Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion

Categories - deleted or redirected?
A new user (User:Owain) has moved Conwy (county) to Conwy (county borough), and has thoughtfully changed the category at the same time, by changing the field in each of the affected articles to the new category.

However, the old category page (Category:Conwy (county)) is now blank, and I can't remember what we do with them. Do they just get deleted, or is there some attribution reason that they need to be kept and/or redirected to the new category? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd just go ahead and delete. Attribution is something we worry about for copyright purposes, and category pages which are merely lists of articles that fall into a certain geographical grouping (and, technically, are "edited" automatically by the MediaWiki software rather than by any particular human editor) do not qualify as copyrightable material. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you. To confirm what you said, one of the drop down options of the deletion reasons is 'category renamed'.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"List one article, file or template per entry"
Should this instruction be deprecated? We've had a few bulk nominations lately, and the preference has been to nominate them all under a single entry. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Ground Zero (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The line is a good idea in theory, not in practice.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I didn't even realize we theoretically had that guideline. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Stupid crap rule. SHB2000 (talk)  08:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks like a consensus. Should I remove the line, and should it be replaced with anything? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That sentence should just be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Redlinks, blue links or black links
Regarding the Finland Proper (Vkem) outlines:

I wonder how we want real places to be handled in the case they should have articles. Redirecting a village that might be a common search term to the article where it is handled is an obvious solution, but in this case we have real places that are in fact not described anywhere. Previously they were redlinked in the region article to show that we want those articles. If the articles are created and redirected back, we will have blue links that just lead back, to the annoyance of readers. If we unlink the places, creating the article gets more difficult (and there is no hint we want those articles created, while there are several places mentioned about which we don't need articles.

Is finding the region article more difficult if the places are just mentioned in the region article, without a redirect? Search engine-wise, a redirect might get us some more traffic, but just to annoy readers coming here and finding anything specifics about the place.

Or should we make it a priority to create those articles, to avoid voids in our hierarchy? Then we shouldn't redirect real places that need articles, but create the outlines, as Vkem did. Then the only problem is that we need the content also, which then should be given priority every time a region is created.

The situation is probably different for regions that are weak outlines. For Finland Proper there is a thought-out complete structure. Some of the outlines may be hard to get featureable, but at least there should be some eat, sleep and do for each.

–LPfi (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This would be confusing. Since I'm well aware of this, I don't know how to respond to this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that a blue link that directs the reader back to the same article is a bad option.
 * I don't agree with giving priority to creating articles just because some passerby has created a link. We have thousands of articles that need more content. Allowing our priorities to be determined by a well-intentioned editor like Vkem who isn't really involved in Wikivoyage would be a mistake. And not all of these places really warrants an article. I don't think that we can say that we want an article just because there is a redlink.
 * I recently redirected an article for a bedroom community in the U.S. in which the only information that the article's creator provided was that there is a McDonalds in the community. They didn't provide an address for it though, or any other useful information.
 * With a black link, a reader who arrives at the region article via a search can at least find the place in the article and on the map, so I think this is the best result. Ground Zero (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The redlinks in the region article were carefully planned, but the intention was to create them when somebody takes the time to write them. I think changing redlinks to black links is not an improvement. Is having the redirects an improvement that weights more than the drawback of having to turn the redlinks black? Read: I am challenging the policy of not deleting redirects from real places. –LPfi (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What's a "black link"? Doesn't that just mean unlinked text? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah, that would be another way of putting it, since it isn't a link at all. Ground Zero (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protect all
I think we should semi-protect all pages listed here, in case of edit warring or vandalism. --Crocusfleur (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Which pages? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Have there been cases of edit warring or vandalism of pages nominated for deletion? Ground Zero (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * GZ has a good point here. If there's no history of vandalism (hopefully we don't jinx it) there's no need to semi-protect a page. The main page and some other critical pages, such as some template pages, are exceptional because vandals could do more damage by changing those, but in this case, without previous vandalism there is no need to semi-protect. A worthwhile thought though. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Replace the vfd archive header?
Moved from the pub I will start out by saying that I'm not a huge fan of Template:Deletion archive, which doesn't look centred, and just doesn't look right for a header. Which is probably why it was never used much, and I'm guessing half of you didn't even know this template existed.

I did some experimenting and thought a header like the header you see below might look better, with a more cleaner, neater and organised format. This can be changed anytime, so this doesn't have to be the fixed one.

The code is pretty simple to work out as well, and the month= variable is automatic. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as easy to navigate between months. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 11:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of opposition, I'm going ahead. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

One-year rule on itineraries
Based on votes on this page, are we going to abolish this rule, or are there differences about its interpretation? For the purpose of discussion the rule is at Itineraries, and here it is in full:

''Since just about any topic can be an itinerary, itineraries must either be actively worked on or achieve some level of completion to be kept. (Sufficiently famous, marked routes such as Alaska Highway or Annapurna Circuit are exempt from this rule.) As such, itineraries that have been at outline status or less for one year without being substantially edited are subject to deletion via the votes for deletion process.''

My feeling is, if we are keeping the rule, "not a personal itinerary" shouldn't be a sufficient argument for keeping an article with no specific route that is therefore not in any sense usable; just because an itinerary isn't personal doesn't mean it's "sufficiently famous". But let's talk about that.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I would oppose abolishing this rule. Otherwise, we'd end up with a bunch of itineraries which don't give much information and give no incentive to the creator to make it usable. But I don't think this rule was really enforced that much, until I just checked some random itineraries. The last major mass deletions looks like it was in 2011, more than 10 years ago. But I think we should take these on a case by case basis.


 * There's more that I have, but given the already mass overload here, I don't think we can handle that much at once. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I should also mention, that based on this reasoning "real itinerary" is not a valid reason to keep, and I'm particularly looking at the one for Nidaros Path and Mountains to Sound Greenway. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In 2011, we were overzealous in my opinion and, in the guise of deleting "personal itineraries", deleted usable articles because they weren't guide-level. I believe in being a bit liberal, in that a coherent, well-defined route can be OK, even if it's "personal". Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But tbh, these are routes which per the deletion rules, can be deleted. I'm still confused on some of the keep votes on that were added yesterday (writing this 00:05 AEST). But deleting usable routes because it wasn't guide? (please tell me if I'm missing something there. Need to get some sleep). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're missing something, it's that the usable itinerary articles that were deleted then were deemed "personal", and exceptions to the deletion policy for "personal" itineraries were given only to articles that were at guide level or higher (I don't think any were stars). Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I guess I'm too sleepy to think. But these ones that I nominated aren't personal, but just outlines that aren't famously marked. Maybe that policy needs copyediting. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "As such, itineraries that have been at outline status or less for one year without being substantially edited are subject to deletion via the votes for deletion process." That doesn't mean articles at outline status for a year or more should be deleted; it means they are "subject" via the "deletion process," which indicates that a community consensus to keep any of these itineraries doesn't run contrary to policy. I think there are some itineraries nominated that indeed should be deleted, but they are many that while indeed have been made subject to deletion via this policy, ought not be deleted due to other policies in place, such as The traveler comes first. I certainly don't support deleting any itineraries without consensus. Consensus will develop naturally to delete the useless itineraries, but many others are developing votes to keep, and this is line with current policies that require consensus to delete travel articles (excepting copyvio, of course). --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Although perhaps read the header of Category:Outline itineraries. It says

''This page is for listing itineraries that have outline status. They will be deleted if not modified for one year.''
 * –SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Categories are intended to list articles with some feature in common, and not to establish policy, so I would support removing that text from the category page. That text appears to come from before English Wikivoyage was formed. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I commented "not personal itinerary on some. I don't feel we need to set the "sufficiently" threshold particularly high. My reading has been that a famous route will have readers looking for it, and with some luck people continuing where the article creator left, and even if it takes a few years, that's really not a problem (unless the itinerary is really bad). Personal itineraries, on the other hand, need to be well described to allow anyone to continue the work (and to bother). If no one caught on while it was being worked on, or soon after, it is unlikely to attract attention later.

One reason not to keep the threshold high is that what is famous for some, is unknown to others. I didn't know about Alaska Highway or Annapurna Circuit before starting to write here. Nidaros Path, deemed non-famous by the nominator, was the prime pilgrimage route in the Nordic countries in medieval times, and is regaining popularity – but how could somebody not from Europe know that, unless into pilgrimages? I'd think many Americans wouldn't know about Way of St. James, although it is a huge thing. If some route is sufficiently famous that you'd expect there to be guidebooks about it, that should suffice. I think any Eurovelo or ERA route should qualify.

–LPfi (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think usable status should have been sufficient to keep "personal" itineraries if they had reasonable, coherent routes. In terms of the text SHB2000 quotes above, I'd propose changing it to This page is for listing itineraries that have outline status. They may be deleted if not modified for one year. May, rather than will be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but add "may be deleted [via the VFD process]" because we don't want people unilaterally deleting articles. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I reworded it to what Ikan wrote with a little bit of copyedits: They may be deleted if not modified or actively maintained for one year.. I'll write that it may be nominated through RfD in just a sec. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that addressing itinerary articles through VfD after a year is a good approach. It forces us to improve the articles if we can, or delete them if we can't. SHB2000's edits to the policy work. Ground Zero (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Sometimes there may be other solutions. Back in 200x when our coverage of China was quite spotty, I wrote "One week near Hong Kong" which was pretty much a personal itinerary. Later it became a region article, Pearl River Delta, and by now that is a decent article.
 * For real routes like Tanami Track, I do not think deletion should even be considered. Either keep it or merge it into a region article & redirect there. Pashley (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * For an example of an itinerary that was prematurely deleted (by me) but later restored & made into a decent article, see Talk:Tiger Leaping Gorge. Pashley (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * SHB2000, thanks for editing that language, but there's no such thing as "RfD" on this Wiki (and you initially confused me by using those initials on talk page threads). I will edit to Votes for deletion with a link. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops. RfD is something on meta and simple, not here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pashley, the "don't delete real places" is only for destination articles, not itineraries or topics. Oh and re Tanami Track... erm, it's not a notable track at all, but rather known as Australia's James Dalton Highway. Couldn't find any photos of this track on commons, but if Google Street Trekker does a good job in visualising that route, this is apparently the best part of the route. There's no way that's notable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Danube Cycleway deletion
I supported deletion, but I think it's worth discussing whether per Votes for deletion, the article should have been kept or deleted. At first glance, it wouldn't appear that there was a consensus to delete at Votes for deletion/September 2021. 3-2 is not an obvious consensus. And while I obviously agree that the delete arguments are stronger than the keep arguments, here is the relevant policy:


 * If there is no consensus after 14 days, allow a further 7 days for discussion.
 * If, after the additional 7 days, there is no consensus, the page should be kept – any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.

So what's the deletion argument? I think that would have to do with the definition of "consensus" - what it is and what it's not. From Consensus:


 * Consensus is not unanimity. While we should always try to find a solution that works for everyone, in practice this is not always possible.  Make sure all concerns are discussed and addressed, but consensus can still be reached even if compromises that please everyone cannot be found.
 * Consensus is not a majority. While it would be rare that consensus would be declared when the result represents a minority opinion, well-reasoned arguments based on existing policies and practice should carry more weight than a "support" comment that is unaccompanied by any sort of reasoning or justification.

I don't think anyone would say that User:LPfi's keep vote is "unaccompanied by any sort of reasoning or justification", but the argument to keep is unaccompanied by any actionable advice on how to establish the route of the now-deleted itinerary. In short, I would defer to User:SHB2000's deletion rationale. But I still think a discussion is appropriate, since a nomination for undeletion would not be successful (further quoting from Consensus):

Note that the bar for determining a consensus should be higher when changing a past consensus, so while a small majority might suffice for resolving a minor issue, a super majority backed by strong arguments should be required before changing past consensus (see also the "Status quo bias" section below).

So what do you all think?

Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The guide is little use in current shape and I have little hope of improvements in near future, so I won't contest the deletion, but IK's last point prompts consideration.


 * I now copied the VFD discussion to the article's talk page. The reason for deletion was "Per the one year rule for itineraries" and "it's been given 14 days to be worked on" I think it should be evident that if anybody starts working on the itinerary, these arguments are moot. If somebody thinks that new work can be deleted based on this VFD discussion, then we need clarification to the guidelines.


 * –LPfi (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone starts working on it, then that would not make it valid for RfD. Though, I do think the guidelines are somewhat too loose and can differ based on personal opinions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The rule for itineraries is one year; this article was given 11 years. If someone had started work on it, or indicated an intention to work on it, they should have been given time. But no-one did. I don't think another 7 days would have changed anything. Ground Zero (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * hence why I deleted it. It was 3-2, and you and Ikan had better arguments in my opinion and seemed consensus to me. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Without weighing in on whether deletion is a good idea, it is clear that there was not consensus for deletion, so per policy it should not have been deleted. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's please try to avoid using RfD, which is not a valid abbreviation on this site. Should we undo the deletion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I subconsciously use RfD when I'm not thinking properly. And technically, no we can't unilaterally undelete it as it has to go through the vfu process. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 04:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not if we decide it should not have been deleted per lack of consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * However, now given that LPfi has mentioned "The guide is little use in current shape and I have little hope of improvements in near future, so I won't contest the deletion, but IK's last point prompts consideration."
 * So really, that gives 3 deletes, 1 neutral and 1 delete, based on LPfi's earlier argument. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 04:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If so, that would be a consensus, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, sure does. Even for those like Template:Mapframe2, while there were 3 to delete, 1 comment and 1 keep, who was LPfi, as their argument was much more stronger into keeping it, hence kept. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 07:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that defensible per current policy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, the two votes that were to delete were either just a vote or "per nom". Even then, my rationale for deletion still wasn't a strong enough reason to delete, and hence kept. Not to forget that Alasdair also seemed to be leaning towards a keep as well. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Camp Chase Trail discussion
This deletion discussion has been closed with the article merged after only a day of discussion and little participation. This is contrary to policy, which calls for 14 days of discussion, and really too fast for anyone to be expected to keep up with. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I can close my nominations early if I want to withdraw my deletion nom early. In this case, I merged the info already, so I had every right to withdraw my nom. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 00:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally I agree with SHB, but in this case the closure was quick for a merger discussion which should take a few days. I would be happy with a policy change that allowed a non-deletion closure after 5 days if the nominator agrees. AlasdairW (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I support AlasdairW’s proposal to create a clear policy on this issue. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would generally support Alasair's wording, but then we run into a loophole here. Anyone can withdraw their own nominations any time they like, and anyone can merge articles whenever they want, without discussion (although it is quite suspicious when IPs do that), so all we have is two policies that contradict each other. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussions are generally encouraged before articles are merged, although it is only said to be "worthwile" in How to merge two pages.
 * A policy should have additional words including allowing withdrawal by the nominator ("oh I hadn't realised that this page is useful for..."), admins deciding that the nomination is an obvious speedy case, and cancelling requests by vandals (not seen that here, but I have seen it on Commons). AlasdairW (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge proposals can be discussed on the talk pages of the articles in question. I would oppose any kind of guideline that in any way suggests that VfD is the most appropriate place to discuss merges. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And similarly, if anyone objects to a merge, this is not the most appropriate place to address that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but there's lots of merges I've done without discussion (and does the same). Special:Diff/4308621 is an example of one of my recent uncontroversial merges. Out of about let's say 100 merges I've done, only Khancoban seemed to be a controversial one. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A merger without discussion is permitted by How to merge two pages:
 * "Unless the need for a merge is really obvious, it may be worthwhile to start a discussion before doing a merge."
 * Contributors will disagree on what is or is not "obvious". If other editors disagree with a merger, then the merging editor will have to go through the hassle of defending the merger and will be more cautious about doing it again. I have probably erred on the side of being too cautious, and I have not had objections to my mergers whether discussed or not discussed. There is a lot of clean up of old stub articles needed, and props to SHB2000 for their work in improving Wikivoyage. It is inevitable that the occasional merger will be done too precipitously, but a merger can always be undone. Ground Zero (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (It is easy, in my opinion, to show that an article shouldn't be merged — or shouldn't have been merged — by expanding an article to make it usable. That is more productive than arguing over process, IMHO.) Ground Zero (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:SHB2000/lc template
Forgive me if this has already been dealt with, as I've been away from admin stuff. The template User:SHB2000/lc has been used several times for different nominations, but has it been approved by the community? If it has, I'd expect to see the discussion either still in the Pub or archived somewhere sensible like User talk:SHB2000/lc.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Can't I use my own userspace templates in my nominations? How would this have been dealt with, if I used wikitext in the same way in my nominations? <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I realise that there's no point in arguing over a *userspace transclusion*, so I just removed it. [(redacted)] <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you're getting snarky with me about it, as I think my original question was polite and based in the policy which we're both tasked with enforcing. We have a policy about new templates that you've said you understand, and that obviously covers userspace templates too (why would they be any different when they're being used in mainspace?). Thank you for removing them when asked; hopefully, I won't have to in future.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I became passive aggressive there, and I apologise for that. But there doesn't seem to be any policy on userspace templates being used, is there? Or what'd happen if I substituted the template (which if I used let's say nominating Pomona (Queensland) for deletion and I used Pomona (Queensland) ([ edit] &middot; |talk &middot; [ history] &middot; [ links] &middot; [ watch] &middot; [ logs] &middot; [ delete]), would that be considered using templates?) <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the edit link is confusing. I would expect it to edit the discussion, not the nominated article. Why would i want to edit the article without reading it first? AlasdairW (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit link may be confusing, but there's no denying on whether the talk or history pages are useful. The page logs aren't also that important, but it can help (the only instances where I personally think its useful when its used to detect Brendan edits)
 * The delete button is also quite convenient for the closing admin. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a practice on what nominations and the discussions look like. It seems you are trying to change that practice, and while plunging forward by introducing links you find useful might be OK, if others don't thank you for the bright idea, it might be better to discuss whether we want those links and templates. Thus they should be introduced like any other templates, regardless of where they live – moved to template space if they get support, not used and possibly deleted if they don't. –LPfi (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No I am not trying to change the practice and I mainly used it for my personal use. I'm merely adding it so it's much more easier to delete it. Given that these days I'm the one who's deleting most of the articles these days, it's much more convenient to have a link that allows me to delete the article in one click.
 * And we also recently discussed that we're never deleting templates merely because it lacked community support (it'll just be moved to the user's userspace). In this case, it's already in my userspace. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Templates that are in your userspace shouldn't be used outside of your userspace, i.e. in mainspace or projectspace. It's not "your personal use" when it's being used on a community page that everyone can edit. They're not "your nominations", either; they're community nominations submitted by you for the community's consideration, and they should be made in the standard way that the community has come to expect.
 * I'm sorry, but using userspace templates in projectspace comes across to me as a rather clever (but unfair) way of circumventing a policy you don't like. We've all got to live with policies we don't like as a necessary part of editing a wiki; the alternative to editing within a community-led set of policies is we just individually pick and choose to follow the rules that suit us and ignore the ones that don't suit us. If that happens, then the whole system of collaborative editing by consensus breaks down, and our "travel guide that everyone can edit" ceases to work in the interests of travellers.
 * I'm guessing I may come across as anti-template, or maybe even anti-SHB2000's templates. But this couldn't be further from the truth; I'm pro-innovation. But first and foremost I'm interested in ensuring that policy applies to, and is observed by, everyone equally.
 * For this particular template, I agree with LPfi, and would even further say that it would be useful in a slightly modified form (i.e. removing the 'edit' button, and any others that might not be relevant) and that I would use it myself. However, my future support is conditional on this template being proposed for the community's approval in the normal way; if and when it's approved, it should be moved out of your userspace into templatespace.
 * Also, we may need to specify on Using MediaWiki templates that "If new templates fail to gain community support, they will eventually be moved to the template creator's userspace." means that those templates are not to be used outside of userspace. I thought this was pretty clear already, but apparently not...
 * All that being said, I appreciate and accept your apology above.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that an occasional editor would expect the delete link to record a "delete" vote, not take them to a page saying "Permission error". I get having such a link on Commons where the closing admin migt have to delete a list of 20 imgaes after a sinle nomination, but I don't see the need here. I also agree with TT that userspace templetes should not be used in project space, except for a single example when discussing moving the template to mainspace. AlasdairW (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point; otherwise, we'd be restricting the use of a template to a single individual, not to their userspace. Please, SHB2000, you do great work, but especially as an admin, you need to not only respect consensus but uphold it as the fundamental way this site operates in your statements and model your respect for it to other users. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I must dispute the following statement "They're not "your nominations", either; they're community nominations submitted by you for the community's consideration, and they should be made in the standard way that the community has come to expect.". First of all, they're still my nominations, since I irrevocably release my text under the CC BY-SA License, and in no way does that ever state that I'm handing over those nominations to the community. I still hold the copyright for those, and so they are not "they're community nominations submitted by you for the community's consideration" and so they're still the nominations of whoever started them. b) "the standard way that the community has come to expect.". I cannot find any place where it says that as well. So until you direct me to where that's told, then again, there's nothing saying how I should format those nominations.
 * Let's say I used a template (call it tnr for example), and it's main purpose is to get text in Times New Roman. So if I used <font face="Times New Roman" color="green"> Some text here instead of this example tnr template which would both produce <font face="Times New Roman" color="green"> Some text here . Now that plain text I was using had no templates in it, nor is a substituted template. I'll let you all decide for yourselves on how that'd be taken. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 21:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You've completely missed, or certainly failed to address, the wider points. I suggest some closer reading and reflection.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Help needed
I slushed the Puerto Rican stubs nom for now, but it's 4:12 AM and I have to wake up for work in about 5 hours, so I'd be very grateful if someone else could remove all the VfD templates from the articles in question. Please see the thread at Votes for deletion/March 2022. And thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ikan Kekek btw I'm happy for anyone to rollback my edits to those articles as it's a pretty tedious thing to do manually. However, do get some sleep first. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * vfd templates removed. –LPfi (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing them :-). SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Closure comments
There is an argument on a user page on what comments are suitable when closing a VFD thread. If I interpret SHB2000 correctly, they think any comments that don't conflict with any specific rule is OK, while IK and I disagree. See Special:Permalink/4569290.

I added the following to the instructions, to have the requested rule, and got reverted:
 * The note on whether the article was kept should be objective; if you have an opinion that needs to be voiced, voice it during the discussion – if you didn't until now, either keep silent or give others time to comment on it by not taking action yet.

The addition hadn't been discussed other than in that user page thread, so the reversion was anticipated. Now, what does the community think about the issue? Do you agree with me or SHB? Should there be written advice? Is the suggested wording OK? Should there be some more general wording in Administrators' handbook covering also this? Any general comments?

–LPfi (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents:
 * Not allowing users to voice their opinion is antithetical to the purpose of a discussion
 * Discussions are immediately archived once the outcome has been reached; this is per Votes for deletion
 * Yes, you're right that my rationale behind standing by my comment doesn't conflict with any specific policy
 * It's probably not a good idea to include it in the Administrators' handbook as any Wikivoyager can close a DR if the outcome was keep or redirect – this is also per Votes for deletion
 * I am opposed to the addition of Special:Diff/4569292, because the purpose of vfd is to not "keep silent", and "giv[ing] others time to comment on it by not taking action yet" contradicts Votes for deletion. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 22:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Closing a discussion means no longer arguing about it. I still find it incredible, inflammatory, and in incredibly bad grace to have to have a discussion about this at all. I'd observe that SHB2000 tried to argue that a consensus was not a consensus the last time he showed bad grace in a Vfd closing. Anyone who can't close Vfd threads without trying to get a pot-shot in at the end should not close Vfd threads. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So, let's put it this way. You disagree with my opinion, and are insisting me to follow what you think should be common practice, even though this is not a policy, at least not yet. Then, you indirectly claim that your opinion is somehow superior to mine and I should follow it, and now claim that the common practice to enroot this into a Wikivoyage policy is " incredible, inflammatory, and in incredibly bad grace ". So, who's being hypocritical here? Oh, and that discussion really wasn't a consensus – there were only two more delete !votes, and a lot of the keep !votes were w:WP:PERX. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 23:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And you still haven't answered my question from yesterday: if you so vehemently disagreed with my statement, why didn't you close the article yourself 10 days ago, when the article was due to be closed? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 23:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid argument. We're all volunteers here, I'm a busy man, and I don't always think about closing Vfd threads here. None of that is an excuse for you to break the precedent of not editorializing and insulting the consensus when closing. Come on, man! You do a lot of good work, but you sometimes just don't seem to understand when to drop it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And for the record, what you tried to claim was not a consensus was 8-3. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected; have struck that comment. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 01:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't think we need to change the policy because one editor made a comment some people didn't like. This editorialising does not disrupt the functioning of our travel guide, and let's recognize that SHB was doing a necessary administrative function in closing the discussion even though he didn't agree with the conclusion. Ground Zero (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised. I thought you would find fault with such a closing comment even though you would agree with the substance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As the closing comment is not something that affects the reader, I don't see the need to regulate it, especially in response to a single closing comment. This seems like a sledgehammer/fly situation. Ground Zero (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is, not everyone disagrees with my comment, as you seem to think. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with LPfi & Ikan; such comments are extremely bad form. I do not think a single instance merits either a policy change or any sort of disciplinary action against the user, but a persistent pattern of such actions might. Pashley (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The "bottom line", as I see it, is that whether anyone agrees with the comment is utterly irrelevant; the comment was clearly made in the wrong place.
 * It would have been appropriate either as part of the deletion discussion or raising an issue on either the VFD or Deletion policy talk page. However, adding a snarky remark in the archive &mdash; where no-one is likely to see it & anyone who does cannot reply &mdash; was out of line. Pashley (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Using this page to propose merge/redirects
This page was not envisioned to be used for that purpose, and it is in my opinion quite an unnecessary use of volunteer time. If you think a merge/redirect should be done and it's unlikely to be controversial, just do it if you have the time. If you think it might be controversial, start a thread on the talk page of the article to be merged and have a discussion there. I can't think of any good reason to use this page to propose anything other than deletion. Note that it does take more time to close discussions here than to simply have discussions on talk pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this page can still be used if a user is indifferent to whether an article should be deleted or redirected (e.g., some of our recent destination articles nominated for deletion); I agree with you that the airport articles could have been better handled on the relevant talk page, though. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 00:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's a reasonable basis for proposing deletion, that's what this page is for. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But if you are indifferent, why not just merge and redirect? It mostly requires less effort than the discussion and possible later merger. The history will be there (easily found if correctly attributed) for those who might want to revive the article with additional info that would make it pass the whiaa test. The redirect seldom does harm (and if you think it does, then take it here). –LPfi (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawing nominations
In many fora, one is allowed to withdraw one's own proposal, but as SHB2000 notes, "there's no policy on en.voy explicitly allowing this". I think there shouldn't be one. To the contrary, as soon as a nomination is posted, other contributors put time and thought in evaluating the article and articulating their standpoints. This effort is mostly lost in a speedy closure, and the thoughts shared may have implications on other articles than the one nominated. Also, consensus might be to delete the article despite the nominator changing their mind, and a second nomination shouldn't be needed. Thus I think the discussion should be allowed to continue for the normal time, unless there is consensus for something else or there is some good reason to speedy the decision. I think the judgement on the latter should be left to somebody else. –LPfi (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing serves to prevent attracting input (meaning time and energy) to an inoperative process; it is such when it is 100% certain not to result in a change. People will air their views, and these might be icredibly articulate and wise, but it doesn't create a tangible benefit for the project. I don't think that a policy change is necessary in order to allow withdrawing, but just as well, withdrawing should not be considered prohibited when not prescribed by policy. Withdrawing should only be done if absolutely all of the votes are to keep. If there is even a single delete vote anyone should feel free to reopen the discussion. Alalch E. (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, I really think that it makes sense for to withdraw Votes for deletion now (and only now), when everyone agrees (which was not the case initially). Alalch E. (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We should adopt some guideline that nominations can be speedily withdrawn when there isn't even a proposal for deletion or none of the people responding support deletion, such as when whether to merge/redirect or to which article is being unnecessarily argued about on this page. I would suggest that a nomination for other than deletion be immediately withdrawn unless someone suggests deletion in the response thread before it is deleted, and that otherwise, if after 3 days, there is no support for deletion, a nomination can be speedily resolved as a keep, but that if the resolution is deletion, at least 7 days are needed. The way around that, in my opinion, is to start a thread on the article's talk page, where the person who started the article could agree to deletion if very little if anything has been added by others, or sometimes, articles are speedily deleted without a proposal here because they are so obviously irrelevant or are copyright violation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought it was allowed (and have done so in the past with no dramas), until that nomination. Nominators should be allowed to close their nominations whenever they choose to, with the prejudice that it's appropriate. I like Ikan Kekek's proposal and we could trial this next year. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 20:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the reason it was uncontroversial before is that opinion was probably unanimous, though correct me if I'm wrong. But in the most recent case, I know I wondered what had happened and was surprised to see a deletion thread that as yet had no unanimous opinion speedily archived. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be able to withdraw "our" nominations early, primarily because there's no such thing as "my nomination", only a nomination submitted to the community for consideration. Of course there are some exceptions: if a clear consensus has developed early with little chance of dissent, or if the nomination is clearly not a real candidate for deletion (e.g. something that should be merged).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * if nominations don't belong to one user, then perhaps would you like to explain why c:Template:Withdraw, species:Template:Withdraw, w:en:Template:Withdraw, w:ar:قالب:سحب_ترشيح, w:bh:टेम्पलेट:Withdraw, w:bn:টেমপ্লেট:Withdraw, w:ckb:داڕێژە:کشانەوەی پاڵاوتن, w:et:Mall:Loobun, w:fa:الگو:انصراف, w:en:ಟೆಂಪ್ಲೇಟು:Withdraw, w:shn:ထႅမ်းပလဵတ်ႉ:Withdraw, w:sr:Шаблон:Withdraw and w:te:మూస:Withdraw all translate or say "I withdraw my nomination", with "my" being the key word here? The concept of a deletion nomination shouldn't differ by WMF project, so I'm a bit confused on why you think the concept of "my nominations" shouldn't exist. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but my pontifications about the possible meanings of machine-translated sentences written in languages I don't speak on wikis I've never visited wouldn't be of use to anyone.
 * But to explain my thought process further, a nomination can of course be "mine" inasmuch as if I make the nomination, it originated from my brain, and was created by my fingers when I posted it. And yes, I can continue to refer to it as "my" nomination, but that's just semantics or sentimentality; I can't assert actual ownership over the nomination. Once the nomination is live on VFD, and especially once it's being considered by others, it is no longer mine to unilaterally withdraw, because that's not fair to other members of the community who have lent their time and consideration. Similarly, an article I start is no longer "mine" as soon as it's published, even if I continue to be the main or only contributor; this is a wiki after all.
 * If I rationally believed an article was worthy of deletion, then it is likely that other members of the community would agree and so if they had found the article before I did, they would have nominated it first. The question of who did nominate is unimportant. Even if I am alone in believing the article should be deleted, that can only be tested by a nomination that runs its course and that allows the whole community a say, or that at least provides an early consensus. The person who made the nomination doesn't have any special say over the outcome of the nomination; the community does.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "The concept of a deletion nomination shouldn't differ by WMF project"? Why not? If there remains a question about whether to delete or not, we can have our own policy. You wouldn't argue that we need to have a NPOV policy because some other Wikis have it, would you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an advantage of standardising some things across the WMF sites, so that readers and editors have an easy time approaching another project. However, people from other projects usually don't have enough of an understanding to contribute at deletion discussions. Sometimes they might have some valuable fresh viewpoints, but few from the outside can see when their viewpoint is just distracting. Thus, until you have followed the discussions long enough to learn the idiosyncrasies, you don't need to nominate articles or close the discussions, and thus the advantage of standardising is marginal. –LPfi (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * each wiki can have its own policy regarding deletion nominations, but the concept of it shouldn't differ: a user nominates one or more pages for deletion because of some reason, then a discussion happens for a certain period of time and then the discussion is closed as either kept, deleted, redirected (or something else like getting another project to import the article). What can differ is the length, reasoning or outcome. NPOV is a completely different story because it's only a policy on Wikipedia, but likewise, the concept of NPOV shouldn't differ between different language Wikipedias. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 22:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * fair enough, but I don't think articles are comparable to DRs, but maybe that's because I spend more time on Commons' DRs than our VfD, which is where I've been influenced. I still favour Ikan's proposal, though (which is similar to what you're proposing: "if a clear consensus has developed early with little chance of dissent, or if the nomination is clearly not a real candidate for deletion", but with more detail). SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 22:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Votes_for_deletion
Current text in this section includes:


 * When archiving, always make it clear to other editors what the outcome of the discussion was. This can be done by adding the result to the discussion in a separate edit from the one in which you remove the discussion from this page; or you can describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion.

I'd delete the suggestion of the edit summary. or change "or you can" to "you should also". It seems to me we always want the result in the archive since someone looking later will not see the edit summary.

We also have:


 * If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the discussion page of the article, file or template being kept or redirected.

I'd change this to:


 * If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then the nomination should be mentioned on its talk page. If the deletion discussion is reasonably short, place another (identical duplicate) copy of it on the talk page. For longer discussions, provide a link to the archive instead.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of duplicating discussions by copy-pasting it on the talk page and don't think this has been followed for quite some time – duplicating content is never a good idea. I would much rather require that only a link be placed to the deletion discussion for all cases. -- SHB2000  (t &#124; c &#124; m) 22:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * However, one could copy the outcome declaration. That's short and could avoid need of clicking in some obvious cases (such as "speedy keep: no valid reason to delete"). –LPfi (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Edited. Pashley (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think putting the deletion nomination thread on an article's talk page has often been done. I'm not sure archiving was always done thoroughly. I guess I feel like it's OK to have the thread there if anyone deems the article to be likely to be nominated for deletion again, but summarizing the discussion and providing a link to the relevant section of the archive is an acceptable alternative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm also not opposed to how Commons deals with DRs that resulted in a keep (which is very effective in grabbing your attention) – we could at least experiment it for a month or two. -- SHB2000  (t &#124; c &#124; m) 23:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)