Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion/Archive 2010-2013

Merge & Delete
Similar to the "Merge" discussion above, the result of a few recent nominations has been "merge & delete". However, that action implies that we first have to merge the content and then finish the nomination by deleting the content; given that we've had "merge" notices on some articles for years, this isn't something that seems reasonable. Instead, I'd suggest that the following should be the only valid outcomes of a deletion nomination:


 * 1) Delete
 * 2) Keep
 * 3) Merge
 * 4) Redirect

If the desired outcome really is "merge and delete" then the actual outcome would be "merge", and the article can be re-nominated for VFD after the merge is complete. Keeping nominations open for months & years waiting for someone to merge creates both unnecessary clutter and some pretty grungy work for whoever happens to be cleaning up the VFD page at any given moment. Barring any strenuous objections I'd like to treat the current One week in Santo Domingo for a student nomination as a "merge" and close it as such. Once (if) someone completes that merge then the resulting redirect page can be re-nominated for deletion if desired. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:48, 21 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Rather than this, lets just have an addition to the merge template, just to say when the merge is complete the article should be deleted. So, if the outcome desired really is merge and delete (and usually it would be merge and redirect) we can remove it from the vfd page and just put the decision on the article talk page.  Once the merge is complete an admin can proceed to delete it without any further fuss or renomination.  --(WT-en) inas 23:19, 21 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Unless we mandate some other method of attribution upon a merge, we should always keep merged titles as redirects for attribution purposes. Otherwise, it's plagiarism.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:54, 22 May 2010 (EDT)


 * My opinion is that if there's content worth merging then the original article probably merits a redirect, both for attribution and to prevent it being created again. That said, with respect to the issue at hand I've put merge templates on the articles in question and closed the nominations; someone else can revisit the issue of whether we need a separate VFD if the articles are ever actually merged. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 00:30, 25 May 2010 (EDT)


 * But I don't think it's necessarily the case that it is always proper to redirect after a merge. Look at the current JR Stations vfd. While we could merge and redirect, for most (if not all), the redirects are more problematic than helpful. If users do this, regardless of attribution and good-faith additions, they are better off deleted. Out of curiosity though, how will saying "merge" instead of "merge and delete" speed up the merging process? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:32, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
 * How do we attribute the authors if we delete the original article titles? (WT-en) LtPowers 08:07, 25 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Saying "merge" won't speed up the merging process, but "merge & delete" slows down the VFD process since it indicates that a merge must be done and then the article must be deleted to complete the nomination. Since we don't currently have a "merge & delete" template, nor is there consensus that such a thing is a good idea (see LtPowers) I've closed the current "merge & delete" nominations in the same way that we would close a "merge" result - the articles now have "merge" templates on them, and the VFD discussions are archived on the talk pages so that if/when the merges ever get completed the nomination discussion is there for whoever wants to revisit this issue. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 10:46, 25 May 2010 (EDT)


 * LtPowers: I don't know exactly how we could attribute the authors, but the situation for a "merge and delete" definitely exists. It's like creating a Main Street article with great information about ONE city's Main Street. There's just no way we could justifiably make it a redirect to whatever city the creator's content was for, except for attribution, which would come at the cost of usability... (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:40, 26 May 2010 (EDT
 * I believe the solution in that case is to move Main Street to Main Street (My City) and then merge+redirect that. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:29, 6 June 2010 (EDT)


 * That's interesting. I have never heard of that being done. So, when the author gives the article a name that we cannot redirect, we move it to a less controversial article name and then merge and redirect THAT article and delete the original Main Street article? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:00, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
 * It would preserve the attribution history, at least. I suspect that's what Wikipedia does in such a situation.  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:06, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Orphaned Images
A lot of recent nominations are citing "site policy is that orphaned images should be deleted", but are these files that were uploaded directly to the English version only? If not, are there ways to ensure that other language versions are not using them? Even from wikivoyage shared it seems not to be able to tell you what pages on which language versions are using specific images. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:27, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Other language versions cannot use files on :en; that's the whole point of :shared. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:02, 9 June 2010 (EDT)


 * See Project:Deletion policy for the policy. Most of these images pre-date shared:, and as LtPowers said they cannot be used on other language versions. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 10:22, 9 June 2010 (EDT)


 * I thought so. Just wanted to make sure we weren't nominating photos that may have been used elsewhere. (although most of these photos have other reasons for their nominations anyway). (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:39, 9 June 2010 (EDT)


 * In the interests of efficiency, do we really need to debate these? Why can't they be covered by the criteria for speedy deletion? Ryan for example has just today added a lot of orphaned images for consideration. All are clearly ripe for deletion per Project:Deletion policy. Given that this page receives scant attention anyway, let's save it for articles which clearly need consideration.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)


 * There have been instances in the past where people wanted to de-orphan images that were nominated, so putting them up for nomination probably still makes sense, but I'd be OK with shortening the nomination period for these sorts of images (say, 3-7 days) if there is concern with cluttering up the page. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 23:52, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Revisiting this issue, English Wikivoyage has a few thousand orphaned images. Not all of them are suitable for deletion - some are SVG sources for maps, for example - but many are obvious deletion candidates and potential copyvios. I've been nominating obvious candidates and speedy deleting where it seemed reasonable, but is there any interest in handling this differently? Does anyone else feel that the current approach is unnecessarily cluttering up the VFD page, or should it continue as-is? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:37, 25 April 2012 (EDT)


 * See also earlier discussion Wikivoyage_talk:Votes_for_deletion (WT-en) Pashley 08:20, 26 April 2012 (EDT)


 * I have no problem with the way it's currently going. If anyone sees an image worthy of keeping, it can be uploaded to shared.  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:06, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

One additional note, in case anyone wonders why nomination of orphaned images is of any value: with the scheduled Mediawiki upgrade and other potential changes in the future we'll have the possibility of moving image hosting to Wikimedia Commons, but since they are fairly strict on licensing, moving images will require scrubbing questionable images from Wikivoyage and ensuring that we have licensing info for those that remain. Getting rid of questionable orphaned images seems like a good starting point for what could eventually be a massive migration task. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:57, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

delh and delf
I'd like to suggest that delh and delf be imported from Commons, and applied to deletion requests that are closed. Then a bot can easily pick them out and archive. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I find delh confusing, at least to human editors, because it comes before the section header. That means it shows up at the bottom if you edit the previous section, and it doesn't show up at all if you edit the section in question.  But in general, we don't have enough deletions to be worth coding a bot for it.  LtPowers (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearer wording in the header
Obviously policy discussions do not take page on the associated project page, but rather at Deletion policy.

Nevertheless and for some years we have had some nutshell advice in the header encapsulating some of the salient points that might be overlooked by people using this page.

Recently it became clearer that some editors were not aware that their view(s) would not be taken into account if they did not express a "delete" or "keep" rationale.

I would therefore like to propose that the header be changed to read as follows:

"

This page has lists of articles, files and templates that are recommended for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can recommend an article, file or template for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can comment on the deletion nomination, but a deletion rationale must be provided or the comment will be disregarded.

Recommendations are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

After fourteen days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain, there shouldn't be a deletion. Otherwise an administrator will delete the nomination. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections below prior to nominating or commenting on nominations.

The purpose of the votes for deletion page is narrow; policy discussion does not take place here.

See also: "
 * Deletion log
 * Votes for deletion/Archives - the VFD archives index page
 * Votes for undeletion
 * Category:Vfd - A page that collects every image and article that is currently tagged with the vfd template.

-- A l i c e ✉ 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The bit about a deletion rationale must be provided or the comment disregarded is clearly not always true, and doesn't reflect current practice.   The most common counter example is simply agreeing with another user's rationale, forming a wider consensus.   And policy discussion does take place here.  We interpret the policy, and discuss its application.  We even note inconsistencies in its application, before moving the discussion to the deletion policy page.  --Inas (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Most enlightening.
 * 1) I wonder if you would care to comment again here where I understood the deleting admin to have intimated both here and on other pages that it had always been our policy to disregard any comment that did not supply a deletion rationale?
 * 2) I can clearly see the efficiency advantages to be gained by this revision of 02:39, 26 November 2012 but, and again if I understand you correctly, you are indicating that Peter was pfing when he added that particular policy filip about "The purpose of the votes for deletion page is narrow; policy discussion does not take place here" but you only noticed that when I restored it? -- A l i c e ✉ 06:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with someone else's deletion rationale seems fine to me, as long as it's regarding a deletion rationale. The point is that we're not tallying votes, or making/changing policy. So yes, the vfd page is for interpreting and applying policy—but not for creating it. --Peter Talk 06:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Guilty, unless proven innocent?
There appears to be a clear contradiction between Votes_for_deletion and Consensus. The former may seem more relevant, but is not really a policy but a guideline/instruction. The latter is a policy, but is a blanket statement. We need to clarify this after the deletion of Marriage in China. JamesA  >talk 04:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I was going to post about this. I'm mystified by how decisions are being made and who's making them. And I can cite other examples. There was a clear majority vote approaching a consensus to keep Template:Busy, yet it was deleted. On the other hand, there was a weak consensus at best (more like dissension, with a large minority opposed) to keep Requested articles, yet the page was kept. I am not arguing that Requested articles should have been deleted in the face of majority support, but is the standard that there needs to be a consensus to keep an article, or that there should be a clear majority to delete it? In neither case does there seem to be a consistent, clear policy that's being followed every time. So, are we working by consensus, or are some people making secret decisions, or what? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There's also the odd double standard where "it's a real place" is a valid excuse to keep every Yarker-sized hamlet, whether it has any listings or not, but non-geographic articles (travel topics and itinerary) are pretty much shoot-on-sight if someone doesn't like them. Why the huge difference? K7L (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Side note, but having been the one who closed contentious VFDs in the past, it is a fairly thankless task and often tough to figure out exactly what to do with a discussion that is long past its two week discussion period. In general I would say always assume good faith on the part of the deleter, but please do raise questions where appropriate and, more importantly, suggest clarifications to policies (and ways make them consistent) as needed. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 04:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with all the points made. There have been some hasty decisions that are often at odds with each other, but we should assume faith that the closers may have interpreted these confusing policies in different ways. I also agree that we should not keep every "real place". Sometimes it's better to put info about a small town with 2 listings into one about an all-encompassing region, or possibly a larger town, kind of like what I'm doing with Bangladesh's regions. Let's focus on correcting the policy. JamesA  >talk 04:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A real place should never be nominated at vfd. We're just going to waste our time with discussions on whether a place qualifies. If it is not worth an article, just redirect it to a larger place or region. One day it will help someone looking for it.  If any discussion is needed it should be at the talk page of the article with people who are familiar with the place.  Lets save vfd for real scope issues. There is no policy option to delete if it is a real place. (Exception being pcv). --Inas (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I surely am not assuming bad faith, but it was quite surprising to see Marriage in China suddenly deleted without further notice, when we have come to no consensus about either that article or the scope of topics that may be allowable on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well our policy says exactly that, we delete articles when no consensus to keep has been reached after 14 days. If you think something else should have happened, you need to propose a change to that policy!  --Inas (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Inas: I agree that real places shouldn't be VfD'ed, but redirected or merged where appropriate. That could probably be done under the auspices of a knowledgeable user. And Re your second post, could you link/cite that policy please? <font color="#4682b4">JamesA  <font color="#191970">>talk 05:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, on real places being nominated at vfd - how about commercial estates where it's not clear whether or what to redirect them to? I would observe, also, that some of the posts I've made in talk pages of articles, such as Talk:Turin, where I asked at least twice whether the article should be moved to Torino, have been completely ignored. Posting here is a sure way to get noticed.


 * Second, Inas, there was a consensus to keep the deleted Template:Busy, as I mentioned - a much stronger consensus than there was to keep Requested articles, which was kept. I don't see any consistent application of a policy that an article that about half the discussants want kept, for specified policy reasons, is always deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * When I read Requested articles, I see an initial proposal to delete, followed by counter arguments to meet the arguments given, followed by arguments to keep that are not met or further discussed. Consensus is a difficult thing to determine, but you can't stop a consensus just by voting to delete at the beginning and not returning to the discuss the arguments given in favour of keeping.
 * If a real place need a redirect - then redirect it. If you don't know what to redirect it to, then use the article talk page.  If you want further feedback, you can use requests for comment, or the pub.  Commercial estates, etc, where they aren't real geographical places, fall within our vfd policy and should be nominated for deletion.  This is just restating what is on the policy page.  --Inas (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What happened on Requested articles is that I saw which way the discussion was going and gave up. And I am not trying to reargue that vfd - I accept that there was a clear majority in favor of keeping that article, and I also think that the article probably isn't doing much harm and may be doing some good. So that is not my point at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The double standard is for articles that have just been created and for articles that have been around for a long time. The status quo bias rule recommends deleting the former and keeping the latter.

The "proven innocent" bit should be emphasis on the proven. That is, we're not voting тм  —we're making policy-based arguments. Policy was pretty clear on Template:Busy, regardless of popular opinion. In such a case, people who want the page kept should head to the policy talk page and make their arguments for a policy change (in that case, it would be a discussion of templates designed for use in userspace at Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates, and from the deafening silence there, it would appear no one cared enough to do save the template).

Lastly, I'll also echo Ryan's point. Anyone closing a contentious, muddy vfd sticks their neck out a bit, and relies mostly on their reputation as a respected editor who understands our policies thoroughly. Lest it be thought totally thankless—thank you to those who do that type of work, even when I am unsure whether the action taken was correct! --Peter Talk 05:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't vote on Template:Busy. However, I think there's a contradiction here. If this site is based on consensus, and despite a previously agreed-upon rule, there is a consensus to violate it, why does the rule take precedence? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Because we can't re-argue every rule with every vfd. We arrive at the rules by consensus, and then apply the rules to the vfd. "Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our current policy."  Changes to the policy should be argued on the policy pages, not here.   --Inas (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My point of view would be that if a decision made here by a clear consensus violates preexisting policies, the policies have to either be changed or absorb an exception to them. Consensus is a moving target that is always subject to change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict x3) We need a Use Common Sense policy or maybe a Ignore All Rules. Common sense and consensus should always come before policy, as we can't always design policies to be perfect for every situation.
 * And Peter, if your first statement is true, then Marriage in China did not really deserve deletion. It only goes to show there is clear confusion and the policy is nowhere near adequate. <font color="#4682b4">JamesA  <font color="#191970">>talk 05:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as the one who has done the lion's share of said thankless work lately: what can I say, sometimes I get a wild hair up my you-know-what and I notice a major bit of cleaning that needs to be done and I dive right in. That being said, I had a sneaking suspicion that my sudden boldness might ruffle some feathers.

I think that a lot of the specific cases mentioned are excellent reasons why the current deletion policy as spelled out in Votes for deletion is a good one - the paramount example being Marriage in China. In the case of that nomination, the discussion period lasted for 42 days - far more than the prescribed 14 days before action should be taken - and the deliberations had petered out in a stalemate, with no consensus having been reached and none likely to be reached.

What do we do in that case? Do we simply let the discussion languish on the page with no resolution? That, in my estimation, amounts to a de facto result of keep; therefore we have a page filled with questionable content, topped off with an ugly template. At a place like Wikipedia, there's a large and robust community of active editors who will notice a template like that, and come to a page like this to reignite the debate with new insight that may help break us through the stalemate. We're not Wikipedia. The presence of VfD templates on a page for indefinite periods of time - and in the case of low-traffic pages like Marriage in China, "indefinite" invariably equals "long" - is an embarrassment.

Do we, instead, take contentious arguments like the one regarding Marriage in China and derive inspiration to improve our policies? Maybe, but realistically, how often is that going to happen? Is it even possible from a practical standpoint to, as Inas put it, "re-argue every rule with every vfd"? I think obviously not.

That, in my estimation, coupled with the fact that anything that's deleted on Wikivoyage can be undeleted, is why I think it's a good idea to be biased in favor of deleting questionable articles absent any clear consensus to keep, redirect, merge, disambiguate, etc. The nature of working on a collaborative project is that toes are stepped on every once in a while. Policy discussions like this are useful in keeping disagreements to a minimum, but at some level, it's inevitable. Better that a decision be made that not everyone is happy with than we waste time arguing in circles. I also greatly appreciate the acknowledgement by other commenters, even those who may have disagreed with my perceived hastiness, that I was at least acting in good faith and following policy as I understood it.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't the slightest doubt that you were acting in good faith. I do disagree with your point about undeletions, though, because it is much harder to get a consensus to undelete than to avoid a deletion in the first place. Would you disagree with that point? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While I also agree you acted in good faith, there appears to often be a selective application of policy. While the page may say guilty unless proven innocent, WV:Consensus which I clearly linked to before deletion says pretty much the exact opposite (quoting no exceptions). <font color="#4682b4">JamesA  <font color="#191970">>talk 05:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that a case where we're really split like Marriage in China (I don't have an opinion on whether keep or delete was the right move, and I made the case to keep), it's ultimately not that big of a deal for either action to be taken, and I'm glad that someone took one. I don't see that as evidence that our methods here don't work. Re: Template:Busy, if you care, just bring it up on the policy talk page. There's been too much time wasted on that template because people aren't bothering to make the case for a policy change that would probably pass.
 * And again, I disagree with this reading of "guilty unless proven innocent." That just means that if no one makes the case for why a page should be kept per policy, it will be deleted. --Peter Talk 05:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To speak to JamesA's comment: if I'm not mistaken, the line in Consensus that you're referring to is:


 * "In the case that a consensus becomes impossible—those involved have carefully responded to each others' arguments, but remain in disagreement—we stick with the status quo practice."


 * I saw that too when you linked to it, and I think the thing that you and I disagree on is whether that's a statement of hard-and-fast policy (i.e., "the rule is we have to stick with status quo absent a consensus for change") or a statement of general truth (i.e., "if there's no consensus for change, what we usually end up doing is sticking with the status quo"). We would do well to clarify that question. But, even leaving that aside, I think common sense dictates that where there's a conflict in our policies, we apply the one that addresses the issue of deletion in particular, spelled out on the top of the page, rather than the one that's applied to "consensus" in a much broader sense.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really care about Template:Busy. I never cared one way or another about it, and that ship has sailed and, fortunately, Saqib didn't leave and stop editing here (which would have been my only real concern). I also don't care greatly that Marriage in China was deleted. What I care about is having a deletion policy that is more consistently applied and more in line with our policies on consensus, which, as I understand it, is the entire basis for this site, and should take precedence over everything else. So a line should be drawn in some clear place, and I'm really not seeing it. The way I would summarize the discussion is: (1) Template:Busy was deleted in spite of a clear consensus to keep it, because a preexisting policy required its deletion. I would respond to this by asking, in that case, why there was any discussion in vfd at all, and conversely, since there was a discussion and a consensus was against deleting, why was that disregarded? (2) There was a consensus to keep Requested articles. I see a clear majority to keep that article but not a consensus. Under those circumstances, keeping the article was sensible, though arguably inconsistent with the decision on "Busy."(3) Since there was a stalemate on Marriage in China, there was no consensus to keep, and therefore it was deleted. That's actually clear. But in that case, what do we do with (4) These are not really votes, and the consensus doesn't actually count here; only policy counts. My reply on that is that it violates the entire concept of consensus to insist that previously agreed-on policies supersede a new consensus on a specific. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, discussions at VfD are supposed to be focused on how our pre-existing policy applies to specific articles. The consensus we're trying to come to is not the question of whether the article should or should not be deleted per se, but rather, the question of whether or not the article violates policy. If someone disagrees with the policy, well and good, but that discussion belongs elsewhere. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I fully understand your explanation, but we can always change our policy on what discussions at vfd are supposed to be focused on. I'm thinking about the concept of jury nullification. Juries have the right to disregard laws if they come to a consensus to acquit a suspect who they know is guilty of violating a law, on grounds that they just don't like the law. Here, we have no laws, only guidelines reached by a previous consensus, so nothing as serious as jury nullification can ever happen here, nor are any issues nearly as grave as someone's liberty or imprisonment. So why should we be rigid on rules if we are all about consensus? I repeat: Consensus is a moving target.


 * In short, I fully understand the explanation of why an unapproved template was deleted. I just question the emphasis on preexisting policies, rather than a changing consensus that's always subject to flux. My other issue is on whether the consensus should be required to keep an article, rather than to delete it, but we can discuss that in Deletion policy. Actually, we can discuss all of this there.Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * One other remark on the specific, though: There was no consensus that Marriage in China violated policy. So is the necessary consensus that an article does not violate policy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Per "guilty until proven innocent", yes, that was my reading of the policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that vfds can and should spur policy discussions, but that they shouldn't take place here. I say that having seen this page erupt on more than one occasion into a nasty battleground, when people have tried to push policy preferences here instead of working towards consensus in policy discussion. Working relationships soured, long-time users stormed off, and drama took everyone's eyes off improving our site. The more we treat this as a voting page, rather than a page for discussing how policy applies to the cases, the more I expect to see that type of thing. --Peter Talk 07:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] The policy in question, I guess, being whether that was an article under the scope of wiaa. I understand. But it will cause me to think a bit differently about future discussions, knowing that in case of a stalemate, it might be best to give up if I am on the "Keep" side.


 * Peter, I give considerable deference to your speaking from experience. I'm not really saying policy arguments should take place here, but that consensus to keep an article (or to delete it) should be able to override preexisting policy, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But then would we not be forced to try to change our policies every time a large number of users decided a particular page or template was "useful"? Whose job is it to try to craft an exception or workaround or circumlocution and write it into the policy?  How broad or narrow should that exception be?  Should it be explicit or implicit?  Can you see what a can of worms that would be?  For the record, I don't believe there was a consensus to keep Template:Busy.  What we had were a bunch of people asserting that "hey, it's harmless and I like it" without actually making a policy-based argument in favor.  If I had to keep something because a bunch of people -- mostly new users, frankly -- said they really like it, we would quickly end up with either a) inconsistent policies with weird exceptions inserted all over the place, or b) useless, toothless policies that have counterexamples and violations in clear evidence throughout the site.  I don't think either one is acceptable.  (And by the way, if anyone has a question about one of my deletions, I would appreciate being asked directly in the future.  Or at least notified of a discussion if one occurs.)  LtPowers (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Discussions here should absolutely be based on policy, and this should not become a place where policy gets tweaked, ignored, superseded, hole-punched, shaved, molded, decorated, or otherwise messed with. If we allow that, then we lose our criteria here, and it all devolves into a butting of heads. Texugo (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC) But more importantly, this is not a court of law, and administrators are not judges. Our policies are not worded with the specificity of legalese, and are never intended to be completely inviolable in any case. LtPowers (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In a real-world courthouse, there is the concept of "legislative intent". A judge looks at the wording of the law itself, but also looks at what a legislature intended when they created the law. (It's also valid to query whether laws contradict other laws or the constitution in a land.) The "legislative intent" of an arbitrarily restrictive policy on creating templates was to keep the mainspace pages in a consistent format (see, do, buy, eat, drink, sleep) across multiple districts or multiple destinations. The busy deletion attempts to apply an equally-restrictive standard to user page content. That does nothing required by the "legislative intent" of the original policy, as there's no inherent reason to standardise user pages to the structure used for destination articles. National laws do get "tweaked" by precedent cases in courtrooms, routinely. This isn't a robot script. K7L (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an argument that should have been brought up in the vfd discussion, but the fact that these decisions sometimes involve interpretation of policies which are perhaps not as clear as they should be does not mean that we shouldn't enforce policies here to the utmost of our ability and discourage use of this page to call for exceptions to or referendums on existing policies. When policies need to be revisited, we can revisit them on their own discussion pages, but using the vfd space to create precedents should be discouraged as much as possible.Texugo (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides which, I disagree that this was a case where a guiltless user-space template got caught up in a prohibition that had no intent of applying to user space. The "legislative history" (if we're going to insist on such a metaphor) is clear that templates beyond Babel simply had not been used to any noticeable extent prior to the move to WMF; that is a strong indication that the template policy did indeed apply to userspace.
 * LtPowers, I'm sorry I didn't notify you that Template:Busy was being discussed. I frankly didn't remember or even think about whose decision it was to delete that template (or the idea that it was one person's deletion, in any case), and the reason I brought it up was that I didn't understand the basis for some recent decisions to delete and keep, and that seemed like a good example to bring up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

When to archive
I do not think this is either important or urgent, but it seems worth asking.

After the recent discussion Votes_for_deletion/June_2013, I saw a consensus to redirect and did the redirects, but I quite deliberately left the discussion on the vfd page because 14 days had not elapsed and it seemed possible someone else might want to comment.

A few hours later User:AndreCarrotflower archived the discussion with a comment indicating that I should have done that when I redirected. In at least one sense, he is quite correct; that is the general policy. On the other hand, I think things should stay up for 14 days.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree it shouldn't be done halfway. Either there's a consensus, in which case the discussion should be archived, or there's not, in which case no action should be taken.  And the rules say we shouldn't really look at consensus until 14 days have elapsed, though I think most folks would be fine with an early resolution if consensus is clear.  LtPowers (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

deleting pages that only have section titles
As a reasonable number of pages are being deleted at the moment without submission to this page, could someone please clarify to me the rules on deleting pages that are basically just page holders? --Traveler100 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Our policy regarding this was discussed extensively in a previous VfD - see Votes for deletion/July 2013. Additionally, if you see a page deleted without any VfD discussion, by all means bring it to the attention of admins. That is a flagrant violation of policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion spree
Expounding on Traveler100's comments above, I am indeed seeing on the Recent Changes log that User:Globe-trotter is deleting a large number of articles without putting them through the VfD process. Additionally, I see nothing in our policy that allows for speedy-deletion of pages because they are "non-useful content or [a] test", as his edit summaries indicate. In fact, several of the articles he has deleted were previously put through the VfD process with a consensus of speedy keep, for the very reason that lack of content is not a deletion rationale. Please advise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * See Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy Globe-trotter (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * At the very least, let's take a few minutes to update the policy pages before we start acting on new consensuses. Not everybody follows every discussion on every talk page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a policy, it's a one time consensus to get rid of the WT attribution on articles that don't need any attribution to that site. I see you're reverting the changes, which makes the WT attribution reappear. Please recreate the article instead of reverting the deletion, else the process loses its purpose. Globe-trotter (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My mistake, and no antagonism was intended. But again, not everyone follows every talk page discussion. It may have been helpful if you had cited Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy in your edit summary rather than just "no useful content or test". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In that same discussion too, we decided to not add a notice to the policy page. I would strongly recommend, in any case, that admins add project pages to their watchlist that affect the use of their tools. I'll update Administrator's handbook to include that recommendation. --Peter Talk 18:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have also been doing a lot of deletions, based on related but different criteria. See Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy. Pashley (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleting pages with No useful content or test appears to be breaking breadcrumbs (or is the sequence of events more complex), for example Como (Province) was region for Menaggio, Lake Como, Nesso and Torno. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not a part of the same phenomenon. I am not sure what happened there, but I just restored that page to have a look, and it doesn't look like the page ever existed as anything but a redirect to the correctly spelled version of that page, which has never existed. At the time when I deleted it, there was a user moving things around in the hierarchy around there without discussion, and perhaps I misunderstood what was originally there, so it still needs to be sorted out, but it had nothing to do with deleting empty articles as referenced above ("No useful content or test" is a default option in the drop down menu when you delete, which happened to be valid for deleting a redirect to nowhere, I guess). No articles with "children" in the hierachy are being deleted for the purposes of resetting the WT attribution, at least not that I know of. Texugo (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK I will create the page with the correct spelling and correct the breadcrumbs. Cannot add much about the region though, only passed through a few times. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Other "topics in ..." articles
The discussion now archived at Votes_for_deletion/August_2013 ends with "consensus: deleted", but the thing suggested for deletion were some specific pages "and all the rest". All the rest are not gone; searching for "topics in ..." I still find at least a dozen.

Can I go ahead and delete those? Pashley (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I think you should speedy delete them per discussion before they nominated for deletion by someone. --Saqib (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Euh, there was no "consensus to delete". This was not a consensus, there were at least 2 outstanding votes to wait, and 3 to delete, so you deleted it based on a majority vote. Which, to be honest, is a pity. Is it really too much to ask when someone as active as Ryan, backed up by Inas, asks to wait a bit? There's no rush in non-copyvio deletions. They really don't have to be deleted exactly on the 2 week mark. For the record, I have no opinion about these articles, but I think as a tiny community we should be more lenient when no harm is being done, really. JuliasTravels (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Julias, I guess you're not aware of discussions going on here and here. These deletion nominated articles has to be deleted. --Saqib (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the discussions, although I don't follow them in detail. My main point is that as long as there are outstanding objections, you can't just call it a consensus. Consensus is when participants agree. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right that there was no consensus. But our standard is to require consensus to keep, not consensus to delete.  If you would like to propose changing that standard, then that's a question for Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy.  LtPowers (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't, and I don't want to keep those articles either - that wasn't my point :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm the one that originally suggested deleting all of these, I still want to do that, and my reading of the other discussions is that there is consensus that it should be done.


 * However, I do not want to do it prematurely. My main concern here is whether taking them out now will mess up efforts to build an alternate structure. Pashley (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

All "Topics in" pages can now be deleted. Reference to these pages have been removed and alternative structure development is no longer dependent on these pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Taking action on non-speedy VfD candidates before two weeks have passed
Despite numerous previous warnings, some admins in particular seem to be very fond of doing this. No matter how clear the consensus may seem to be after the first or second day of discussion, taking premature action on VfD's is a violation of policy. Please stop doing this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify, there are procedures in place to allow ending VFDs early (Deletion policy and Deletion policy), but an important caveat in those guidelines is:
 * "Do not end a VFD early unless a clear consensus is reached. A consensus is not the same as a majority, nor do a small handful of comments in favor of keeping an article constitute a consensus. If you are unsure about whether a consensus has been reached, allow the VFD to continue."
 * In general, unless something is very, very obviously a speedy keep or speedy deletion candidate then it is always best to let the full 14 day nomination period complete. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And if there is still not a clear consensus after 14 days, it should be left for longer. Texugo (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ryan - According to a strict reading of policy, speedy deletion candidates don't even belong on the VfD page - they should be tagged with or simply deleted on sight. Occasionally a user may nominate an article for "regular deletion" on the VfD page that another user may feel is instead a candidate for speedy deletion. In that case, the latter user should vote speedy delete, and the candidate article will be speedied in a day or two barring any objections. That was not true in any of the recent cases.


 * @Texugo - Not true; articles are presumed guilty until proven innocent, so no consensus after 14 days = delete.


 * AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Leaving a discussion open longer than 14 days when there isn't a clear consensus has been an unwritten policy for as long as I can remember, but you're right that it's not written anywhere. There was a relatively recent proposal to formalize an additional 14 day discussion period for nominations without a clear consensus, but I don't think anything came out of that. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 21:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Page photo
I realize this page is called "Votes for deletion", but that's more for historical reasons than anything else. I'm just afraid that a picture of a ballot with the suggestion "Cast your vote" is going to encourage thinking of these discussions as majority-rules votes rather than the discussions they actually are. LtPowers (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One of these, perhaps? Pashley (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Or we could always give it the Pub / Tourist Office treatment...? --Nick talk 21:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone crazy and done it - please feel free to revert my edit and shoot me! --Nick talk 22:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No shooting here, but that giant red bar is a little much; large red visuals tend to alarm readers. LtPowers (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to here it! When I get a chance, I'll try and tone it down a bit. :) --Nick talk 02:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I appreciate the going ahead, but this version gives too much of a negative feel to the page, so I'd rather see something else than a bit of toning down. I like the pictures, also because they are a lot smaller. I like large fun or exiting visuals like the article banners, but these huge err.. "icon banners" or however they're called don't have the same effect for me. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to do whatever you'd like with the page - I won't be offended! --Nick talk 19:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad the hear that, but it's obviously far easier to comment on efforts by others than to do a better job yourself ;-) It is in my case, anyway.. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I find the new images here & in pub & tourist office useless and irritating. Pashley (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't like the one on the page overleaf. Let's remove it. Nurg (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The image icons and splashes of color give these pages some much-needed visual pizzazz. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The current image is set to match the one used for this page at Community portal. Texugo (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the photo, myself. To those of you who find it irritating: What would you like to be there, instead? Nothing, or some other image? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with nothing. But thinking about what I most dislike about it – it's the large size. If it was reduced to about 60px, it would be much less intrusive, use much less screen space, etc., and it may even be easier to take in what the image is portraying. Nurg (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Do no harm
Despite the fact that User:Rschen7754 is convinced no-one will read this page, I think it's probably a good idea to start a thread here. I take no firm position on whether the templates currently nominated for deletion should be deleted or kept, but I do think we could consider a new approach to Vfd, understanding that the more new users there are here, especially those more familiar with other Wiki projects, the more that templates will be brought over from other Wikis or created by users who have no idea they'd be expected to put their templates to a vote and hope for a consensus. I think it's unreasonable to delete templates that are harmless or actively good just because their creation didn't follow procedures that were easier to maintain when this Wiki had a smaller number of users who knew each other. This is a website, not a rigid bureaucracy; am I right? Considering my thoughts in the Pub about flexibility, I think we should apply that not only to unfamiliar types of articles but also to new templates. If it's not causing a problem and someone is using it, let's let it be. Your thoughts, everyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Rschen7754 09:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * With regard to the main namespace, I think it all boils down to consistency, which is one of the main points on which we differ from Wikipedia. By their very nature, our content articles are categorized into a very limited number of types, 11 to be exact (cities, districts, regions, phrasebooks, etc.), each of which shares the same characteristics, presentation, style, and way of organizing the information, for the benefit of the traveller's ease in locating information in a quick and predictable manner. It has taken a lot of work to create and maintain that consistency over the years, and that is the reason we don't just let people create random new article types and organizational schemes without tagging them, discussing them, and discarding them if they do not present solutions that can be incorporated into the sitewide consistency we have established. If we don't ever clean that stuff up, then we start to step away from the cohesion and consistency we have built and start allowing a creeping jumble of formats and styles. Similarly, allowing people to create and use idiosyncratic mainspace templates which are not appropriate for sitewide use is something we have intentionally avoided because it could mean that a random handful of articles are, without a considered reason, treated differently than the rest, which would again be a step away from our consistency standard. If people do design new templates with the forethought of how they could be used sitewide, we still need to discuss and ensure that the given sitewide change is something we do in fact want to make. This discussion phase is the reason we have the experimental tag. Otherwise these things can start to proliferate and take hold without thought to how they will affect the consistency we have instilled between every article. I for one certainly do not wish to see us do anything to undermine or dismantle the coherence we have worked hard to establish between our articles. Experimentation is fine, but tagging and actually discussing is important, and when the discussion is still fruitless or non-existent after a number of months, at some point we need to say "OK, this didn't catch on, time to junk it." Otherwise we start to lose track, be less consistent, and confuse people who come across them.


 * With regard to the user space, I think we can afford to be more lax about it. There is a current discussion somewhere about allowing more user space templates, in which I summarized my opinion that such templates should be strictly related to travel rather than people wasting their time making "I like cheese" or "I play tiddlywinks" templates, but if they are somehow travel-related I don't mind. Would still prefer we have an approved set of them, but with very loose criteria.


 * With regard to talk space, I suppose I don't mind loosening up somewhat, though it's worth pointing out that we have rejected several tags of the support/oppose/agree/disagree type before for not matching well with our non-voting consensus style, so while I don't think we need tough restrictions in this category, I wouldn't support any system where we are no longer allowed to vfd such templates. Would still prefer we kept these to an approved set based on loose criteria, to prevent people from making garish templates simply to grab attention.
 * Texugo (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The point of the "experimental" tag was to lower the bar for template creation, but maybe we should make that more explicit. I agree with Texugo that we need to be circumspect about templates that change mainspace and should be less worried about templates destined for use elsewhere, and also believe that a template creator should be responsible for explaining the purpose of the template.  Two changes that might achieve that goal:
 * If "experimental" is too off-putting, let's find some other verbiage that makes it clear that the template needs to be explained before it should be more widely deployed - "incubation" maybe?.
 * I suggest that we adopt some language comparable to Ikan's "do no harm" with respect to templates - perhaps suggest that if there isn't a consensus not to implement a template after three days of discussion on the template's talk page that the "experimental" tag can be removed. That ensures that every template gets a minimum amount of discussion, but also significantly lowers the bar for creation of new templates.
 * -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 15:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think 3 days is pretty short and that allowing anything without a clear consensus against would let through practically anything the proposer is willing to argue for, without full consideration of whether it is something we wish to implement sitewide. And if we used your rules without such discussions being in a centralized place, I think things will be even more likely to slip through, since people are not in the habit of checking every random template discussion. Texugo (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do like the idea of using the "incubator" language, and perhaps having a centralized incubator page in the WV space where such proposals can be brought up and discussed without us having to monitor every template change in the recent changes list for active discussions of this type. Texugo (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No-one is suggesting that there should be any category of articles or files that should be ineligible to be nominated for deletion. Instead, my suggestion is that there should no longer be a presumption that just because a template or new article style didn't go through a bureaucratic process most new users will have no knowledge of, that that automatically makes it suspect. I don't think, in other words, that "didn't go through the approval process" should be a legitimate reason for deleting anything, and that, instead, those wanting to delete it should explain how it harms the site. I also think we should be careful not to make a desire to maintain consistency be the enemy of potentially positive change - plunging forward - even if started by "irregular" means. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this, though I am ever slightly closer to accepting this approach to templates than I am to accepting it for article types. With article types, this would mean that every time someone creates an article for an attraction, a body of water, a street, a highway, a district of an otherwise undistricted city, a calendar, a modest regional event, etc., that I would have the burden of proving that it "harms the site". I can already tell you that my answer in every case will be that it harms the site by organizing our coverage in an idiosynchratic unpredictable way instead of a way that is standardized for the reader's convenience, and of course, in every case, the creator will argue that it does not harm the site because it provides information, bla bla bla. These things pop up all the time, and I do not at all wish to start having to justify in each case why it is better to stick to our agreed-upon article models/manual of style. If such new additions do not represent a proposal to change the way things are done sitewide in all similar cases, with the accompanying discussion of whether to accept that proposal, then they should not be allowed to sit around and accumulate. Otherwise you just undermine the basic organization of this wiki by default. Texugo (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You really thought I could have been talking about articles that are in violation of specific policies? Why would you think I meant that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you said "new article style" and I assumed you were referring to the recent calendar experiment, which falls outside of our defined 11 article types. Texugo (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean new article types that aren't specifically prohibited or restricted. I don't know of any specific policy that prevents a calendar article, only general policies at wiaa. Articles about bodies of water or attractions are specifically restricted on policy pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But clearly they aren't. We just bend the rules to accommodate the ones we want, like we do for Disney attractions, and ski resorts.  We have lots of body of water articles too, either made into travel topics, or we just pretend they are about the land that surrounds them.  Look through the vfd's to see how many bodies of water have actually successfully been deleted, and the arguments over each one.
 * It think we need a Requests to try something new page. You need to list what you are trying and why.  It is sort of like a small expedition.  That way, people who really want to try something can, but people who are just passing by a copy a template from WP get caught early on.  Just a small threshold should be enough.  --Inas (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) In my view, an article that adds additional article(s) for a given destination and duplicates coverage of something which already has its rightful place within that article is undoubtedly contrary to the spirit of our redundancy and coverage guidelines and WV:WYCSI. Not that I am against adding new article types, as I think the airport and dive guide articles have turned out well, but those were introduced sitewide in a conscious manner and with quite a bit of discussion. Virtually everything else that is travel related already has an assigned place within our guides, and if we are going to change what we cover or where, I think we'd be much better off discussing it broadly rather than setting up a system where undiscussed exceptions can more easily slip through. Texugo (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WV:WYCSI is not a working link. What policy are you referring to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Wycsi. Texugo (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Re templates, I think they're fairly horrendous but handy hacks, and I include mapframe and marker among them. I consider the lack of templates here to be quite serendipitous, since badly coded templates like HTML fragments and odd tables have added to the problems that the Visual Editor is facing. The difference in template policy should actually be pointed out in the Welcome Wikipedians template too. However, the fact is that some templates are very useful, and it would be far better to discuss them on a single page, working out exactly what the template should do and further scope for it, as opposed to spread out on individual templates.
 * Can I take the above as an agreement that a page like Travellers' pub/Proposals is needed, as I brought up in Travellers'_pub? Especially since the pub is getting fuller and fuller, and space is required for centralised discussion of new ideas. I see it as an incubator, a stepping stone to Roadmap. Could User:JamesA or anybody start a proposed layout in that case? -- torty3 (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

PS. I'm also not that concerned with VfDs or MoS issues, because even with consistency issues, there are thousands of inconsistent articles that have not been manually touched in more than a few years. -- torty3 (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got the Pub splitting discussion rolling at Wikivoyage_talk:Travellers%27_pub. Please do contribute. <font color="#046380">James A ▪ talk 11:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"but people who are just passing by a copy a template from WP get caught early on." That's the entirely wrong attitude to have. --Rschen7754 05:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rschen. Let's review some facts that I find salient: The WMF took us under their wing when we were endangered by a SLAPP lawsuit from IB. Wikipedia is, if I'm not mistaken, by far the largest Wikimedia site. So, our response is what? To be reflexively hostile to Wikipedia and deliberately difficult to Wikipedians, or to be openly friendly toward our sister sites and as user-friendly and welcoming as possible to visitors from Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites? I sometimes get the sense that there may be some people here who want to bite the hand that feeds us. I won't name names, but if the shoe fits, please stop wearing it and think seriously about how we should best function as a collegial sister site to the movement that did so much to help and arguably save us. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To add to that, some English Wikipedians do go over to other sites and act like jerks. But assuming that they all are and treating them that way is not a good thing. --Rschen7754 06:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we "owe it" to individual Wikipedians to accept any and all templates they might want to use, nor do I think that not accepting any given template means that we are treating Wikipedians "like jerks". Sure, when it is something we decide is useful and there is no reason not to do it same way, we should make things easier for those users, but that doesn't mean everything they might want to do is something we want to do, and it certainly doesn't mean we should abolish our whole minimal-template ideal to allow all by default without discussion. Texugo (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally wouldn't Using MediaWiki templates be a better place for most of this discussion? Instead of proposing to loosen our deletion policy to include against-policy but ostensibly "harmless" templates, it seems like what is being proposed is an essential change to our process of proposing templates and its fundamental motivation of wanting to keep templates to a minimum to keep things as simple as possible, keep the code clean, reduce the learning curve for new users, and avoid format transfer problems like torty3 mentioned. Texugo (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why being welcoming to Wikipedians who want to edit Wikivoyage necessarily means accepting any and all templates they want to use. LtPowers (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't all or nothing, we're just asking for "some". --Rschen7754 20:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely. And I'd like to think we'd be above "all-or-nothing" arguments. Also, the fact that some people are used to templates and want to use them does not make anyone use any that are purely optional, so I don't understand the learning curve argument. If we want to reduce the learning curve for new users, that would be great, and we can and should discuss that separately. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're asking for "some" and you already get "some". I'm not arguing for "nothing" either. I'm just asking that we continue to require prior discussion before accepting them to make sure they are a best practice and are something we want. And I'm asking you not to be surprised when templates that are anonymously imported, not explained or pointed out to anyone, and abandoned for months end up on the vfd page. It is certainly not ideal, but until/unless we have a centralized place for discussing such proposed templates, the vfd page is the only way we can ensure they get discussed and either approved or rejected, so that we can keep things under control. Texugo (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "we can ensure they get discussed and either approved or rejected, so that we can keep things under control" - so much for a travel guide that anyone can edit. --Rschen7754 21:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My problem is not with templates being discussed, but with an automatic presumption that templates (or indeed new types of articles) that have not gone through a bureaucratic process of approval that few new users will know about (talk about "learning curve") should be deleted, just because they didn't go through that process. And what I, and I think Rschen are arguing for is for these templates to be judged based not on whether the people who created them or brought them here followed some process they were unaware of, but whether they are, on balance, harming the site in some evident way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, it sounds like what you actually want is to change the policy at Using MediaWiki templates from "prior proposal, discussion, and acceptance, for the sake of keeping code simple" to "we no longer care how many templates are out there, whether they are necessary, or what they do, so do whatever you want and if somebody doesn't like it they have the burden of proving harm later". Either we have a proactive approach that puts the burden on the creator to show the need and usefulness and universal application, or we have a reactive one which puts the burden on everyone else to establish that something is harmful, regardless of the need or usefulness or suitability for universal application. I don't think we can do both and, at least with regard to the main namespace, I think the latter is but a good way to start unravelling our consistent, coherent approach to content building in favor of a more idiosyncratic, individualistic license for editors, at the likely expense of the convenience for the reader. So to me, making sure that the templates we use can contribute to our sitewide consistency is also a case of the traveller coming first, not the editors or template makers.
 * Rschen7754, that is unnecessarily negative, unhelpful criticism that anyone who doesn't get their way on any wiki could throw out there. Please try to be more constructive and address the points made. Texugo (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, this is certainly relevant, as it treats those who come from Wikipedia like second-class citizens, contrary to the Wikimedia principle that "anyone can edit". Why are we saying that all these new templates "come from Wikipedia"? Would an "experimental" template be treated any differently if it came from an experienced Wikivoyager? --Rschen7754 23:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] Please explain how having an automatic bias in favor of rejecting templates that haven't gone through a formal approval process benefits the traveler, because I don't understand why it would. And please, once again, stop making "all or nothing" arguments, which strike me as disrespecting everyone's intelligence. I won't speak for Rschen, but my proposal is not that templates shouldn't be discussed or ruled on, but that the standard for deletion should be that they can be shown to harm the site. You are caricaturing the proposal, and I don't see how that's helpful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem that I have is that such "discussions" always take place at VFD, and the prejudice is always to delete. --Rschen7754 23:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There we can agree. I think that is the heart of the problem. Can we establish a proposals page, and change the text of the experimental template to let people know they should start/join a discussion there, and see how that goes? I think you are correct in thinking that things will be judged more favorably if presented there instead of on the vfd page. I think part of the problem is that since launch here we had a bunch of templates get started and never discussed according to policy, so without a central discussion page, there has been nothing to do with them except propose for deletion, and let a deletion-biased discussion take place there. You are both right that it is possibly unfair and hasty to delete both of the ones in vfd now, as I can see some validity in arguments regarding their usefulness. If we had a proposals page, we'd have a better place to bring up any other ones which may have slipped through, and new ones in the future. Ikan, if I am caricaturing your proposal, it's not on purpose. I think lowering the bar to "anything that can't be proven harmful" is too subjective and too lax a criterion, and that templates should also be shown to bring some broadly applicable added value to the site besides simply "somebody wanted to use it". But even the two I nominated on the page now might still arguably pass that bar of bringing added value and being broadly applicable, and they were only brought up here because no more appropriate place exists. So, can we go ahead with a proposals page and see if that helps to fight the deletion bias, which you want to avoid, without opening the floodgates on unnecessary, useless, or inconsistent stuff, which is what I want to avoid? Texugo (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's try that and see how it goes. I should add that I think it's usually good to have reasonable liberal and conservative positions represented in discussions, such that there are people who are enthusiastic about changes they think will help the people (in this case, the readers/travelers) and others who counsel against undue speed, lest things that are already working not be preserved and maintained. And the liberal or conservative positions don't necessarily get taken by the same people in every situation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ikan, you mentioned above that the standard should be whether a template harms the site in some way. Did Template:Ref and Template:Note harm the site in any way, by their mere presence?  Or are you talking about using them being harmful, not just their creation?  LtPowers (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting distinction. I think the way I'd put it is, the issue is whether a template would harm the site if it were used, regardless of whether it has already been used. And in the cases you bring up, as long as we continue to hold as a specific matter of policy and structure that travel guides like this one should have no refs or footnotes, templates that facilitate them harm the site by creating extra work for patrollers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, so the definition of "harm" could be quite broad. Could it possibly extend to "this template unnecessarily obfuscates wikicode and makes it harder for newbies to understand wikitext"?  LtPowers (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you're getting at, but that could extend to an argument to abolish templates. I think that if the template in question won't need to be edited and isn't doing anything harmful, it doesn't matter much if a new user has trouble understanding the template's code. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do get your point, though. I just doubt that optional templates are a major issue affecting the learning curve here, though I could be wrong. I think that things that affect the learning curve here include obligatory article templates, restrictions on location description and other things that smack of touting in hotel and some other listings, avoiding the 1st person, restrictions on external links to Wikipedia and various other unofficial links, and this site's tour policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A friendly reminder...
Please don't archive VfD nominations we've voted to delete until the article in question is actually deleted. If the nomination is unceremoniously buried in a rarely-seen archive, it's likely that no one will remember to delete the article (even if a speedy tag is placed on it).

Furthermore, if you don't have the sysop privileges necessary to delete articles, it's probably best to let someone else handle archiving.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. --Saqib (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)