Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2022

Template:ColonialEmpires
Per Travellers' pub, it appears that there is no consensus to support the existence or use of this template. In view of that, maybe it should be deleted. I vote to delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep – there has been no consensus to use that template, but the only other alternative that has been made is one-liners. Namely, how is it serving the traveller by deleting a completely harmless template? I don't think "no consensus" is a good enough reason, as there were two users (myself and The dog2) who supported the use of the template, and many of the oppose votes were things that could be sorted out later. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 21:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I now support 's suggestion to rename the template. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep — Looking at the discussion, there aren't very compelling reasons given against the template. At least, not the way I look at it. Issues I see being raised are:
 * People have different ideas of what a colonialism entails, which leads to arguments about specific inclusions in the template as opposed to the template itself. The term is rather vague anyway, hence my suggestion to rename it to something along the lines of Imperialist Empires, which has a more defined scope and should prove to be more to-the-point name-wise.
 * Whataboutisms (why is X included but Y excluded?) and not including enough or too much: Those lacking articles aren't created at present, and redlinking them en masse is bad practise as well. Best you could do to mend that would be to document what articles are in the pipeline on the template's talk page.
 * The template isn't very travel-related, which to me, it is. These articles all link to at least a few of themselves, and from a historical point of view, there is quite some overlap in these empire articles. Speaking mostly about the Dutch colonies in specific, since that's where my own knowledge lies, most colonies were owned by the British, Danish, French, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish before or after Dutch overlordship. Say some traveller is interested in early European presence in the East Coast of the US, they will find themselves looking at the articles about the Dutch, Swedish, British, Spanish and French empires. The template serves these articles, and by extension the reader/traveller. That seemingly leaves only the option that the template isn't very travel-related because it's more about historical events and statuses quo than it is about travelling some-place, but by that logic, we can ditch half the historical travel articles we have.
 * Yes, the template is vague in its scope, as not every empire had colonies or named them as such. Retroactively you can call them colonies, but that only leads to more disagreement. It's better to rename this template to something with a more well-refined scope. As I said in that discussion, I believe Imperialism fixes that issue, with its scope (for now) being limited to exclude empires from before the high middle ages (i.e., everything pre-1200 AD) and empires that are in their hay-day or are otherwise controversial at present (hence excluding China, USSR/Russia, the USA amongst others). -- Wauteurz (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * My reasoning is that this is a vague and controversial distinction and that it's better to deal with each empire separately. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Or, as an alternative, link to each (including ancient ones) from a section of the Monarchies article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How exactly does that make sense? Being a monarchy is no guarantee for having imperialist or colonising tendencies. Being an empire is no guarantee either for having a monarch as head of state. -- Wauteurz (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Empires have an emperor, right? Colonies are another question, but I really don't understand the point about imperialism. Any regime that is expansionist is imperialist, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can explain what travel scenario you are trying to help people with. Is someone going to do a worldwide colonialism tour to see relics of every colonial empire around the world, or would it make more sense to simply link the articles from one catchall article, such as monarchies (which could be changed to monarchies and empires, if that's considered important to do)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Empires do not have an emperor by definition. Take for example the Dutch Empire. It formed during the Dutch Republic and was maintained by companies with public funding. No single person held ownership of all possessions of the empire, only the Estates General did, and it was elected and did not hold a veto over the companies. Though post-Napoleon the remaining bits of the empire were made part of the Dutch Kingdom, the Dutch monarchs (which pre-Napoleon were a family of stadtholders, which was an elected position) never called themselves emperor.
 * Imperialism is a reason for expansionism, but not vice versa. Imperialism is generally a term left for a global stage, while expansionism can work on local and global scales. The desire to enlarge a country (expansionism) might also manifest from a desire for cultural unity, border integrity and self-defence policies.
 * Well, for an example scenario, say that someone is interested in the early colonial past of the American East Coast. For that alone, you would be dealing with the colonies of New Netherlands, New Sweden, the English colonies, French holdings and Spanish Florida. Essentially, take a colonial region, and there's a few colonisers that held power there over time. If the interest is for that region, multiple colonisers are relevant most of the time.
 * Admittedly, the better approach would be to have an article for each colonial region, but I hope no-one here is mad enough to do that. An article on Colonialism would be the ideal catch-all to substitute the template, but it has already been made clear that would take a lot of careful and factual writing, and probably isn't worth the hassle. A catch-all for Empires (or European empires in specific?) could work as well for replacing this template, but making Monarchies into Monarchies and empires is an unnecessary compromise for the Monarchies article the way I see it. -- Wauteurz (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Colonial North America would be a fine topic for an article, thus solving the issue of how to cover all the different colonial powers that ever had holdings here, and British Raj could have some minor coverage of French, Portuguese (etc.) colonialism in India, although French colonialism in India is covered by French Colonial Empire and Portuguese colonialism is covered in Portuguese Empire and articles about Goa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu and the outline-level Cape Route, with a very brief mention in Kozhikode. I don't know what to think about an article about empires. Is there a clear distinction between empires and monarchies, even given that empires don't have to be under absolute rule? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe an article about colonialism does make sense, after all, providing that we keep it brief, descriptive, and inclusive of ancient colonialism by the Phoenicians, Hellenistic Greece and the Romans. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

But places that were colonised by multiple powers have often have colonial buildings in different styles reflecting that heritage. For instance, Malacca in Malaysia has Portuguese, Dutch and British colonial buildings because of its history of being colonised by all three countries. If you go to Tainan in Taiwan, there are both Dutch and Japanese colonial buildings. And in China, the cities often were split up between different colonial powers, so you can find British, American, French and Japanese colonial buildings in Shanghai for instance, while Dalian, which was a Russian colony before becoming a Japanese colony has both Russian and Japanese colonial buildings. So visitors to these destinations could very well be interested in the legacies of multiple empires in a single trip. And even in Europe, a visitor to Norway could certainly be interested in seeing the relics of both Danish and Swedish rule. The dog2 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep — I created it because I think it is a useful tool for navigating between articles of the different colonial empires. These articles are not meant to be treatises on imperialism, but about places you can go and see the legacy of having been part of the empire in question. The dog2 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the point of keeping a navbar template, when the discussion in the Pub has produced a consensus or near-consensus against using it, and there is no agreement as to what to use it for? I think this is a ridiculous contradiction. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The point of keeping the navbar template is that it does what it's supposed to: Link between relevant and related articles, and it does that job just fine. Furthermore, the template is already in use in all articles it links to, so it seems it's quite clear what it's to be used for.
 * What the discussion in the pub is about more than anything is people opposing it per its phrasing, scope, or on what is and isn't included. Opposing or outright deleting a template is not a suitable response to a template being incomplete or otherwise flawed, and I believe that I, as well as others here voting to keep, tend to think more in terms of what the template can offer when these shortcomings are fixed. In which case, there's a large chance of it proving to be helpful. -- Wauteurz (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete because I don't think this is useful to any travelers. The job of templates is not to "link between relevant related articles"; the job of templates is to serve the traveler.  A traveler might think "Hey, I'm going to Japan, and I'd really like to know about Japanese food, history, imperialism, etc." but nobody is logically going to think "Hey, I'm going to Japan, and I'd really like to know more about colonies established by a completely different country on a completely different continent."  This isn't logical for travelers.  (It's perfectly logical for encyclopedias.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Japan is a bit of an outlier here, but that may not be the case for something like Swedish and Danish colonialism, or Spanish and French colonialism. It's perfectly logical depending on which empires you pick. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 06:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that you agree that it is not really logical for travelers to be interested in the complete list. The "perfectly logical" ones IMO ought to be linked directly, preferably in a sentence that gives the traveler to (e.g.,) Sweden or Spain (or their former colonies) some reason why they should care about Danish or French colonialism, respectively.  The less-than-logical links (e.g., implying a connection between Spanish and Japanese colonies) should be omitted entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I know Japan is not a Western country, but it was through contact with the West that Japan got the idea of building a colonial empire, which made Japan the only non-Western country to build a colonial empire in the traditional European sense. Russia can in a sense be considered a Western country, while the United States is an offshoot of European civilisation. So all these different colonial empires are related in a sense. The dog2 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of them are very well interwined. Ghana for one, has many colonial fortifications by six different colonial powers (Bradenburg-Prussian, British, Danish, Dutch, Portuguese, and Swedish). Others like Eastern Canada (Ontario and east that is) have a lot of British and French colonial architecture, and really, this list goes on. The only empire that doesn't interwine with other empires is the Japanese Empire, as their time in Indonesia was short-lived. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Even Japan's colonial empire is intertwined with those of the Western powers. Japan took over the Russian concession in Dalian after winning the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War. Also, Japan took over some of the German colonies in the Pacific and the German concession in Qingdao after the Germans lost World War I, since Japan was part of the Allies. And those colonies that Japan took from the Germans in World War I became American colonies after the Japanese lost World War II. The dog2 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All of which is totally appropriate information for an encyclopedia, or a history book. The idea that Japan got some of its expansionist ideas from watching European countries does not change the fact that The traveller comes first, and it does not change the fact that the traveller to Spain does not need a link to Japanese colonial empire, and the traveller to Japan does not need a link to Spanish Empire. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And all those things could be covered most efficiently in the guides to those cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * re WhatamIdoing's comment. As I mentioned, Japan is a bit of an exception here, but apart from the Japanese empire (and the Ottoman, but that is not a colonial empire), there aren't any other examples I can think of.
 * Honestly, this seems like change for the sake of it. Why are we pointlessly arguing about a potentially useful template that benefits travelers? SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 06:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because we don't think it's useful or really appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The dog2 and I have already explained cases of how this template helps travelers and it is much better than having a bare outline article on colonialism. Also, how many links are you going to break by deleting this template? Sure, it's not many in this case, but the scepticism on templates on this wiki is something that I've found very problematic for quite a long time. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 06:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any convincing use case; I think that inline in-context links or text or listings in destination articles work better for any of the scenarios proposed (except the abstract "a traveller wants to"). The point about breaking links is moot: our policy forbids using a template before it has been approved, except for limited example use. That use should be reversible for the policy to make any sense. –LPfi (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, my point is that one cannot just outright oppose the template, then oppose a detailed article on colonialism and dismiss the suggestions given by those who want to keep the template all at the same time. Anyway, expect me to propose a policy change in the next month or so. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One can. I haven't made up my mind about it, and I would support an article on colonialism if it were good (not an outline waiting for balanced content), but I am not convinced the template is needed, and I don't like "template creep". –LPfi (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete – after the discussion in the pub, I don't think this is realistically useful for travellers. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WhatamIdoing's above statement. Tai123.123 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete amorphous navbox templates don't serve the traveller. If our coverage of world history becomes more comprehensive, we could consider creating templates of empires by continent, which at least have a well-defined geographic scope. Gizza ( roam ) 00:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, since it is not useful to travellers. Also it is tricky to define precisely. I'd say the Germans & Americans, even the Italians, were more important as colonists than Austria-Hungary or the Ottomans, for example.
 * But then what? User:SHB2000 mentions "a detailed article on colonialism". That sounds too encyclopedic for my taste & it would require a lot of work. I'd say just add a section in Age of Discovery on the empires that came out of that (& mention latecomers like Germany & Italy) and make colonialism a redirect to that section. Pashley (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think a detailed treatise on colonialism belongs on Wikivoyage. I guess a short section about colonialism in the Age of Discovery article could be a workable compromise. And the United States should definitely be mentioned as a colonial empire since it is an offshoot of European civilisation, thus making it in a way a product of the Age of Discovery, and had overseas possessions like Liberia and the Philippines. Japan is more of an ambiguous case, because they don't have a European cultural base like the United States, the Japanese colonial empire was built based on models they absorbed form the West during the Meiji period. The reason why I included Austria-Hungary and Russia as colonial powers is because of their colonial possessions in China (and Alaska in

the case of Russia), but I would not include the Ottoman Empire. The dog2 (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When "a detailed article" on colonialism is mentioned, I fear that it would focus on travel-irrelevant details that should be on Wikipedia and would be likely to reflect the idiosyncratic views of some individual users on this site. I am not opposed to an article about colonialism and have mentioned several times what I think should and should not be in it. I don't think I need to repeat those things in this Vfd thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Creating a barebone article on colonialism and creating a policy on not to expand the article is a violation of plunge forward and against the whole spirit of Wikivoyage in the addition of content. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Plunge forward" is not a universal recommendation. Do you want to argue in Talk:United States of America or Talk:Presidents of the United States that we have to change the guidelines for editing because they violate this amorphous but avowedly limited guideline? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I feel it's unlikely travellers would look up information in this way. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 10:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I think it is more useful for readers to have a small selection of other articles linked in a "See also" section. Then we can explain the connection between the articles e.g. "like X, the empire of Y also had islands in the Z sea". AlasdairW (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Fourteen days, but no consensus to delete nor keep. Discussion left for another 7 days. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 8-3 is a clear consensus. Time to delete. Please explain why not, or I will delete within 24 hours. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 8-3 by members in good standing is a consensus. Unless you're trying to claim the votes of the 3 outweigh the votes of the 8 because you're among the 3. Come on, this is no reasonable thing to have to argue about. Concede the point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And I could use that same argument since you were the one who proposed it for deletion – but if it was to be deleted or kept, it should be deleted or closed by someone who has not voted in this discussion. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 23:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no such rule. Please stop engaging in this discussion. I'd say concede in good grace, but that ship has sailed now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no such rule on this wiki and I'm well aware of that, but a) you cannot ask someone to stop engaging in a discussion and b) when there is a mixed opinion, the nominator shouldn't be the one to also close it. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 23:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can ask you to concede a point you don't have and observe that you no longer have the chance to do so in good grace. You can instead continue the recriminations if you prefer. I'll stop commenting for now, but if no-one else has anything to say, I will delete this tomorrow, which is already a day later than going by the books. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Result deleted. Ground Zero (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Winter sports in Australia
There are a few issues with this article. I have been thinking for sometime to create an article called Winter in southeastern Australia, or Winter in New South Wales, ACT, Victoria and Tasmania, so if I do feel like creating it, I suppose this can be merged, but until then, it remains too encyclopedic. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 04:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The scope of the article seems to be only about snowsports, not rugby or Australian rules football, both of which are far more popular than snowsports. However, this can easily be fixed by renaming it to Snowsports in Australia
 * 2) A list of ski resorts is more on the scope of an encyclopedia than a travel guide


 * This doesn't look like a deletion request. Why is it here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a deletion request. I only vote to merge it if I feel like creating those topics, but I'm not very knowledgeable about it (so I probably won't create it), and that is why I want to delete this encyclopedic topic article. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 07:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The listings for New South Wales are instructive for people who want to ski and could serve as examples for the other listings, so I'm reluctant to support deletion instead of merging the useful content somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Kosciuszko National Park for NSW? (which can be done without using the article) SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like the listings go beyond that park. Would merging some of the information to Snowy Mountains work? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Which ones aren't in the park though? Alternatively, we could merge this entire thing into Australian Alps. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 21:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first 3 listings don't say they're in the park. If they are, yeah, that merge is fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just noticed that the article doesn't say so (but the respective articles do). That would resolve NSW, Victoria and the ACT, while the two Tasmanian ski resorts are already mentioned in Tasmanian national parks. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 01:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It could be renamed to Skiing in Australia. As it stands, it doesn't even cover other sports played on snow and ice like snowboarding and ice skating. Gizza ( roam ) 00:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaGizza Agree. A quick look on Wikipedia also shows that many Victorian destinations (plus the one in Country ACT) are missing as the article currently stands. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 06:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Made a start to Kosciuszko National Park. Now just the Victorian ones left. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this article is useful as it is. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 10:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It's more than 14 days now, but there isn't one agreed solution here. I disagree it's useful as a list of ski resorts are better found on Wikipedia, especially when many are missing. Based on this discussion, there are four options: I personally favour merging to Australian Alps, as it's easier for information to be in one place rather than scattered across multiple articles. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and do nothing about it
 * Merge to Australian Alps
 * Rename to Skiing in Australia as per 's suggestion
 * Delete.


 * Merging doesn't require a consensus here; instead, this thread should be closed as a keep and then you should ask for a consensus on the article's talk page to do the merge and redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Result: Not deleted. What else to do to the article can be discussed further on its talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)