Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2021

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← July 2021 Votes for deletion archives for August 2021 (current) September 2021 →

Redirects in non-latin scripts

Wikivoyage:Naming_conventions#Romanization says all article names should use Latin script, albeit extended Latin (not just ASCII) with accented characters, plus 'a small number of additional characters, such as the Icelandic "þ" and "ð" or German "ß"', allowed only in redirects.

There's quite a long discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2014-2019#Non-latin_scripts_in_article_names with a consensus that non-Latin redirects should go. It includes a link to find the ones we now have; there are about 20, mostly in Chinese characters but a few others.

In my opinion, speedy delete all. Pashley (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" Yes Done. Pashley (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created in 2013 with the text

"Juquiá is in the South Coast of São Paulo."

There is still no other information for travellers. Portuguese Wikivoyage does not have an article on this Brazilian town of 18,000 people, and English and Portuguese Wikipedia have no information that suggest that this small place has anything interesting to offer. I think it does not warrant an article per Wikivoyage:What is an article?, and I don’t think that Wikivoyage is going to be able to provide any useful information for travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obvious place to which to redirect this article, and even if there were, there is nothing we could say about the town in the redirect article that would be useful for travellers. I have nominated this to test the willingness of contributors to delete real places.
Also, this article was never linked from the region article. We could list it in the region article, but with no travel information about it, what would be the point? Ground Zero (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Redirect to Miracatu, which is only a few miles away. We should add markers for the destinations in that region to make sure this is the closest redirect target.
If there weren’t nearby redirect targets, I would support deletion, but as other destinations are nearby, redirecting seems reasonable. Alternatively, if one’s up to the task, that valley could be made a rural area article and the existing articles merged into that one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up the issue that some contributors have raised that someone looking for information on Juquiá will be redirected to Miracatu, which will say nothing more about Juquia than that the article also covers Juquia. I don't know what todo about that. Ground Zero (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to agree with you, but the Miracatu article lists places as far away as 40 km (25 mi), so including Juquiá within that area seems reasonable. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a listing, redirecting makes sense, and I withdraw the AfD nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I don't agree with the current policy, but as there is no consensus in reach to change it, I abstain from interfering. In this case I suppose keeping the article might make sense. –LPfi (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: article was merged and redirected to Miracatu. Ground Zero (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template's acronym was "Talk page stalker" but the wording was changed to "talk page oversighter" per Ikan Kekek's objection to the use of the word "stalker." But I still oppose the inclusion of this template on the website for a number of reasons.

  • The objections made by others at User talk:SHB2000
  • A lack of consensus support
  • Ambiguous meaning
  • Phrase can be spelled out without use of complex formatting procedure or wiki code
  • The introduction of the concept of oversight of talk page discussion, which disrupts the concept of Plunge forward and may cause some to hesitate to raise opinions on other's talk pages
  • The reduction of what could be a serious accusation to informal use

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done I realize that I'm losing in the arguments to keep this template, nor with the use of the word "stalker" so speedily deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This redirect makes no sense. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom redirects

Do we really need the redirects:

*United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Type "Unit" in the search box and you'd get United Kingdom. There's no need for all this extra mess. (0 page views) [kept per consensus]

Reasons stated above. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have an unclear decision (it's a bit early though, but still) on whether to delete or keep. There's Pashley, tt!, GZ and myself who are leaning towards a full delete, and there's SelfieCity who's going for a part delete, but also brings a valid point about the Isle of Man as well. Until Ground Zero brought this up, I was unaware that it was done by a user who might get banned from redirects soon. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I don't think that's relevant, nor that we should judge these redirects based on who created them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The contributor is not relevant at all, and I agree with you here, but the Isle of Man and other dependencies are somewhat important. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not that confusing though? Doesn't the target article explain the status of the Isle of Man? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the two that everyone seems to agree should go.
Only United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is even worth discussing. I'd delete it too but will not object if others want to keep it. Pashley (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, if it’s either delete all three or keep all three, I’d lean toward deleting all three. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us would keep all three, but I don't think it's an all-or-nothing choice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, per my comment above. It’s just that I’m seeing most support either deleting or keeping all three, so I’m clarifying my stance leaning toward a delete. But I think it makes sense for official names to be redirected as official names are used in many documents and situations. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But yet we've already decided that we don't want redirects for official names like 中华人民共和国 (PR China). And let's not sanction creating redirects like "Serenissima Repubblica di San Marino" or even "Most Serene Republic of San Marino". Official names that aren't likely search terms are of no use here. If we keep "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", then someone will use that as a justification for creating other "official name" redirects. This isn't an encyclopedia. Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects in non-Latin writing systems, no, but why is it worth taking the time to debate the others? I'd certainly be fine with Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea as redirects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And when there is a Democratic People's Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that needs disambiguation from the UKGBNI, I'll agree with you. I just don't see what role official long-form names that are not used by travellers play in a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between advocating the creation of a redirect and spending time arguing for its deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We should decide if we want these redirects or not, rather than making it easy for random editors to create them, and hard for long-term editors to delete them. Ground Zero (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to think that redirects that aren't likely to cause any harm, offense, controversy or confusion should be kept by default. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think we have any Manx editors, people from the Isle of Man will be flabbergasted to hear that they are part of Britain and Northern Ireland, and it's why I'm leaning towards GZ here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per my earlier comment, I'm with Ikan. Nurg (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, so then there are 7 more days of discussion, and then if there is no consensus to delete, they would be kept. Should we separate out the terms we lack consensus for and ping everyone, or are the opinions expressed above clear enough? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the terms are Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Britain and Northern Ireland. I wouldn’t think opinions have changed, so presumably if nothing much changes in seven days, these two redirects will be eligible for keeping as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have six votes to delete and five votes to keep. So are we extending this for another 14 days? (not to forget this has already dragged on for ages) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's what the rules say, but we have already spent too much time talking about deleting a few redirects. There is no consensus to delete, and no likelihood that one will develop in another 14 days. Although I'm in favour of deletion, I think we should close this discussion down. If someone believes strongly enough in deleting, they can try again to get a consensus 12 months from now. Ground Zero (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest majority rule at this point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus is not a majority." per Wikivoyage:Consensus. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: No consensus. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like a notable airport to me, and it is only a single terminal airport, and thus not meet our airport criteria. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have any single terminal airport articles in the first place! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge to Samarinda, no deletion and IMO, no need for a discussion here. 140.213.68.210, look at Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition#Article criteria, Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition#Small and medium sized airports and Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition#Guidelines as to when an airport deserves an article. Single-teminal airports never get their own article on this site, unlike on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and therefore covers every airport in the world, or pretty much so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Speedily merged. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus is not a majority." per Wikivoyage:Consensus. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a spelling mistake, because technically Victor Harbor is spelled as "harbor", not "harbour". SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given that it's in Australia, most people would expect the Commonwealth spelling, so the redirect seems appropriate and prudent. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also an FYI, but my pageviews tool says it only has one pageview over the last 365 days. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. No reason to delete. Keep as a redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ikan Kekek. Pageviews has no bearing on whether an article is kept whatsoever. We could theoretically have very popular articles on topics that out of scope for a travel guide while there are still many travel destinations which unfortunately hardly get any views because because of the SEO setback we're still facing 8 years post-fork. Gizza (roam) 04:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So Nurg, per "A perfectly good redirect", are you saying a spelling mistake is a perfectly good redirect? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, now! You really think this is an unlikely spelling? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Nomination withdrawn. Can't make my argument here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2021&oldid=4920964"