Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Shortcut:
Vfd

This page contains lists of articles and images which are recommended for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can recommend an article or image for deletion, and any Wikivoyager can comment on the deletion nomination, but a deletion rationale must be provided. Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections prior to nominating articles/images 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.

Nominating

The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:

===[[Chicken]]===
* Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:

1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion. If you are unsure, bring up the issue on the talk page.
2. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion. The {{vfd}} tag must be the very first thing in the article, right at the very top, before everything else.
3. Add a link to the article or image at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article or image per entry.
4. If you're nominating an image for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikivoyage.

Commenting

All Wikivoyagers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments:

1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
2. You may vote to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If your opinion is that the article should be kept or redirected, please state why. If you are in favor of redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not

After fourteen (14) days of discussion, there will probably be consensus one way or the other. If the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager can do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If the result is delete, then only an administrator can delete. Check if any article links to the image or article in question. After removing those links, delete the image or article. However, if the image is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the images, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

Archiving

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root Archives page has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted).

If the nominated article was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the talk page of the article being kept or redirected. wts:Votes for deletion

September 2012

Islamabad (disambiguation)

Per here. --Saqib (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2012 (CEST)

• Delete - "According to old map of British India (1836), Anantnag was called Islamabad by some" so unlikely to confuse any traveller today! --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 13:45, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
• Support - What I said on the talk page. JamesA ^>talk 13:48, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
• Delete. --Peter ^Talk 02:36, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
• Delete. Keep. Apparently there is still some active usage of the name Islamabad, and it is a historical name of the city. A disambiguation page could help site readers, so there is no reason to delete it.--Globe-trotter (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
• Comment. After a bit of research, it does appear there is a recent push from Islamic Kashmir to know this place as Islamabad. However, I don't think this is likely to be an issue facing a traveller. --Inas (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
• Comment — The official government site for Anantnag has this to say: "but still the name Islamabad is Popular among common masses, though officially the name Anantnag is used." [1] So there is some evidence of actual current usage, not just historical use. — Ravikiran r (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2012 (CEST)

We can mention Islamabad name as being the former name of Anantnag in the article. --Saqib (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

• Keep. As long as searching for or linking to Islamabad gets you to the correct article, there is no reason not to have this disambig page. Pashley (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

As a general rule, I think old names should be supported. See User talk:Pashley/Archive#Test_old_names Pashley (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

October 2012

Template:TOCright

• Delete. I don't think there is any reason we'd want to have the TOC on the right, so I don't really see the purpose of this template. --Globe-trotter (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
• Delete. Any change like this should be done globally. --Peter ^Talk 03:25, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

• Sorry, I wasn't referencing policy in my prior comment, but policy is clear regarding this one: Wikivoyage:Using_Mediawiki_templates#New_Mediawiki_Template_proposals. New templates must be first proposed and only introduced if there is consensus to do so. Straightforward delete per policy. --Peter ^Talk 04:31, 3 October 2012 (CEST)

• Keep - I'd be questioning why we have Template:TOCleft when the TOC is on the left by default. There are specific examples when TOCright could be used. I've only used it once so far, on the UNESCO page that we've just about finished with a new layout. By putting the TOC on the right, it doesn't interfere with the table and makes the intro flow smoothly. It can be expanded to see individual countries without messing anything up, as the photos are simply moved down the page. I invite you to remove the template and see what happens then. JamesA ^>talk 03:48, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Over on UNESCO, I'd personally say it looks just fine if you swap the location of the contents and the brown-and-white logo on the page. The location of the TOC can be moved further up (to keep it from interfering with the placement of the Africa header - is this your concern?) by using the __TOC__ keyword as the second line in the page source; various placements of that keyword can be used on most pages where the default positioning botches the formatting. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

    That would make the issue less prominent when the TOC is collapsed, but my concern was when a reader was to inevitably open one of the continents in the TOC (say Europe) and it pushes the table on to the right side of the page and underneath the image. This will cause more trouble as further images are added. An easier and cleaner solution would be to simply float the TOC to the right. I don't see how that could do any harm. JamesA ^>talk 04:13, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

• Vehement Keep. In the 6 years or so that I have been looking at Wikitravel and then Wikivoyage articles I've often wondered why such a large proportion of our editors are so aesthetically challenged/visually handicapped/possessed of humungously wide screens that they can not see just how many of our articles are currently visually buggered.

For the majority of Travellers in the world that use writing systems that read left to right and top to bottom, the right hand margin is the least visually intrusive for the Table of Contents and this template ensures that Infoboxes are pushed down underneath it so that the lede is not reduced to a narrow worm sandwiched between the two.

When the image bug is fixed, I will be able to post some "before and after" screen shots that should make the improvement this template brings instantly clear. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 04:16, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

• Delete. It confounds all typical English-language page layouts to place any TOC on the right side of a page. While there may be room for improvement in the default TOC layout (I favor adding a linebreak at the bottom, like a Wikipedia-formatted page, to keep it from indenting the next section header), we already have the tools to manually reposition it and the ability to fix the defaults - not throw them out entirely in favor of a completely non-standard, unexpected location. Having an unpredictable mixture of left and right would be worse still. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

  I agree that we can not have a mixture of lefts and rights, and that the template should be used sparingly, not on pages left, right and centre which is what seems to have triggered this nomination (as I created the template a few days ago and no one cried foul then). However, I cannot see why we cannot allow certain instances where the TOC would otherwise mess with an article significantly. I can't imagine readers seeing a TOC on the right, becoming so very confused and in the end not bothering to read the article. Can I also ask what you mean by "the tools to manually reposition it"? If you mean we don't need a template for that UNESCO instance, and can simply substitute the repositioning table onto the page, I would be fine with that. Although it would make for a big coding jumble at the start of the page. JamesA ^>talk 04:47, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

Sorry about that James. Globetrotter follows me around and mindlessly reverts most anything I do to the point of vandalism and egregious policy violations. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 05:05, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

• JamesA, I've demonstrated one possible way to do it on that page now (direct link to that revision: [2] - I also made the logo thumbnail on the right a little bigger so it was closer to the TOC's height). I don't believe we can create the more stand-alone style of TOC that Wikipedia uses, with the entirely open space to its right (example: wikipedia:UNESCO World Heritage List) without modifying the TOC-generation code, though. That's a discussion that certainly wouldn't take place on this page! -- D. Guillaume (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

  I see that formatting keeps the table and image together. To be honest, I don't feel that keeping the images and countries together is such a huge issue. The fluidity and layout of the article is more important, especially with tables. Aligning the TOC to the right pushes the photos down, but keeps the layout together. Can I also say that we plan to add some more photos to the right column, so that could cause a lot of issues and a lot of white space using that layout you recommended. JamesA ^>talk 11:02, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

• Keep I don't see why this template should be deleted, it can be useful on lots of pages. The software MediaWiki gave us the TOC tag in order to allow us to control how and where the TOC can be placed. Some pages may (if not now, maybe in the future) flow better and looks better with the contents list on the right side rather than on the left. Off-course this template can be used to good effect, and won't be overused. And even if this template is deleted, there is nothing preventing an editor from using other means to force to place the table of content to be on the right side. My suggestion is that we keep this template at-least for now. --Saqib (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

• Delete We should keep templates that support our style, and delete those that don't. Having templates for styles we wish to discourage, is confusing to new editors, who may reasonable assume that templates are there to be used. --Inas (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
• Delete No reason to keep it. Jc8136 (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2012 (CEST)

• Keep - Although destination articles shouldn't have this, there may be pages with tables where this would make a better layout, such as UNESCO World Heritage List. –sumone10154^(talk) 22:18, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
• Keep Eiland (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2012 (CET)

• Keep In my view TOC right should be the default, used unless there is some graphic or map that needs the space. I'm not as vehement as W. Frank above, but I agree that it is the least visually intrusive (& therefore obviously the right) place to put a TOC. Pashley (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

An example: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cryptography Pashley (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice: Although this appears deadlocked per votes, a clear deletion rationale has been provided (Wikivoyage:Using_Mediawiki_templates#New_Mediawiki_Template_proposals), and no policy-based arguments have been made to keep this template. Since we're not a majoritarian bunch, I'm inclined to delete this and clean it from the page, but given the degree of contention, I'll wait a few days before going ahead, to allow anyone to prove this template innocent. If deleted, we can always revisit the position and style of our ToC (that would be a wonderful thing to do, actually). --Peter ^Talk 02:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:TOCleft

JamesA brings up a good point above: this template is completely unused. Of the four links to it anywhere on the site, one is this page, and the other three are only mentioning it in passing in years-old discussions.

• Delete. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

• Mild Keep. Choice is good. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 04:19, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

• Delete - As I said above. There is no use for it, as the TOC is left by default. JamesA ^>talk 04:27, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

• Delete - –sumone10154^(talk) 04:37, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
• Delete Not necessary. TOC is left by default. --Saqib (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

Please would the nominator place the appropriate VfD template on the discussion page of this template so interested parties can be notified. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 04:45, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

• Delete, obviously. --Globe-trotter (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
• Delete. Pointless/redundant. --Peter ^Talk 04:31, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
• Delete no need. Jc8136 (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2012 (CEST)

Template:Cityguide, Template:Countryguide, etc.

Includes the following pages:

• Template:Cityguide
• Template:Countryguide
• Template:Districtguide
• Template:Regionguide
• Template:Parkguide
• Template:Continentguide
• Template:Continentalsectionguide
• Template:Stateguide

I'm not familiar with RDF, so I'm not sure what these templates were formerly used for, but since now RDF is depricated, these templates do not do anything. –sumone10154^(talk) 05:37, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

• Comment - Some of them are transcluded on a huge number of pages [3] We would have to consider how to remove all the instances. 08:10, 7 October 2012 (CEST) —The preceding comment was added by JamesA (talk • contribs)
  • I'm assuming we would use a bot to remove them. –sumone10154^(talk) 19:12, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

• I'm a little hesitant to delete... at the moment it's the only way we have of distinguishing the different types of articles from each other in a machine-readable way (even without the RDF, the mere presence of the templates is useful in that way). If we ever need them again, it'd be a lot of work to add them back. LtPowers (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

• Keep. I don't think they're confusing any newbie editors or travellers, space will be practically infinite and cheap and the Lieutenant makes a good point about bot searching. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 20:24, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

I think they are confusing. Especially because we have Template:Cityguide and Template:Guidecity, which are distinctly different. --Inas (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

• Keep per LtPowers. They are potentially very useful for things like, for example, suppressing "add listing" functionality to, say, region articles, or huge city main articles. --Peter ^Talk 20:24, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

• Comment A link to a template is far from the best way of doing this. Categories may be better. But we need to develop a strategy before deleting. --Inas (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2012 (CEST)

Could we create hidden categories to replace these templates then? Or have the templates place the article in a category? –sumone10154^(talk) 05:25, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

• Comment - Keep until we design & implement something better. I'd say it was fairly obvious that status stub/.../guide/star should use one set of tags and article type city/region/.../continent/itinerary/topic another, rather than confounding them into a larger set of dual-purpose tags as at present, but that & other questions need discussion and we have more urgent things to do now. Pashley (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:London2012

• Delete - The London Olympics are over, so we have no use for this template anymore. –sumone10154^(talk) 19:23, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
  • It's not an inherently bad idea to delete it, but it would be nice to have at least one such template on hand to serve as a model for the future. LtPowers (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Question: When we delete templates like this, is there an automatic way of removing the deleted template code from articles where there would otherwise be a red {{London2012|<<Stadium/Venue>>}} - or does this task still have to be done manually? (Sorry to interrupt proceedings with my shattering ignorance!) --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 20:43, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
    • If there were alot of pages containing a deleted template, we could create a bot to do it. But if there aren't that many pages, it's probably easier to remove them manually (which has been already done for this template a few weeks ago). –sumone10154^(talk) 22:21, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
      • Thanks for the quick answer Sumone10154! (And I assume that when we click "What links here" on the template candidate for deletion we always get an infallible answer and then it is the deleting admin's task to delete any occurrences before he finally deletes the template itself.) In that case

*Keep per the Lieutenant's rationale (if the decision is to keep, then this section will need to be slightly re-worded --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 23:27, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

• Delete. Create the template for the next Olympics. Any rationale for keeping this one disappears. --Inas (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
  • I'm not sure why I didn't check, but Template:Sochi2014 has existed since July 2011. LtPowers (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
    • OK I've replaced the example template now and I change my opinion:
• Delete. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 02:41, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
• Delete per above. --Saqib (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
• Delete. I hoped to find a precedent for this, but can't find one—that and the fact that they don't pop up in special:allpages/template leads me to believe we have deleted these in the past. --Peter ^Talk 03:26, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Aha! Found one. And more importantly, the policy that says we should delete this. --Peter ^Talk 03:33, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
    • Geez, I said almost the exact same thing two years ago as I did above. At least I'm consistent. Anyway, the Sochi2014 template should have been listed on the Template index after it was created; the wording there implies that all active event templates should be listed -- doing so would avoid the problem of making sure we keep at least one around. (Alternatively, we could create a meta-template that is used to generate a consistent format for these event templates; that might obviate the need to keep one around at all times.) LtPowers (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

Wikivoyage:Cooperating with WikiOutdoors

• Delete. This site does not exist anymore. --Globe-trotter (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2012 (CEST)
• Delete –sumone10154^(talk) 02:37, 12 October 2012 (CEST)
• Restore and Mark historical. Deleting something just because it's no longer relevant is akin to removing our history. It may be instructive in the future to have the ability to review how we tried to work with other projects in the past. LtPowers (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2012 (CEST)

I agree with LtPowers, about both actions & reasons. Pashley (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2012 (CEST)

Keep per above. --Saqib (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2012 (CEST)

• Keep / Mark historical - as above. JamesA ^>talk 12:56, 12 October 2012 (CEST)

• Keep and affix "historical" template --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 18:22, 12 October 2012 (CEST)
• Delete (now I am supplied with new information below by Inas). --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 01:31, 16 October 2012 (CEST)

• Delete We never cooperated with them. We never shared anything. We never associated with them. Now they are dead. The page itself was added as nothing more than a promotional page for the other site. There is nothing instructive here as to how we have cooperated with sites in the past, or how we will do in the future. I'd argue to delete this even if the site was still active. --Inas (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

• Delete per above. --Saqib (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

A Day Trip to Newport, RI

• Delete - We usually delete outline itineraries after one year, but this one has no content at all. –sumone10154^(talk) 05:52, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

• Delete - Unless I'm ignoring some policy I can't think of, I don't see a good reason not to delete. (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

• Delete - Can I beg for someone not to say Redirect to Newport? --Inas (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

No reason for a redirect. Why would someone be looking for this? (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

So far, so good. :-) --Inas (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2012 (CEST)

• Merge & redirect — No, not because Inas wanted, but because this is policy. See Wikivoyage:Itineraries#"Personal" itineraries. Personal itineraries have been done away with and...In order to keep itineraries actually useful to travelers, "personal" itineraries are now tagged for merging to the appropriate city or region destination article. Not my words/opinion. AHeneen (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to merge here; there's no content at all. And articles merged into another can be deleted; they're not required to become a redirect. –sumone10154^(talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

How do we maintain attribution if we don't redirect? LtPowers (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to attribute. Attribution only applies if there was useful text in this article which was later moved to some other page... even then, there are other ways around the problem (keeping the author list for a page with one author, for instance, may mean just giving that original author's name in an edit summary when pasting the text). There is nothing here, so no attribution to retain. K7L (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's no useful text, then it's not a merge. LtPowers (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Busy

• Delete, undiscussed new template and doesn't add anything that an infobox couldn't; see also this discussion. Not used on any pages. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

Given that these templates are only for use on user pages, and given that people can do whatever they want on their user pages, do we think that this policy was supposed to apply to this kind of template? --Inas (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

Probably the closest discussion was at Wikivoyage talk:Using Mediawiki templates#User Page Banners, which didn't set any firm policies, but it seems most people were opposed to (a) template "bloat" and (b) userspace templates without a direct relation to travel.

There's also the usual consideration which applies to all templates: if it's not going to be used on a large number of pages and benefit from site-wide standardization, why create it as a template? -- D. Guillaume (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

Yes, I recall that discussion against userbox ugliness. However, I don't think anyone is disputing in this case that the userpage content is reasonable, are they? Given it is reasonable, is there any reason not to have a shortcut? I'd personally be in favour of keeping this template, but I appreciate the policy is for consensus for new templates, so..

• Defer. Give the creator an opportunity to given the motivation for the template on the discussion page of the template concerned. If no consensus emerges, then Delete as per policy. --Inas (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2012 (CEST)

• Comment This template can be used when a user is either busy or going away. Peter tried to tell that he's going away for few days by using Template:Disclaimerbox however perhaps he could use this busy template if it was available at that time. --Saqib (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2012 (CEST)

• Keep. I assume it offers the trivial potential advantage over a customised infobox of saving our editors a modicum of time and, more importantly, of us being able to easily compile a list of editors that may not see site notices for a while so that they could be e-mailed instead. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 01:24, 16 October 2012 (CEST)

• Keep Eiland (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2012 (CET)

Baden Airpark

• Small airports don't normally get their own articles. It'll be easy to merge the useful bits back into Baden-Baden, which is not overly long itself. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2012 (CEST)
• Merge and then Delete Redirect. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 01:24, 16 October 2012 (CEST)
• Merge and Redirect. Merge-then-delete causes us to lose the attribution history of the content being merged; that is a direct violation of our license. LtPowers (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2012 (CEST)
• This article again raises the issue that there is more travel information available about many airports, than there is is about many small towns. Especially airports served by LCCs that can be a distance from any substantive destination. We allow some of the biggest airports as destination articles, but this logic isn't necessarily in the best interest of the traveller. Are you going to find a coffee shop open late, ATM, city shuttle at JFK? I don't need a guide to tell me that. However, if I were flying Ryan Air to Baden Airpark, I probably would. Our policy is fairly clear right now though, so we should mark it as Merge. --Inas (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
• Keep – view wikivoyage.de Flughafen Karlsruhe Baden-Baden -- Pedelecs (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2012 (CEST)
  • We may have different inclusion criteria than the German Wikivoyage; its inclusion there is not a strong argument for its inclusion here. LtPowers (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2012 (CEST)
• Merge/Redirect per above. –sumone10154^(talk) 03:57, 19 October 2012 (CEST)

Antwerp (disambiguation)

Why need this disambiguation page when Antwerp is nowhere else in the world except itself in Belgium. Antwerp (province) is already showing in the breadcrumb menu in the Antwerp article and form part of the hierarchy. There are some more disambiguation pages like this that need to deleted as well such as Rio de Janeiro (disambiguation) or perhaps Babylon (New York) as well. --Saqib (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2012 (CEST)

• Delete - Yes, we need to set a precedent on this, as I don't believe any particular policy states whether disambiguations must be created for two places, even if both are mentioned in the hierarchy. JamesA ^>talk 10:36, 21 October 2012 (CEST)

• Delete - Yes, James and Saqib have correct reasoning (same as London and Paris) and one should not need 2 clicks to go to Antwerp. —The preceding comment was added by Alice (talk • contribs) I'm sorry. I thought I did sign my name. I'll try again: --203.117.33.6 13:15, 22 October 2012 (CEST) Sorry about this. Very strange. Try again: -- (WV-en) Alice^✉ 13:17, 22 October 2012 (CEST)

London and Paris disambiguation pages should be kept. --Saqib (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (CEST)

Agreed. There are several cities in different parts of the world that are called London and Paris. Paris, Texas, for example, and London, Ontario. A disambiguation page is needed for those. (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2012 (CEST)

Actually, London and Paris are both in Ontario. K7L (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2012 (CEST)

• Remove otheruses from Antwerp. No doubt the otheruses template and the reference to the disamb page in the Antwerp article should be removed. It looks stupid, and it is redundant. I think that will have the desired effect here. As to whether we need to delete the disamb page, it's cheap, and neither here nor there really. The page isn't the problem, it is the link from the Antwerp article. --Inas (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2012 (CEST)

• Keep I do not understand why these pages have been nominated for deletion. They all are used when there are multiple destinations with the same name. It doesn't matter if they're in the same country, different levels of geographical hierarchy (city vs. province; Georgia (state) vs. Georgia the country—or one destination is located within the geographical hierarchy of the other page of the same name—ie., Antwerp vs. Antwerp (province). The fact is more than one page/destination uses the same name (without "province" or the region name attached in parentheses)—the first criteria on Wikivoyage:Disambiguation pagesand therefore no reason to delete the disambiguation page! Now, as for which page is displayed when typing the name (whether Antwerp should lead to the city, province, or disambiguation page), that is another matter and, per policy, a message in italics should be placed at the top of that page with a link to the disambiguation page or other destination with the same name (but region/region level attached in parentheses).AHeneen (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is very convincing. I think you're exactly right: The disambiguation should be kept, but the Antwerp city guide should load whenever someone searches for "Antwerp." Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ivy Lea

Village-level article created with no content at all. This is a tiny rural district in Lansdowne (Ontario) in the Thousand Islands, not a municipality. It does not have its own town hall, post office or telephone exchange. While it is possible to sleep there [4][5][6][7] and there is at least one marina, something this small should likely be part of a larger article like Gananoque, Brockville, Thousand Islands or (were it to ever get a page) Lansdowne. (WP just redirects this and Lansdowne to Leeds and the Thousand Islands as the closest town hall, but even they have nothing much to say about Ivy Lea per se). K7L (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2012 (CEST)

You're obviously familiar with the area. Just redirect it to what you see as the best fit. Done. --Inas (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2012 (CEST)

As we don't have Lansdowne (except as a disambiguation which doesn't mention it as a population-1000 village in Ontario), the two possible targets are Gananoque (another town on the same side, 16km/10mi upriver) or Thousand Islands (Ivy Lea/Rockport is not an island, but is very close to the bridge and parkway). Both are close to usable articles. The scope of Thousand Islands (does it include anything on the mainland? does it actually include both countries? is it a bottom-level destination or just another pointless layer of region under northern New York?) is under discussion at Talk:Thousand Islands#Listings. The question of rural listings displaced to an adjacent town (redirect to a subsection for each village in a section "nearby" or "around the region"? don't distinguish the rural village from the adjacent town or city? list these in region-level pages instead of locally if there is no city-level page?) is unresolved at Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Villages with one or no listings. I'm tempted to create Gananoque ==Nearby== ===Landsdowne=== ===Rockport=== ===Ivy Lea=== as a section redirect target and place all of the mainland phone +1-613-659- / postcode K0E 1L0 listings there (with Hill Island to Thousand Islands, where it is now) but need to see if there is any consensus on Wikivoyage talk:Small city article template#Buy.2FDrink.2FAround_the_region first. K7L (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2012 (CET)

The reason you gave for removing this article is that there is no travel related content to add. If that is the case, why does it need a section in another article? We don't need to mention every place, just because it exists. --Inas (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Template:MFG

This is a template for a German car sharing website. There is a discussion leading up to this vfd in the pub. The idea being that this template would be placed on many German articles. Eiland has raised many valid points with the way that the geographical hierarchy works, and the benefits of putting this template across many destination guides. However, I have some concerns.

1. That this information may be best maintained in the country level article, rather than duplicated in each destination guide.
2. That is hasn't received any support as is required by our Wikivoyage:Using_Mediawiki_templates policy.
3. That the site being linked to may run afoul of our Wikivoyage:External links policy.

This is obviously a good faith attempt to produce useful travel content, which makes assessing it all the harder. --Inas (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2012 (CEST)

Delete - I agree with Inas. (WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2012 (CET)

Delete - I agree with Inas. My detailed comments can be found in the Pub. --Atsirlin (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2012 (CET)

Im against deleting for stated reasons in the pub. It sems to me overly procedural to want to get this one out? There are more templates around which do stuff in content where no-one complains about (and im not going to snitch on them here). But this deletion proposal feels like an italian tax revenue service wich collects small tax debts from smalltime crooks who arent hiding, whereas the missing tax billions are banked overseas and government isnt even trying to set it straight. Anyway, welcome to wikivoyage? -- Eiland (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2012 (CET)

Eiland, I would like to re-iterate that none of us is trying to insult you. You made a suggestion that so far lacks any clear support of the community. If you still want to go forward, please, address our concerns and try to improve your template. The fact that we have other dubious templates does not justify the creation of a new one. --Atsirlin (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2012 (CET)

Also, the reason other templates either not in use or not really desirable aren't deleted is precisely because no-one has complained about them. --Peter ^Talk 14:25, 29 October 2012 (CET)

No problem.

1. What have links to http://www.carpooling.co.uk/carshare/_Germany/Munich.html and http://www.mitfahrzentrale.de/suche.php?frmpost=1&lang=GB&START=Munich to do on the Germany-page? Or otherwise stated, we do list trains, busses; etc. in cities, but these are also mentioned on the national pages, I don't really see the difference? Additionally, the template provides a deep link to the rids-shares offered from the WV-pages it is being used at.
   An additional concern was the maintainability. But the template seems to me to be in fact easy maintainable because if the MFG or MFZ service change their link format, one edit to the template will update all links.
2. There were three (3) people participating in the discussion. The only valid conclusion I see is that not a lot of people really care or mind? Mind you, I'm trying to improve the guide too.
3. Why exactly? I looked again at Wikivoyage:External links and I don't see why we cant have those links in the ride share section. Application of the template even prevents the use of useless front-link links such as "you can find rideshares here" [8]

-- Eiland (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2012 (CET)

You should have a closer look at the last two comments here. --Atsirlin (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2012 (CET)

I've got the feeling that this is one of those deletion discussions where all the time new arguments for deletion will be brought in until the template is gone, but here goes:

4. Regarding printing "problems" ((WV-en) Ryan): We can put a <noprint></noprint> in the template around the link which he/she says are too long to print. Ryan was concerned that the template "that it is being used to promote a specific service that might otherwise be questionable based on Wikivoyage:External links" but i still don't understand how this would be in disregard of that policy?
5. Regarding maintaining the template (Atsirlin): isn't that the point of moving to the Wikimedia Foundation: w:Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Beyond that, this is a very basic template, and I don't want to sound too ignorant, what on earth could go wrong?

-- Eiland (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2012 (CET)

Well, I am not going to elicit your response. I will only note that Ryan's argument has nothing to do with what you have written above. Regarding the maintenance, we had all "article status" plaques broken after the migration. But that was just a table environment, which is "a very basic template" indeed. --Atsirlin (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2012 (CET)

Responding to Eiland: the last bullet point of Wikivoyage:External links#What not to link to covers car rental services, and while this car sharing service isn't the same as a rental agency it's very similar. My larger point made in the Pub, however, is that this template would set an example that any number of similar services will want to follow, and I think it's a dangerous precedent to set as it will make it more difficult to deal with individuals who want to promote a service on Wikivoyage. Ensuring that Wikivoyage is not overwhelmed by promotional content has been our single hardest battle - both in fighting obviously promotional material and in ensuring that useful content is not excluded - and I think that this template will become an example that makes it harder to push back against attempts to use Wikivoyage for promotion in the future. Let's continue the discussion about how to allow useful services while excluding promotional content, but until that discussion reaches a clear consensus I think this template would set the wrong example. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:32, 31 October 2012 (CET)

At least I'm happy no-one brings up the issue that we shouldn't confront travellers with German pages anymore :) But sorry; car rental isn't ride sharing. There might be 20+ car rental agencies in a city, and the MFG template mentions 2 major German ride sharing sites. It remains an editorial decision by us as to which car rental or ride sharing service to add either to a template or to a destination. I don't see how car rental agencies could use templates sensibly? Also, when an added template is in plain violation of the External link policies, it doesn't seem hard to remove it, either from a destination or the template as such. Further more I think its not very useful to talk in terms of dangerous precedent or a single hardest battle, those metaphors cloud this simple question. Also, please elaborate what would then be the advantage of adding the rideshare paragraph without templates to the destination articles? Certainly not maintainability. But I see in Wikitravel there is a long standing tradition of not liking templates, and its hard to break with tradition, that I know. -- Eiland (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2012 (CET)

There are only five popular car rental agencies (Hertz, Budget, Avis, Sixt, Eurocar), so why don't we link to them on every page? --Atsirlin (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2012 (CET)

There is nothing special about this template. The question here is, where there is a site, that is relevant to an entire country, do we want to make a template and add it to every relevant destination in that country. In the U.S., this could equally well apply to every car rental agency, craiglist + 1000 others for ride shares, Days Inn or Best Western for accommodation. Every discussion I've ever seen on this has ended up pointing the other way, i.e that things that are relevant everywhere in a country should be described at the country level, and only have at most a cursory mention at the destination guide level. If we start duplicating this information it devalues our geographical hierarchy, it opens the floodgates to many more templates of this kind. We need a strong consensus to make this change. VFD isn't the place to argue for that consensus, it is the place to follow our policies, and the policy on this template is quite clear, IMO. Also, even if we were considering making this kind of template, a ride sharing site is a bad place to start. There are thousands of these sites, many of them dubious. We can't tell if any of them are official, and some may actually be dangerous or illegal. --Inas (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2012 (CET)

I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by this (kind of) discussion, I thought Wikitravel atmosphere was more flexible? Why is it that with proposing one template (ok, three - including the Swiss and Austrian ones), fellow editors need to express concern on the Overall Wellbeing of the travel guide? What happened the reliance on our editors? Isn't this a wiki? People add stuff to the travelling guide and others either keep it because they judge it valuable, or delete it, if they judge it inappropriate. For now there seem to be 200 mentions of Hertz and Avis on the site, and they don't seem to be in anyone's way. For one I would greatly oppose a "project" to remove them. If they are inappropriate in a certain destination, any editors has the right to remove them. The same goes for applying the template. If it adds valuable content to a destination, it will be kept, if not, its application will be deleted. I sincerely do not see how keeping this template would open the floodgates of commercial spam or craiglist. IF craiglists provides a valuable car sharing resource for a region, I believe it should be added, just as I believe the addresses/contact information of local car rental stores, either owned by a chain or independent. This info needs to be in get in get out sections, as travellers might need it. The whole story of geographical hierarchy regarding the rise sharing sites to me does not make a lot of sense - as I already argued in the pub. Regarding this not being the right place for the discussion; I brought it up in the pub, and then Inas took it here. I don't think its fair to claim now its not appropriate to discuss it here when no viable other locus is proposed. What are these pages for then?

Im going to bother to argue against your fallacy that car sharing sites might be dangerous or illegal, because then they also would not have a place on your argued regional articles, now would they? -- Eiland (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2012 (CET)

Well, wiki is about finding consensus, not about edit wars as you are suggesting. Sorry, but I probably don't have time to explain this further now, when we have tons of work on moving images from Shared to Commons, and making sure that things will work after the migration to WMF servers. There is a lot of more important things to do. --Atsirlin (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2012 (CET)

Toronto (Prince Edward Island)

• No such city. A map only finds a small country road with a crossroads and no services. K7L (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
• Redirect real places to the next-closest or next-biggest destination. LtPowers (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
• Comment: There's nothing to redirect. We have (and will have) no listings for "Toronto Road, Mayfield, Cavendish, Prince Edward Island" as there's actually nothing there to list. K7L (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2012 (CEST)
  • I don't understand what you mean; the title "Toronto (Prince Edward Island)" is what we would redirect. LtPowers (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2012 (CEST)
• Delete. I know our policy is to merge and redirect, but there's nothing there (it's an intersection in rural PEI) so it's extremely unlikely someone will be searching for it. Our coverage of PEI is so poor, the only thing we could redirect it to is the province article itself. There's also no history or contributions that we need to preserve. It seems a waste to keep the page around, even as a redirect. -Shaund (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2012 (CET)
• Delete. Pashley (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2012 (CET)
• Redirect. Someone, at one time thought enough about this place to bother to create a page with a template. --Inas (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2012 (CET)
• Redirect per Deletion policy. Just as a reminder, the whole point of that policy section is to save us the time of thinking about these trivial things and of going through the vfd process (it doesn't actually matter if it's redirected or deleted). --Peter ^Talk 22:32, 28 October 2012 (CET)

Result: Moved to Cavendish and Rustico Harbour. Toronto, PEI doesn't warrant an article, but nearby is Cavendish, which is a tourist attraction and should have had an article long ago. -Shaund (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2012 (CET)

November 2012

Gorzów Wielkopolski

This article used to be a redirect to Gorzów Wielkopolskie, the redirect having been put in place by User:Globe-trotter. Then a new user Alan ffm put a VFD template on it without adding it to the VFD page. I am inclined to think that the template addition was an error. Does this need to be deleted? — Ravikiran (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2012 (CET)

• Keep Pashley (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Actually this is correct and Gorzów Wielkopolskie is wrong. Jjtk (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirects to Joke Articles

Per the discussion on the pub, I have moved the joke articles to a subpage of Wikipedia:Joke articles, so the following redirects should be deleted. I have already removed all links to the redirect pages.

• Arial
• Bodoni
• Cocobanana Beach
• Ems
• Goudy phrasebook
• Lower Caisse
• Port Clarendon
• Upper Caisse
• West Upper Caisse
• West Upper Caisse County
• Earth
• World
• Hell (Hades)
• Flaccid Peninsula National Park
• You
• Jurassic Park
• Mordor
• Atlantis

–sumone10154^(talk) 21:28, 1 November 2012 (CET)

• Delete Thanks for doing this. --Inas (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2012 (CET)
• Delete - Sounds like the logical thing to do. Although I believe Earth should be recreated as an article linking to all the continents, as there could be a few searches for it. There is also the possibility of later creating an "imagemap" as we discussed on Talk:Main Page where users are able to click on particular countries and be taken to their articles. JamesA ^>talk 04:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Makes sense. --Globe-trotter (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep; the redirects a) are harmless, and b) make it much easier to get to these articles, and c) provide a bit of levity for the curious searcher. If a reader has enough of a sense of humor to search for "Jurassic Park", we ought to take him to our article on Jurassic Park. LtPowers (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with LtPowers...there is no harm in keeping these pages as redirects. AHeneen (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Earth appears to actually be a real place (although I can't insert that claim in Wikipedia yet for want of a good reliable source which is neutral and independent of the article's subject). It should therefore return a list of continents or a main index of some sort (much like fr: has a map of continents on its main page). The rest of these seem harmless, though. K7L (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Pashley (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per LtPowers. Earth is a bit of a different question, though. I'll throw a suggestion out there to move our current article to Earth (joke), but that type of decision would need to be made somewhere other than the vfd page. --Peter ^Talk 02:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Holj 091.jpg

There's no licencing information for this image and its source info points to a local real estate company webpage. I can't find the image on that site, but I think it's questionable that the image would be licensed under CC-BY-SA or in the public domain. Plus the image is pretty low quality.

• Delete -Shaund (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Template:Commons category

Undiscussed MediaWiki template. LtPowers (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - We need to discuss how we are going to link to sister projects first at the respective policy that is still being finalise. JamesA ^>talk 04:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ref and Template:Note

• Delete. Use of citations and/or references would be a huge policy change, so this template should not be implemented without first discussing a change in policy. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• This is not for this use, see Rio de Janeiro, this just a note. I'm feeling so much that you want to protect what was there before, they are not giving any opening to news, or even understand what is being proposed. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 04:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  The idea here is that you first propose and discuss, then make the changes. Not the other way around. --Atsirlin (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Travel guides should be easy to read. They do not need references and footnotes. --Atsirlin (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete; allowing footnotes opens a huge can of worms and makes travel guides harder to print out and read. LtPowers (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Rodrigo, I appreciate your efforts to help, but in my opinion, there was no good reason for the "Notes" section you created. You can see how I edited the Rio de Janeiro article here: [9]. I also agree with all the votes to delete your templates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If a user has taken the time to search online for sources for a page, those sources might be of use to the next person to edit the article (so the same pointless web search doesn't need to be repeated). These should, however, be handled in such a way that these don't appear at all when an article is printed. Someone wandering around with a dead-tree copy of a city description isn't online to consult any of those reliable sources, regardless of their merits. One option would be to code this not to print (much like the mess of maintenance templates on a Wikipedia page), another would be to push the info off the article page to another location (such as the talk page). I don't necessarily agree with throwing the info away, but it does need to be omitted from hard copy of individual articles. K7L (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The talk page is where we put this sort of information, since its purpose is article maintenance. LtPowers (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - I am new here and happened upon this page after searching for a reference template. I see no harm in referencing some of the information. For those afraid of crossing the line into encyclopedic, I don't think you have to worry. There are many aspects of this project (from the eyes of a new editor) that will never require references or notes. A cursory scan over a well-written article leads me to believe that sections like "Buy, Eat, Drink, Sleep, Contact, Stay Safe, Get in and Get around" are for all intensive purposes, opinions by travellers and would thus, not require any referencing. To me, this is what is unique about WikiVoyage. However, sections like "Districts, History, Climate, Literature, Movies, Talk, See and Do" could benefit from having references. Since WikiVoyage is a blend of many things, I think having the option to reference is vital to the integrity of the site.

From a Wikipedian perspective, the sections I listed as beneficial with references are very sensitive areas for intentional and unintentional misinformation. As the site grows now that it is part of the WikiMedia family, there will be a lot of new editors, and with it, a lot of new vandals. Without a direct source, which by referencing is a "click-away" it can become tedious to do a google search each time one of these things get changed, or updated.

As long as tone does not change, by which I mean that the site continues to be written in an informal, un-encyclopedic way, there will not be an issue of shared "missions" between Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. They are vastly different; it is clear to me with only being here for a couple days poking around. Referencing non-opinionated sections does no harm to the sites integrity or mission.

I agree with the "no print" option, these templates can be marked with no print tags in the template, even the reference or note sections can be templacised to be part of a collapsible table, where the default is collapsed, or hidden. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. There is a broader discussion to be had about references, footnotes, notes, etc that is out of scope for this VFD - this was noted during the discussion about whether or not Wikimedia should create a travel guide project (for example: [10]). In the case of these specific templates, however, my concern is that a major change to the site such as implementing references/notes should be broadly discussed prior to being implemented so that we can make such a change in a structured way that everyone can agree upon, rather than doing one-off implementations that will later need to be cleaned up and that will confuse new readers in the interim. I'd encourage someone who has the time to begin a discussion about improving reliability in the Pub or at Wikivoyage talk:Business listings reliability Expedition, otherwise it is something that the broader community will likely revisit once the current cleanup tasks have been addressed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a travel guide, not an encyclopedia.--Globe-trotter (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree completely with Ryan's last comment "There is a broader discussion to be had about references, footnotes, notes, etc ... something that the broader community will likely revisit once the current cleanup tasks have been addressed." We do need that discussion, ideally fairly soon, but we do not need templates until the discussion reaches consensus. Pashley (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I can retract my vote, though it makes little difference given the general consensus here. When a narrower discussion occurs here on the future of these templates, I can elaborate then. Reading the comments prior to mine (and afterwards) leads me to believe that there is misunderstanding on references and such in that they could jepoardize WV's unique nature and mission; I believe it does not. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - We usually don't use references here on Wikivoyage. –sumone10154^(talk) 23:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. The real point is that we delete controversial new templates as a matter of policy. We do this because templates imply use across a broad number of articles, and such use needs to have a consensus behind it. --Peter ^Talk 02:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Wikimedia Movement

• I don't see how a page like this is useful on our wiki. Note that this is just a copy of meta:Wikimedia Movement, making it a copyright violation without attribution. But even if we were to change the text or attribute it properly, wouldn't this link be better replaced by a link to the Meta-Wiki document? LtPowers (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that is surely something best just dealt with at meta:Wikimedia Movement.-- Felix (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Because the WikiVoyage belongs to this movement... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 20:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I am unsure why this would be searched for on Wikivoyage. A soft-redirect is an alternative to deletion for now. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Because the WikiVoyage belongs to this movement... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 20:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Now this is part of this Movement, this is what you are now, "our" = "Wikimedia Movement". Note: I gave the credit. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 20:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  Is there any special requirement that every Wikimedia project should have an article like this? Otherwise, we plan to give credit to sister projects right on the main page. --Atsirlin (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell no other Wikimedia projects have this text, except Meta-Wiki. Which is where it belongs. If we need to link to it, we can do so easily without making a local copy that we have to keep updated. LtPowers (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see how this page belongs to the travel guide. If it is supposed to be a policy, it should be rewritten in the appropriate style. --Atsirlin (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Useful information, but redundant in this context. --Inas (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - The page is relevant and helpful, but I feel it is much simpler to link to the Wikipedia or Meta page. Those pages are kept relatively up-to-date, whereas ours would be neglected. Other sister projects don't have their own WMF articles either, linking to the Wikipedia/Meta version instead. JamesA ^>talk 07:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reason the others have given. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - it's unnecessary to create a copy here. –sumone10154^(talk) 04:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Make it a cross-wiki redirect so anyone who searches here finds the approriate page on Meta. I am not sure quite how to do that; in fact I'm not even sure it is currently possible. If it is not, it should be and the technique should be used for all global WMF policy pages that apply here.
• This seems so obvious to me that I'm shocked that we are even discussing deletion. Am I missing something? Pashley (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Geographic Location

Before this template gets used in many articles (it is already used at Brahmanbaria District), I place it here for deletion. I think discussion should take place first on whether we need a template like this one. --Globe-trotter (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep for use in large cities which are divided into districts. {{Routebox}}es are based on individual highways or rail lines, which don't make sense as a method to place districts next to adjacent districts of the same town as there are normally many local roads joining them and it doesn't matter which one the traveller follows. K7L (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not following. You want to use this to navigate among districts within a city? LtPowers (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The {{routebox}} assumes things are arranged linearly, such as towns along one rail line or one highway. That model doesn't always fit a subject - it's fine for most city/town-level articles, but what about a region surrounded on all sides by other regions? or a district surrounded on all sides by other districts? K7L (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    • That's because the routebox shows you how to get to the destination, along routes that are linear. LtPowers (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per policy. If anyone wants to keep this template, please, start a discussion on its talk page. We may find a compromise solution, but we can't start using this template right away. Even the Routebox template is kind of overused. This one will be a disaster. --Atsirlin (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, It is against policy to create templates without discussion first. In any case, we emphatically do not need this one. Where city districts are concerned, a map will always be much better than anything you could do with the template. Pashley (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep (with tag) "Before a new Mediawiki Template is put into general use it needs to be discussed". "In general a template should be discussed prior to being created or modified." (emphasis added) I don't see that there is an absolute discuss-and-agree-before-creating policy, per Wikivoyage:Using Mediawiki templates. There is, however, a clear don't-use-until-discussed-and-approved policy. Don't confuse deletion with being put into general use. The template shouldn't be deleted until there is a discussion and clear opposition to its use. On the other hand, the template must not go into general use and should probably be tagged or somehow noted as such (according to linked policy, the uploader should explain any experimentation use on its talk page). I have started the discussion with a proposed change worth reading at Template talk:Geographic Location. AHeneen (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Monterey (Mississippi)

A Wikipedia search has turned up nothing. More alarmingly, a Google Map search has turned up nothing; the closest town named Monterey is in the state of Louisiana. I'm really not convinced that this Mississippi town even exists. Eco84 (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. The Census gazetteer also knows of no such place. LtPowers (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect A Google search shows Monterey exists near Florence (not far SE of Jackson, MS). Seen on MapQuest The question becomes whether or not there is accommodation available to meet our requirement. There is also a newspaper article here that mentions a "Monterey" man from Oct 2012. There were also a couple Google hits for Monterey Water and Monterey Volunteer Fire Dept. There were no hits on Google Maps or MapQuest for "hotel", "motel", "inn", or "RV" (park/resort) in Monterey, MS (or located in Monterey when searching using "Florence, MS"). Since the place actually exists, but there is no accommodation, it should be a redirect to close-by Florence (Mississippi) (which has an RV Park & Super8 motel). AHeneen (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Odd that it wasn't on Google Maps, although I was able to pinpoint the location based on the MapQuest map above (Monterey Road and Mississippi Highway 469). The grocery store and fire station at that location both have a Pearl, Mississippi postal address. The Florence link above appears to have been created as a redirect to Richland (Mississippi). Eco84 (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect to Richland (Mississippi). Which I have done. Generally, I'm fine with speedying outlines for places that barely exist, since we're more about the business of writing travel guides than creating random placename articles. Since we're already mired in a discussion, though, I went ahead and moved it to a name that could conceivably sustain an article when combined with the mentioned redirected places ;) --Peter ^Talk 02:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)