete" vote but after starting to write realized I didn't have a good reason to justify the article but not the redirect. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points on bathrooms. However, "toilet" is certainly a word we use in the U.S., even if it's not the polite way to describe the room with a toilet in it. And the problem is, if we have a redirect for the word "bathroom(s)", wouldn't it have to be a disambiguation? I don't want a disambiguation for a non-travel term, but am I being unreasonable? (That's a serious question and I wouldn't mind "yes" for an answer.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem with having a disambiguation page for travel topics. Are you afraid that too many words start getting pages? We can restrict such pages to the most common terms. LPfi (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it's problematic on a travel guide to have disambiguation pages just because different dialects of English have somewhat different definitions of a term. I'd prefer to delete, but I'm no longer wholly convinced. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We did recently delete AFL so I guess this is on a similar boat then. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really analogous because the AFL is one existing sports league, two defunct ones and one former umbrella of labor unions that merged quite a while ago into the AFLCIO, which itself does not have its own article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I still get those same sentiments as you with having db pages for travel topics (WWII is an exception, but...) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That's the same meaning I've learned in Australia, and that all public ones include a sink. The British meaning was quite foreign to me until I went to the UK. And even in formal Australian English, bathroom is certainly the way to describe a toilet. And to your question of "I don't want a disambiguation for a non-travel term, but am I being unreasonable?, and the answer to that is no, because I get the same sentiments as you. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: three deletes, two keeps, and Ikan who never voted but it was obvious they were going towards deleted, so deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Horse is a small settlement 7 miles east of Columbia Falls, Montana. The article itself is very sparse and its contents could be merged into Columbia Falls in a "Nearby" section (the article itself could be redirected as well). It also fails to meet WV:SLEEPTHERE criteria. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a very touty listing. All of that could be merged, though. I think the proposal is sensible, unless there's a lot that someone wants to add to the currently sparse or empty sections in the Hungry Horse article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should check a map, but my instinct here is to support merge and redirect to Columbia Falls. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons are similar to the cardinal point redirects & West Coast etc. above. Also, this one is incomplete; it does not have the Gulf coasts of Mexico, Panama, ... or of Saudi Arabia. Pashley (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same Reason as Bathroom. Tai123.123 (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 19:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally a ton of all these places. Similar to the other cardinal point dbs, these ones are quite pointless. Much of these are also region articles, with one notable exception of Central Coast (New South Wales) which was also a region article before last month. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (pending better rationale for deleting). There are, for example, five articles called "West Coast", each with a parenthetical disambiguator. The disambiguation page covers them all. What is pointless about that? What makes it different from other disambiguation pages – or are we heading towards deleting all disambiguation pages? I may be missing the point – can the rationale for deleting be explained more fully. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nurg: It's a similar rationale as here. There's tons of "North Coasts", "East Coasts" etc, despite not all of them being in common use, hence why cardinal point dbs are somewhat useless, hence why makes it different from other db pages. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And even for some of them such as South Coast, why is there no mention of the US (which is basically most of South (United States of America) + Florida). I'd presume there's much more not listed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not just cardinal points, obviously – they include "Coast". In some cases they are official proper names (or the short form thereof), being the names of local government areas. There are tons of west coasts in the world, but we have just five articles called "West Coast" (all of which are included). Or six, if we count West Coast (United States of America), though that is not a proper destination article. We also once had West Coast (Canada), which was merged into British Columbia. We don't try to include every west coast in the world. Covering the 5 or so articles is perfectly manageable. Also useful, IMO – certainly I don't see any harm. Nurg (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep but keep short. Trying to list everything that can be called by those names (which was the argument in the linked discussion) would be a fool's errand – it'd mean listing any shore of any destination, and somebody using a mere descriptive term will understand it might not turn up anything. It is easy to go via Estonia if you are searching for the northern coast of Estonia.
    On the other hand, for articles by those names, with disambiguation suffix, we need the disambiguation page. People cannot guess what disambiguation suffixes we have chosen, and relying on the search box is not the way to go. Also destination areas officially called by those names, and articles on destinations for which we use it by itself as a proper name (in the article or when referencing it), should be listed on the disambiguation page. For these, the denomination should be in bold in the lead.
    –LPfi (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14 days now, and there's no consensus. While there's more votes for delete, LPfi does bring up a good argument and an alternative as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In line with LPfi's thoughts and mine, I have pruned the pages of generic entries and kept just the ones called by the term, either as the article title or as an alternative name mentioned in the article text. So, they no longer cover "a ton" of places, but do serve the purpose of a disambiguation page for similarly named articles. Nurg (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having second thoughts about this one. I can easily see someone doing a search for "West Coast," seeking information about the West Coast of the U.S., Canada, Ireland....If we delete these redirects, will they get good search results such that the redirects are not needed? Same question, really, about the next group ([Direction] Shore). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should I also paste this discussion onto all five pages, or just one? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons mentioned above with all the coasts. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept after cleanups, but should I paste this discussion onto all three talk pages or just one of them? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an item in mainspace that redirects to projectspace, that doesn't feel right to me. Also Ikan said on the Talk page that they feel it's unnecessary Tai123.123 (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. If that's the case, should we delete What not to link to? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. There's no Wikivoyage:Deny recognition page related to users who post unwanted links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, I'm also for delete. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a very unlikely tourist destination, article contains virtually no info other than a place to eat. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 21:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says "This village is one of he oldest community in the territory covered by the Louisiana Purchase, and is part of the Cane River National Heritage Area." So might be interesting, but should perhaps be deleted and recreated when somebody has more to say (perhaps on the heritage area in general). It was created by an IP, I suspect one that we know, who loves to add just one piece of information. –LPfi (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the points above, but the article was created yesterday. I think we should give the unregistered editor some time to add to it. If nothing happens within a month, I'd support deletion. I am concerned that this contributor has created a bunch of articles where the only listings are for dollar stores and other non-travel-related businesses. They have added some useful travel-related content to other articles, but if they continue to create new articles without travel content, we should ask them to stop doing so. I don't want to shut down a new contributor too quickly though. Ground Zero (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added listings for two historic sites in nearby Melrose - I would be happy to put these in a different article if we decide to delete this page. AlasdairW (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also home to a nearby National Historic Site. I'm not sure whether this one merits its own article, but if not, then the needed can be covered in this article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very ambiguous term, and it does not mean the same thing as Oceania as Australasia also includes parts of Eastern Indonesia as well (according to the WWF), and does not include much of Polynesia nor Micronesia. And then whether NZ is part of Australasia is very ambiguous. Or to be more precise, there's no clear cut definition for what's part of this region, but only Australia and New Guinea seem to always be considered as being part of Australasia, so given the high ambiguity with this term, delete. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Write it as an extra-region. /Yvwv (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Made an extraregion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created by an IP adress and no work has been done since its creation, there is a fairly lengthy conversation at Talk:Singlish phrasebook Tai123.123 (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • My position is that this should be deleted, unless it's redirected to a topic article like Australian slang, but since someone would have to write that... Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been exposed to Singlish in gaming and it is a different genre of English (to the point that there's some guesswork needed). But judging from the fact that the phrasebook page is nothing more than a skeleton template, I would suggest delete with no prejudice on future re-creation of this page if/when contents are added. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be possible to write a good article on Singapore English, but as a travel topic, not a phrasebook. It is certainly not necessary, I doubt it would be very useful to travellers & I do not see anyone volunteering to do it. Pashley (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I agree with Pashley (plus Singlish already redirects to Singapore#Talk).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If Singlish already redirects to Singapore's talk section, then it comes down to whether or not "phrasebook" is useful or adds value. Given that there is no phrasebook in the talk section (unless the 3 sentences constitute a 'phrasebook'), I think a redirect is inappropriate. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we have a redirect at Singlish then this is completely unnecessary. Delete. Pashley (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2021&oldid=4924199"