Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2013

File:Ladistricts.jpg
This is a google map with an overlay. It is said to be "Non-free because overlay of a Googlemap". It should be possible to create a similar file with a free map. Therefore fair use is not possible. --MGA73 (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is only used to show proposed districts in discussion at Talk:Los_Angeles, and obviously the intent would be to use a free map when the discussion is settled. Is that use OK, or should it go immediately? Pashley (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep until the discussion is over: Nominator is being too hasty here. I think this probably falls under exemption doctrine Pur ple back pack  89    23:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep until the discussion at LA is over: per Purplebackpack89 and Sandy.-- A l i c e ✉ 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless is can be clearly shown that it falls under fair use or some other copyright exemption. Google have "Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google ..., you must not: (a) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof."
 * I do not consider "I think this probably falls under exemption doctrine" sufficient to justify keeping an image that apparently violates copyright. Pashley (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In fact Deletion_policy has among the reasons for speedy deletion:
 * "Images that are blatant copyright violations from commercial, governmental, and non-commercial sites that clearly attest copyright. Examples include copyrighted maps and commercial PR materials. The deleting admin must provide the source URL."
 * So is this actually a speedy? Pashley (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. Copyvio.  --Inas (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Deleted. Perhaps the slowest "speedy delete" on record? Pashley (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Topeka/Bikeways/Randolph Avenue

 * Delete. This is a list of bike routes, which doesn't meet What is an article.  Originally tagged "experimental", but it has not seen any further updates or clarification as to its purpose from the author. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Topeka/Bikeways/Randolph Avenue/Section1/Start

 * Delete. This is a list of bike routes, which doesn't meet What is an article.  Originally tagged "experimental", but it has not seen any further updates or clarification as to its purpose from the author. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Achakanye Falls

 * Delete. Have added information to Thirthahalli. —The precedingcomment was added by Traveler100 (talk •contribs)


 * Policy is to merge and redirect anywhere that is either a real place (not a hotel or restaurant, though) or a likely search term. This is both; you have done the merge, so do the redirect and it is over.
 * It is not necessary to list such places here; just merge and redirect them. That is quick and easy and does not require admin privileges.
 * See How to redirect a page if necessary. Pashley (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because this title has an edit history needed to attribute content which was kept for the merged page, "merge and delete" is not an option (unless you keep the contributor list somehow). Merge and redirect &mdash; and say in the edit summary where the content came from and where you moved it to &mdash; is the best way to handle pages from which some content was kept. K7L(talk) 22:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: Merged and redirected &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Description
It was established on the talk page that this is a remnant of the RDF project, which has now been closed and declared historical. For that reason, the template has no use. JamesA >talk 14:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It does nothing (the RDF payload is commented out) but is currently still transcluded from multiple pages, including the main page. An admin will need to remove it from any fully-protected pages. K7L (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: Deleted &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator.-- A l i <font color="#00CCFF">c <font color="#00EEFF">e <font color="#FF3333">✉ 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

El Gouna
LtP: I only indicated that El Gouna is imho similar to WDW in it's kind (definitely not its quality and the concept). My fear is, if we pass El Gouna, then Orascom will add all 50+ resorts they have, then Club Med et al will follow and finally we will have hundreds of promotinal articles of resorts. I accept that people make holidays in resorts but imho only the major exceptions (like WDW) should be granted an article because they are a destination themself. If we broaden the policy that every resort can have it's article, then good night Southern Europe. Every SEO/Marketing guy will blow up their resort to relevance. El Gouna is in essence only 17 hotels built next to another. It's a bit like Madinat Junmeirah in Dubai, where five hotels have been built together and now label themself as an tourist area. I'm pretty sure we are going to regret it, if we don't stop. WDW ist special because of it's size, varierty and history. El Gouna is a bath tub for Europeans. jan (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete El Gouna is a real estate development of Orascom (which wrote the article in essence) and includes ten hotels. It's population are red sea tourists and not a real city/town. I don't like the promotional aspect to Walt Disney Park has articles, too. jan (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What the heck does this have to do with our Walt Disney World star article? LtPowers (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing, was just a comparison because part of WDW is a resort, too. jan (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is written in a heavily promotional style and is nothing like our star article Walt Disney World. That said, it's a real place that actual tourists might visit, so I can't see any legitimate reason to delete it.  LtPowers(talk) 13:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * LtP: You seem somehow offended and my comparison was not designated to annoy you. I guess tourists can only visit them if they stay in the resort or as day guests. Imho the article is borderline because beside the promotional language, it is a bit like an amousement park. As i know that you have a broader definition of what could be an article then i do, i started the discussion here. jan (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you seemed to indicate that you did not like the article Walt Disney World, so you might understand why I was annoyed. I still am not clear why you want to delete El Gouna; it's a real place, and travelers can stay there, yes?  LtPowers (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WDW is its own captive incorporated municipality, Lake Buena Vista FL. K7L (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It easily passes the wiaa test. That the town is purpose-built for tourism shouldn't really matter—if people go there for one reason or another, we should have an article. The article badly needs a re-write, I'd agree, but that's entirely unrelated with this vfd. Vidimian (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, for Vidimian's reasons. Pashley (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: Keep &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:UNESCO World Heritage sites
I'm unsure about this one... UNESCO World Heritage List is a valid topic, but creating a category for sites on that list doesn't work well as most of our articles cover not sites but destination cities or regions. At least a few park articles might fit the category, as might the Rideau Canal itinerary, but when these are designated in cities the UNESCO tag normally applies to a small, specific historic district (such as Vieux-Québec, the walled "old town" within Quebec City) or landmark, not the entire city. This means that, unlike Wikipedia, we don't have (and won't have) a full article for most of the places on the UNESCO list as they're just part of some larger city. K7L (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm confused by categories. Is there somewhere where the need for and use of categories is explained? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories is the policy in effect. Although a few categories have crept into use for maintenance purposes, this isn't one of them.  LtPowers (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If we are going to enforce current policy, there are quite a few categories that are being created and used that need to be deleted, and it's happening so much that it looks like we'll need to play Whack-a-Mole. Perhaps this should be discussed further in Wikivoyage Talk:Categories, though. In any case, based on current policy, this particular category should be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - In its current form, the category should be deleted. Though I believe that what could be useful is a category including all articles that describe or have a listing for a UNESCO site. It may be worth sticking an icon in the top-right corner as well, so users know that within that destination there is a UNESCO site. Although that kind of idea may be worth discussing elsewhere. <font color="#4682b4">JamesA  <font color="#191970">>talk 14:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see what this category could possibly hold for us that the UNESCO World Heritage List does not already have. If there is a town/city with a World Heritage Site that is not currently part of the list, it should simply be added (I recently did this with Japan's Kumano Pilgrimage sites). That World Heritage Site could actually probably use its own article as a Travel Topic, since there are so many sites and pilgrimage trails scattered about a large area. If it ever gets one, that should be linked on the list as well.

Result: Deleted. AHeneen (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Palace of Wonders.jpg
The file is tagged as a derivative work of artwork (sign). Unused so should be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: If this were to be used, what article would it be used in? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Image page says it is in Washington DC. Pashley (talk)
 * Might it be needed in a district guide for DC? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. I removed it from the guide, as this establishment and its direct successor (to my great sadness) have closed for good. Instead of an bar filled with eccentrics, sword swallowing bartenders, fire dancers, and burlesque acts, I assume we'll have a Contemporary Chinese restaurant dimly lit with sleek minimalist decor in shades of red and black... --Peter Talk 02:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: Speedy Delete &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Zachodniopomorskie
Article Zachodniopomorskie was moved twice ending up at West Pomeranian Voivodeship but articles with isPartOfreferencing Zachodniopomorskie were not updated. I have not done that. The category Zachodniopomorskie can now be deleted.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: Speedily deleted – sumone10154 ( talk ) 23:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Chilean Extreme South
Region Chilean Extreme South was moved to Patagonia (Chile). Have now correct the breadcrumb IsPartOf entries of articles pointing to the redirect page. Can now delete this category. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. AHeneen (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox settlement

 * Delete. I don't see this linked anywhere, and there is no discussion about why it is needed, so I think it can be safely deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - Mistakenly created by an IP, I think. Should be deleted per policy that templates must have reasoning explained on the talk page, but the IP has seemingly disappeared. <font color="#4682b4">JamesA  <font color="#191970">>talk 11:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as broken. The content is not a template but an attempt to invoke the template, done in such a manner as to be detected as an endless loop. In general, these infobox settlement, infobox country templates duplicate quickbar but something which never did work is of no use. K7L (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: Delete - <font color="#4682b4">JamesA  <font color="#191970">>talk 03:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Central Pacific
The region article was renamed from Central Pacific to Central Pacific (Costa Rica). Have now edited the ispartof of articles referencing it.--Traveler100 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Deleted. AHeneen (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Legend

 * Delete. This template was an experiment used only in Grande São Paulo, but there doesn't seem to be any explanation as to why Template:Regionlist (which is the standard way of displaying regions) wasn't used instead. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons, and is Template:Trim related? It is also used only in the Grande São Paulo article and was created by the same user. Texugo (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: Delete - Per Using MediaWiki templates. Experimental templates require rationale on the talk page, which is not required. No consensus was reached (or sought) for its use. Template's purpose is covered by Template:Regionlist already. <font color="#4682b4">JamesA  <font color="#191970">>talk 03:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Marshrutka
I'm not totally sure what to do with this article. I think it falls outside our scope? Else we could also start articles about tuk-tuks, rickshaws, etc. Or is this wanted? Globe-trotter (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I am normally pretty liberal about keeping articles, but I don't think we need an article about a type of bus. If it develops into something that is useful I'll change my vote. - Tom Holland (Xltel) (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete My feeling is that it makes more sense to describe this type of transportation in the context of a place where it's used, rather than on some free-standing basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into Ukraine and redirect; that makes it easy for someone who wants link to it from the Kiev article or wherever. Pashley (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Hey guys, it was me who created the page. I think it is a relevant topic, as marshrutki are a region-specific kind of transportation with its own code of conduct and other things which are good to know for travellers. Another reason is that these things (how to behave in m. and so on) are repeated in all articles about Ukrainian cities (please have a look e.g. Kiev, Poltava, Donetsk). It is much more efficient to have it as a separate article. Dlituiev (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not really a region-specific kind of transportation—you'll find it through much of the world, albeit with different names. "Marshrutka" is the name used throughout most of the former Soviet Union. --Peter Talk 00:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Partially agree: it is not specific to Ukraine, but still region-specific: for the former Soviet Union. You'll not find something like marshrutka in any land of the Western Europe though, to my humble experience.Dlituiev(talk) 00:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll find it everywhere in Africa and much of Latin America, albeit with local names. And it's exactly the same thing. --Peter Talk 00:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Might be. But for a West European who have not ever seen such a thingy, and for whom there is whether public transport or taxi, it is a valuable piece of travel information. Just make search 'marshrutka' and you'll see how many articles pop up: 208 excluding my article! That's why it is worth to make a separate article.Dlituiev (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If we could move this content to a more general article about public transport vehicles that travel a fixed route, picking and dropping off people when they shout at the driver (and coming up with a good name), that would be ideal. We could then go over different names, and any differences in operation, when/if there are any—they're really remarkably similar except for quality (Sierra Leone "marshrutki" seem like they're held together with some gum and string). --Peter Talk 09:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

* Keep. These things are quite common, and the rules for using them are often kinda the same. Just finding the right name for the article is the key. --Inas (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment We could really use a guide to bus travel. This would be a good redirect. AHeneen (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Inas. Since these kind of busses are in use around the world, it might be good to find a general name for this article which could list the different locations and forms of busses, rules, etc. <font face="AR Cena" color="black">INeverCry 18:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep. I have no idea whether as a separate article, a redirect to a section of Ukraine, to a new article on this sort of thing in multiple countries, or to a section of an overall "bus travel" article &mdash; but it should be kept in some form. Pashley (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Present version of this article is nearly empty, but even if we have more information, it will be specific to some region. The rules of using "marshrutka" (pay when you enter or pay when you leave, stop on request or stop on designated bus stops only) are not uniform over Russia or Ukraine. It makes no sense to collect this kind of information in one article. It only belongs to individual city articles. Finally, "marhsrutka" in the city and "marshrutka" between the cities are two completely different stories. Which one do we plan to describe? --Alexander (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you make a good point that there isn't much to say about this in general, and that local particulars belong in local articles. But I think that points towards merging this into a Bus travel travel topic, rather than outright deleting it. I'll come off the fence and vote. --Peter Talk 05:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect into Bus travel. --Peter Talk 05:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into Bus travel. I agree with Peter's logic.--Texugo (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't say I understand Peter's reasoning. If we accept Alexander's reasoning that the diversity of rules makes this article difficult to sustain, a bus travel article will surely have this same problem multiplied.  Possibly not a single thread of commonality to hang by?  To me, marhsrutka are quite a foreign concept.  Even pointing out the different types, different methods of payment and differing stopping patterns offers some insight.  I don't mind placing this info in a bus travel article.  My fear is that this will be a subsection of a bus travel article that will end up being how to travel by Greyhound across North America.  Not sure it belongs there. --Inas (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Explaining the basics of bush taxis, marshrutkas, whatever (which do the exact same things—stop and pick up on command, fixed route, few fixed stops) shouldn't really be that hard. Anything really particular, like what to shout in which language when you want to get off, should be in the city article. Inter-city and intra-city is the only major difference, and I think two paragraphs would cover this type of transportation. We already have Intercity bus travel in the United States and United States of America, so I either don't agree with or don't understand your point about the article being dominated by that information. --Peter Talk 02:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So, it's been more than 14 days and there are 3 votes to delete, 2 votes to keep, 2 votes to keep/rename, & 3 votes to merge/redirect (2 to Bus travel, 1 to Ukraine). Consensus is against deleting, but what should the page be renamed as (or redirected to)? AHeneen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure it is legitimate to vote for a merge/redirect to an article that doesn't actually exist?--Inas (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To break the gridlock, I propose the following:


 * 1) Add information about the Mashrutka to the Get around#By bus sections of both Russia and Ukraine. I have already done so, and it seems to me that even if there is more information that can be added that is useful to the traveller, it will be at most, a paragraph or so. The Russia and Ukraine articles can easily accommodate the information. Yes, we are duplicating the information, but this disadvantage is outweighed by the fact that we are putting information where the traveller will look for it.
 * 2) Turn the Mashrutka into a disambiguation page of sorts. Just have a couple of sentences about what it is, and link to the Russia and Ukraine pages.

Redirecting to a Bus travel page won't make sense. While Bus travel is a valid travel topic, the Mashrutka is actually unlike most bus travel. We could potentially have a travel topic about hop-in hop off vans, but I don't see that to be very useful.

Does this sound like a plan? &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I edited the Russia and Ukraine articles, because the information you put there was mostly wrong or outdated. I don't care about the Marshrutka article (be it redirect, or diambig, or something), but its content should be purged ASAP. Editors should put specific information into individual articles about cities and countries. --Alexander(talk) 12:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have purged the Marshrutka article of pretty much all content and just left a note to redirect the reader to the two articles. I am torn as to whether we should use the disamb tag or leave it as a travel topic. &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Make Disamb. Ravikiran and Alexander have the best solution here, and I've made it a disamb. --Inas (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I am calling this a consensus and archiving this discussion. &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Caribbean Costa Rica
Region article moved from Caribbean Costa Rica to Limón (Costa Rica). Have not fixed the isPartOf parameters of cities in that region. Can now delete.--Traveler100 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: Speedily deleted – sumone10154 ( talk ) 20:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Mamilla hotel
Articles about hotels are not wanted - see What does not get its own article? in What is an article?.AlasdairW (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted - Texugo (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Db-meta, Template:Db-copyvio
There's no need for these extra deletion templates copied from Wikipedia. Template:Delete is sufficient. – sumone10154 ( talk ) 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Outcome: Deleted &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. We also have Template:copyvio and Template:speedy. Pashley (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Strawberry Fields memorial.jpg
The file is tagged as a derivative work of artwork. Unused so should be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

*Keep. At least it should be kept until we decide whether it's better than the current Strawberry Fields photo in Central Park. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter; if it's better, then it should be uploaded to Commons, as File:Strawberry Fields memorial at Central Park, NYC.jpg is. I've nominated that image for deletion on Commons, by the way, to get some opinions on whether the artwork is copyrightable or not.  There's a whole category, commons:Category:Strawberry Fields memorial.  LtPowers (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So is the issue whether the photograph is copyrighted or whether the work pictured is copyrighted? Because if it's the latter, it can't be in Commons and should be subject to the exemption rule and kept locally, I thought. What am I missing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per the exemption doctrine, unused photos will be deleted. --Peter Talk 02:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply But I'm suggesting maybe we should use it instead of the photo that's currently in use in Central Park. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then put it in the article already ;) --Peter Talk 05:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep pending result of your nomination for deletion on commons: K7L (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems a straightforward application of our deletion policy.  --Inas (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. If we delete it, we have no opportunity to consider whether to substitute it for the current photo in Central Park. Unless there is a question of the copyright of the photo itself, deleting it now is a waste. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But it's our explicit policy to delete it. And we don't need a month to debate the addition of a photograph to an article—if you want it there, just add it! --Peter Talk 16:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I just compared them back to back, and the current file is better, so I'm OK with deleting this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: Deleted - Policy states that unused images should be deleted, and this is a duplicate of a similar, used photo at. If that Commons file is decided to be deleted, it should be reuploaded here, although that deletion request doesn't look like it will pass. <font color="#4682b4">JamesA  <font color="#191970">>talk 02:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

+
If the above passes the muster, this should go. If it doesn't, then it should go anyway. --Inas (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - And yes, this should be deleted no matter what. Not a likely search term.Texugo (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. --Peter Talk 03:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)