Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2015

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

An empty outline region with - according to the article - one place worth mentioning in it. What do we keep it for? (btw. if you are wondering how I found it, I just hit "Random Page" enough ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the regional structure for Northern Mindanao. Removing it would leave Iligan orphaned. Powers (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a real place (see w:Lanao del Norte) so policy is to avoid deletion — expand it into a real article, merge and redirect, or just leave it and hope someone eventually fixes it.
In this case, I think a redirect one level up the hierarchy to Northern Mindanao is the right solution. The article is pretty much empty and I do not think there is a lot to say about the region anyway. Pashley (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, removing the article (including redirecting) would leave Iligan orphaned and an entire region of Northern Mindanao without a corresponding article. Powers (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at talk:Northern Mindanao Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do have regions like Northwest Afghanistan where the region covers several provincees, province articles exist only as redirects to the region, and city breadcrumbs point to the region. I think that is the way to handle Northern Mindanao, mainly because we have nothing close to enough info to do decent province articles. Pashley (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to start a related discussion at Talk:Philippines#Province_or_island_articles. Comments there would be welcome. Pashley (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage is a Wikimedia site, not a Wikipedia project. Smileys can be effectively produced in three keystrokes: :-) or two if you like: :). Whether Wikipedians think such a template is useful or not is irrelevant. Why do we need it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I (as billions another humans) smile when see this picture — of cource, in reasonable proportions. Any sign ;) or :-) or so on have another and weak influence. Surely (smile), offenders have very severe life, so, they have very stern character :-|. But, I am sure, every human soul need some cordiality. Undoubtedly, I respect deep religious feelings of Muslims and Hebrews. Nevertheless, deletion a smile from talks is destructive, IMHO, it consequences are the ISIL destructions. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 10:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
OK, I'm a Muslim or "Hebrew" and deleting this template will bring terrorists into the living room. Thanks for explaining that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how wonderful! this joke is so witty! — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 11:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed, I need only [[file:face-smile.svg|18 px]] () instead of {{Smiley}}. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 11:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Also, there's more than one admin on this site, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I need only [[file:face-smile.svg|18 px]] () instead of {{Smiley}}. Now, at the rest, what for template cruft? I can agree with this opinion, but can anybody frankly defend it in Wikipedia? — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 11:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Each Wiki has its own policies on stuff like this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and this user would do well to familiarize himself with the nature of our relationship with other WMF sites as well as our policy on civility. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would only be a matter of time before it started appearing in listings. We also have a significant number of editors and readers for whom English is not their first language. I think that things said with smileys (in any format) are more likely to be misinterpreted by readers with different backgrounds. AlasdairW (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If used frequently enough to merit having a template for it, I think it would be mere visual clutter. Plus, any argument for keeping this would apply equally to a whole range of cutesy emoticons, and we have certainly never had any need for that. Texugo (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, this one template covers scores of different smileys, depending on the parameters used. Powers (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a working alternative and the user who used it is okay with using that, I'm just as happy without it ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last time we discussed File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg (Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2014#File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg), I opposed deletion as I felt the presence of the statue was an essential part of the picture. I no longer find that to be the case, which means a picture of the station could be taken without the statue, which means we don't need to invoke fair use. Simply moving the camera a few feet left or right should provide a similar view without the statue in it.

The EDITED version is used only in the linked discussion, and while it's a much better edit than Nick wanted to take credit for, we shouldn't keep it around indefinitely. UNLESS, that is, we decided we wanted to use it as the banner on Baltimore/Midtown in place of the unedited version. But I and others have qualms about misrepresenting the view in this way.

This is a complex case, and I am quite open to being persuaded against anything I've said above.

-- Powers (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an alternative photo you're proposing to use for a banner? The fact that in theory, a different photo could be taken doesn't seem to me to be enough of a reason to delete a banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edited version could be moved to commons as the edit has removed the non-free element that caused the banner to kept local. The description would need to be changed to clearly describe the edit. AlasdairW (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Powers: It been two months since last comment made on this VfD. As far I can see, the outcome so far is in favour of keeping these images. Would you still prefer to keep this nomination open or otherwise I can archive. --Saqib (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid Ikan's reason for keeping is legally insufficient. To qualify as fair use, we need a strong justification for keeping the image with the statue visible. Since we're not using the image to illustrate the statue, but rather the building behind it, I don't see how we can justify keeping it. Powers (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second para of Understand in Baltimore/Midtown refers to "Station North Arts District". Whilst the text should probably make more reference to the statues in the area, I think that there is a justification for having a picture of a statue to illustrate the article. AlasdairW (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The statue is part of a panorama. As I said Powers, if you want to replace the banner, propose a new one. Otherwise, I oppose your proposal, which would substitute a perfectly good banner from a visual/aesthetic/informational point of view with nothing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the file is not legally available for us to use under fair-use doctrines, then it doesn't matter whether we have a replacement or not. That was my point in saying that your reason was legally insufficient. Instead of addressing that analysis, you've simply repeated your previous claim and ignored the substantive issue I raised.
Alasdair might have a point, and I'd be willing to accept that analysis if there's a consensus for it, but it seems extremely weak to me.
-- Powers (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you make this same argument before and get voted down? What has changed that warranted trying again for a different result? Propose a good new banner. Then it will provoke no controversy to replace this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] OK, everyone should please look at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2014#File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg. What's fascinating is that Powers, you argued the opposite point of view in that discussion! To wit:

Keep, as the non-free-use rationale does not depend on the artwork being specifically discussed in the article. It suffices that the image was deemed an important view of Baltimore. Powers (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And furthermore, you also argued for a highly permissive policy on Wikivoyage talk:Non-free content#wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy! Since you've apparently changed your mind to the diametrically opposed position, I'd like to know why, but I would suggest, just as I did in the previous Vfd thread on this file, that you argue about policy at Wikivoyage talk:Non-free content#wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, not on Vfd. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you read my initial comment in this section? Powers (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The camera could theoretically have been moved a few feet in 2014, too, and I don't see how that has caused you to change your entire view about the topic in general, but the rest of my remarks stand. Once this Vfd is ended: (1) Please propose a replacement for this banner at Talk:Baltimore/Midtown (I think a view from the other side of the train station would probably be better than a view from the same side that avoids its middle so as not to show the statue in question); (2) restart discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Non-free content#wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy with your new viewpoint, explaining your change of heart, and try to attain a new consensus on overall policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change my entire view about the topic in general. I now don't believe that the presence of the statue is integral to the image of the building behind it. That's specific to this specific image, not a general change in philosophy. Powers (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, I would say that this is an important view of Baltimore. I'm not opposed to replacing the banner with another banner that doesn't show the statue, but I don't think Vfd is the appropriate place to discuss that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] What do we do now, in view of this edit? See this: "This image, originally posted to Flickr, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the stated license is valid." I take that to mean there's absolutely no guarantee that it won't be subject to deletion from Commons because the sculpture is in the picture. By the way, I do think this banner is superior to the one that we've been debating in this thread, but if the sculpture is an issue, it's literally front and center in this new banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be surprised if this image was deleted at sometime on commons, but this may not happen for some time - my banner for Pittsburgh Region was deleted nearly a year after it was uploaded (it also had a sculpture in the picture). I agree that it is a better iamge, but should also be kept locally. AlasdairW (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Consensus not reached to delete the image, thus kept. --Saqib (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is disunified as a series of enclaves. I think we should trash this article and merge whatever there is into Pondicherry (in much better state). Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk, contribs) 10:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. We don't delete real places. The procedure wouldn't be to delete and redirect, but to merge and redirect. We previously had a discussion about this disunified series of enclaves, but I can't find it right now. Basically, I think that what we came up with is that it doesn't serve the traveller to have an article about Pondicherry (union territory), but rather, that there should be articles about the cities of interest to travellers, and the enclaves that are deep within Tamil Nadu should be breadcrumbed to that state. But the place to discuss this is Talk:Pondicherry (union territory), not Votes for deletion, because the chances of this article being deleted, rather than merged or truncated or something, are nil. I'd suggest replacing the Vfd tag on the article with a merge tag. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy kept; a discussion about merging these articles has been opened on Talk:Pondicherry (union territory) and should be finished there, as we don't delete articles about real places. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/September_2015&oldid=4920838"