Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2015

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← September 2015 Votes for deletion archives for October 2015 (current) November 2015 →

According to Wikivoyage:Deletion_policy#Templates, "Our template policy requires that new templates be first discussed and approved by the community." Was that done for this one? If so, I missed it.

I find it remarkably ugly & consider it completely unnecessary. Pashley (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it definitely would not "otherwise need to be copy-pasted ..." Granted, creating this ugliness with copy-and-paste would be even dumber than doing it with a template, but the point is that the text is both ugly & unnecessary. This sort of text should be removed from any article it has infected, however it may have got there.
Granted also, organising/indexing travel topics is difficult & we need to look for a good way to do it. In my view, this is definitely not an answer to that problem. Pashley (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do like the concept of listing related travel topics in the article itself. I use such "lists" often when navigating Wikipedia. However, I do agree with Pashley that we should find another way to display them, because this template, used at the start of articles, is not very pretty. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of how to handle our history travel topics - especially those on Europe - is a serious one and should be addressed. I fear the issue simply crept up on us and is now threatening to overwhelm us. I have no good solution, but propose we find some place to discuss it other than vfd? And maybe try drawing the attention of as many editors as possible to it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So I created this template but just for the sole purpose of removing the copying and pasting of the same text in multiple articles that was happening. I agree it is not authentically pleasing. I think we now have the critical mass of European History pages to have a sub-page under Historical travel. The breadcrumbs at the top of the page, which readers should be familiar with from regions, will address the issue that is trying to be solved. --Traveler100 (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Created European history. Needs some more input. Also take a look at the undone timeline.
I think this is much more elegant than the template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What do the right facing arrows denote, please ? BushelCandle (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ugly and badly positioned. What do the right facing arrows denote? Will become even more of a carbuncle as the number of history articles increase. I'd be more neutral if it wasn't right at the top of the articles. BushelCandle (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The discussion should take place before taking any specific course of action, as we normally base decisions on some semblance of consensus. That said, would moving the template to the end of the article resolve the issue? K7L (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add Experimental Tag : Template:Experimental - It may be ugly and requires improvement, but I can't think of a good reason to delete. However since it slipped in under the radar it should be marked as 'experimental' (with the additional implication that its use will be restricted) until such discussion is held. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward delete. I, too, find this template ugly, and not all the topics are in obvious chronological order, either. Is there a good reason why they can't just all be linked from a History article, without this template? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — it looks ugly and I wouldn't miss it if it'd be deleted. Would it be possible to shrink it to look like the routebox template, or just a narrow box that interested readers could click to expand? ϒpsilon (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Routeboxes have clear geographical directions. This list of historical topics doesn't have any clear direction, does it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a clear direction - in the fourth dimension, chronological order. Stop thinking three-dimensionally and expand your horizons. :) K7L (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Parts of it are in chronological order, but in general that does not work & cannot be made to.
e.g it has
Medieval and Renaissance Italy → Ottoman Empire → Nordic history → Russian Empire → Napoleonic Wars
and several of those overlap. Pashley (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't preclude using chronological order by approximate start date. K7L (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are differences of location as well as time. It is not even a relatively neat division like Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, etc. (of course, those styles overlap, too, but at least they're a pretty straight chronology). I don't find it elegant or particularly useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It should be placed at the bottom of the article - in "See also", and the formatting changed accordingly. It would be great if we could find a way of automatically adding a list of every article in the same category rather than creating a large series of templates. (Category:Historical travel would need to be split in this case.) AlasdairW (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So commas would replace the (meaningless?) right facing arrows and only relevant articles be included? BushelCandle (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
mw:extension:EasyTimeline looks to be installed, would it be of use? K7L (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting - I could see it being useful for filling empty Go next sections in destination articles, but that is for a discussion elsewhere. AlasdairW (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are past two weeks & there is no consensus to keep, so I think this should now go. Pashley (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it looks as though the experiment has been tried &, at least in its current form, is an abject failure. If we do end up keeping it (against both policy & common sense, in my view) then it urgently needs discussion on the template talk page about how to make it less ugly. Pashley (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage:Using_MediaWiki_templates#New_MediaWiki_template_proposals says experimental templates "should not be added to more than one low-visibility article". This one is currently in about 20, so if we tag it experimental, many applications need deleting. Pashley (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how a template like this can be useful on only one page. I'm not understanding that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have an article European history is there any reason not to just delete the template and replace it everywhere it is used with:

See also: European history

I see none. Pashley (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template came up in discussion at Dotm#Kyoto.

My point of view is that when content is moved from one Wikivoyage article to another, the article histories are clear. Also, it's pretty obvious that in the case of districted cities, the district articles include a lot of content that was moved from city articles. So my vote would be to delete this template, but I'm interested to hear other points of view and might be convinced to change my mind.

What do you all think? Is there a good reason to keep this template and use it anywhere? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook example of undesirable template creep. If the author of a particular string of text needs to be identified for whatever reason, there are tools such as WikiBlame that make it simple. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The template was created after a discussion about ensuring proper attribution - see Wikivoyage talk:Copyleft#Attribution and article translations. We most definitely want to ensure that attribution is properly provided, and if there are valid use cases for this template I don't see that keeping it around to put on an article's talk page would do any harm. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be OK with putting this on talk pages, if it's felt that it's really needed, but would you agree that it shouldn't be used in articlespace at all? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has a template with a similar function - w:Template:Copied - and they recommend putting it on the talk page rather than the main page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I take that as a "No, it shouldn't be used in articlespace at all"? Also, if we keep this template, wouldn't it be relevant for every district article, and should it therefore be used on the talk page of every district article? What's the point? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the talk page discussion Ryan refers to, the problem solved by the creation of Template:Mergecredit was secondary to the main topic of discussion, which was how to handle attribution in cases of content translated from other language versions. Template:Mergecredit in particular was created with the assent of two editors - hardly what you would call a consensus - and anyway, the discussion happened seven to eight years ago and involved few editors who are currently active. Given all that, it's hard to argue that that discussion is a good barometer of present-day consensus among our present-day community.
Secondly, I don't see the mere fact that Wikipedia has an analogous template as a terribly convincing argument in favor of keeping ours. It seems like copying text from one article to another would be a far less frequent occurrence over there than here at Wikivoyage. If this template were used the way it was intended - on what basically amounts to every district article, for starters, as well as in many cases where district or subdistrict articles are predated by whatever comes a rung higher in the breadcrumb hierarchy - the visual clutter on the articles would be well-nigh unbearable.
If attribution is a problem that really needs to be solved in some other way than WikiBlame and the like, fine. But this is not the way to do it.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is WikiBlame? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: . -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. When I search for text in particular en.wikivoyage articles, it doesn't find it. I'm not sure why. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users and subcats

AFAIK, there's no consensus established to use categories for anything except geographic (and travel topic) hierarchy maintenance. Powers (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category populated only by the (undiscussed) Template:User Docent. The category is rather useless as a) it only categorizes users who have placed the template (or the category manually) on their user page and b) it doesn't provide any way to see what destinations a user is 'docenting'. Powers (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LtPowers: Knowing a user is a docent can help glean more information about a destination clearly, in my opinion. --Rubbish computer (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but the category listing doesn't tell you what destinations a user is docent for, rendering it pretty useless. Do you envision going into this category and clicking usernames until you find someone who is a docent for a destination in which you're interested? Powers (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LtPowers: Subcategories could be made, as I stated above. --Rubbish computer (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you proposing a flat subcategory tree with thousands of destinations, or a subcategory tree parallel to the one created by Template:IsPartOf that would require deep navigation before finding a user page at the bottom? Or some hybrid solution? Powers (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LtPowers: A hybrid solution. --Rubbish computer (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to ping me all the time. And it would be nice if you could elaborate on what your hybrid would look like. Powers (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Hotels in Istanbul. This was a Wikipedia article deemed not encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia and was moved here, where I think almost everyone will agree it's too encyclopedic and listy for Wikivoyage. Anyone who wants to can salvage any useful information for useful hotel listings in different Istanbul district articles, but surely nothing close to all of it should be merged, and then this article should be turned into a redirect deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If this becomes a redirect, somebody typing "hotel" into our search box, will get a choice of "Hotels" and "Hotels in Istanbul" which is odd. I don't see any information worth merging from the article, as it only has the build date and number of rooms for most hotels, and the links are to WP pages about the individual hotels. If there is info worth merging then first move it (without redirect) to something like "Istanbul Hotels". (The WP article w:Hotels in Istanbul does have an interesting history of hotels in the city and it is a pity that we can't mention it in Istanbul but...) AlasdairW (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on the problems with a redirect. I agree: This article should be merely deleted, with no redirect, for the reason you state. I've edited my post above accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some districts of Istanbul are a little thin on sleep listings, so the names from this list might be a starting point. Otherwise, the only salvagable material I can see is the picture of the atrium of Çırağan, which may be considered iconic for the city. Vidimian (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If all else fails, I can just take it into my own userspace, and slowly work them into the districts of Istanbul as listings as much as I can. Vidimian (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there is a User:ArmandoPierre at Wikipedia, one who hasn't created a user page yet. Vidimian (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only information that is useful here I think is the names of the hotels, which I guess don't need an attribution whatsoever to anywhere. Little other details are available in the table anyway, which are easy enough to re-write in case we ever need them mentioned in listings. As for the picture of Çırağan, we use photos uploaded to Commons all the time, and let the Commons page handle the attribution issues. Vidimian (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution was already broken when the content was copied from Wikipedia to Wikivoyage by someone other then the original contributor. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/October_2015&oldid=3404681"