Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2016

Münsterland
An incredibly empty outline article, that contains nothing more then the generic lead and a list of three cities (which until pretty much now was just two cities). I cannot see any purpose of this article other than fitting with a regional hierarchy that may or may not need an overhaul. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If you think the subregions of North Rhine-Westphalia need to be consolidated or reorganized, then the thing to do is come up with a new district scheme and try to gain consensus for it at that article's Talk page. Until then, if the existing consensus favors a certain regional breakdown, then ipso facto it also favors the existence of all respective region articles, regardless of content or lack thereof. IMO region articles (other than extraregions) should be considered delete- and redirect-proof. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Look at talk:North Rhine-Westphalia. The talk page is filled with almost nothing but region discussions. Largely inconclusive, unfortunately. And regions have been redirected in the past. Especially for German destinations. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. As Andre noted, VFD isn't the place for region discussions.  If the article doesn't fit in the hierarchy then redirect it, but I don't see a justification for deletion. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 00:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Exactly. Region articles can be redirected, but as long as the region is genuine, a deletion would be inappropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep for all the above mentioned reasons. This nomination is suprising. Even if a vfd would be appropriate to begin with, it would still require a new region division, or, in case you'd like to abandon the North Rhine-Westphalia regions entirely, a hierarchy solution for the underlying destination articles. You make it sound as if this is a last resort, as if long discussions have been inconclusive, but on the talk page I see only a single suggestion about consolidation since 2010... Why not simply propose a different and better region division? JuliasTravels (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that those discussions never drew enough eyeballs to get any result. In my count there were three inconclusive attempts, including the current one. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Speedy keep -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:TypeToColor
Was tagged as a speedy deletion candidate by user:Yurik a good while ago, with the following rationale: Do we want to keep this page now that we have Module:TypeToColor, and almost nothing is using it anymore? JuliasTravels (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What do the template and module do? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep According to the documentation " It is used in Template:marker and Template:listing.". I have just looked in the code for Template:marker and TypeToColor is there (sorry I am not sure whether it is the module or the template that is called). Even if the Module is now actually used instead, I think that this template is important for understanding how things work. Maybe the documentation should be updated to say "use the module instead". AlasdairW (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The template has been converted to a module and should thus be deleted - we don't want it used in the future, and the module documentation would be the proper place to document "how things work". It shouldn't have been tagged "speedy" since the existing links to the template should be examined and converted if necessary, but once existing references are removed there is no reason to keep it. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 21:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Check whether anything would break without the template. If it's not needed any more, there is no reason not to delete Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If a module is based on a template, there may be copyright reasons to keep the template history. I do not know whether that is the case, but just want to warn about this aspect, often relevant also for proper articles etc. --LPfi (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Module:TypeToColor per the attribution argument made by LPfi. I did a quick search and as far as I can tell none of the existing links to the template are in active use, so there should be nothing that needs to be updated before a rename could be performed. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 03:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cross-namespace redirects are usually frowned upon. I'm not even sure if such a redirect would work properly. Powers (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Could be set to   instead. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Updated to invoke the module per WOSlinker -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 07:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)