→Amish and Mennonites: archive | →Archiving: adding the requested rule, see Special:Permalink/4569290#Sorry for editing an archive Tag: Reverted | ||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, '''move the deletion discussion''' to the [[Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|Archives page for the appropriate month]]. The [[Project:Votes for deletion/Archives|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). | After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, '''move the deletion discussion''' to the [[Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|Archives page for the appropriate month]]. The [[Project:Votes for deletion/Archives|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). | ||
When archiving, always '''make it clear''' to other editors what '''the outcome of the discussion''' was. This can be done by adding the result to the discussion in a ''separate edit'' from the one in which you remove the discussion from this page; or you can describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion. | When archiving, always '''make it clear''' to other editors what '''the outcome of the discussion''' was. This can be done by adding the result to the discussion in a ''separate edit'' from the one in which you remove the discussion from this page; or you can describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion. The note on whether the article was kept should be objective; if you have an opinion that needs to be voiced, voice it during the discussion – if you didn't until now, either keep silent or give others time to comment on it by not taking action yet. | ||
If the nominated article, file or template '''was not deleted''', then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the discussion page of the article, file or template being kept or redirected. | If the nominated article, file or template '''was not deleted''', then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the discussion page of the article, file or template being kept or redirected. |
Revision as of 14:16, 26 November 2022
Votes for deletion This page lists articles, files and templates that are nominated for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can make a nomination or comment on any nomination. Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our deletion policy. If our deletion policy leads towards a merge or redirect, then coordinate this on the discussion page of the article. The purpose of this page is limited to the interpretation and application of our deletion policy. You can discuss what our deletion policies should be on the deletion policy discussion page. NominatingAdd a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article, file or template being proposed for deletion, so that people viewing it will be aware. Place the tag at the very top, before everything else, except the page banner. Do note though, if you're tagging a template for deletion, use <noinclude>{{vfd}}</noinclude> instead of {{vfd}} alone. Add a link to the article, file or template at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your recommendation using four tildes ("~~~~"). If you're nominating a file for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikivoyage and not on Wikimedia Commons. The basic format for a deletion nomination is: ===[[Chicken]]=== Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~ CommentingAll Wikivoyagers are invited to comment on articles, files or templates listed for deletion. The format for comments is: ===[[Chicken]]=== * '''Delete'''. Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (UTC) * '''Keep'''. There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~ When leaving comments you may elect to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If you recommend redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Any attempt to merge content from an article to some other destination must retain the edit history to comply with the attribution (CC BY-SA) requirements of the free license, so it may be possible to merge and redirect but not to merge and delete. Sign your comment using four tildes ("~~~~"). Deleting, or not
ArchivingAfter you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, 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). When archiving, always make it clear to other editors what the outcome of the discussion was. This can be done by adding the result to the discussion in a separate edit from the one in which you remove the discussion from this page; or you can describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion. The note on whether the article was kept should be objective; if you have an opinion that needs to be voiced, voice it during the discussion – if you didn't until now, either keep silent or give others time to comment on it by not taking action yet. If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the discussion page of the article, file or template being kept or redirected. See also:
| ![]() |
October 2022
Yeah nah, maintaining a list of all disambiguation pages is unfeasible and has no clear purpose. It hasn't really been updated for quite a while, FWIW (there have been minor additions and adjustments, though). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep. The purpose of this page is to have otherwise unlinked disambiguation pages de-orphaned and not listed at Special:Orphanedpages. Vidimian (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)- Keep serves to reduce the backlog of orphaned pages. Gizza (roam) 23:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Question: I'm inclined to keep it since it seems useful, but User:SHB2000 is quite correct that maintaining it is inconvenient & not often done. Is there a way to automate the maintenance so we get the benefits without the hassle?
- It need not involve expensive real-time tracking; a bot that ran, say, once a month would be enough. I think we already have pages that work like that; e.g. I wrote at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2004-2013#Related_question "The special page for fewest revisions seems to be updated on about the 15th of each month." Pashley (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- It would need a bot, but I don't think disambiguation pages even show up in Special:LonelyPages, at least not anymore. AZ is a disambiguation page since Sep 29 yet, it's not linked from any article, but yet it doesn't show up Special:LonelyPages. Must've been a change in the MediaWiki software (I certainly wasn't aware that disambig pages once showed up in Special:LonelyPages). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that the disambig pages no longer show up at Special:LonelyPages (but couldn't verify that by "AZ" since that page is linked from here and is therefore no longer an orphan), so I have no reason to cling to my "keep" vote, but I don't see any policy-based reason to delete this page either. A bot maintaining it is a good idea, if it is technically possible. Vidimian (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the link, so "AZ" is no longer linked. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your effort. It indeed doesn't show up in LonelyPages even when not (conventionally) linked. Vidimian (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the link, so "AZ" is no longer linked. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that the disambig pages no longer show up at Special:LonelyPages (but couldn't verify that by "AZ" since that page is linked from here and is therefore no longer an orphan), so I have no reason to cling to my "keep" vote, but I don't see any policy-based reason to delete this page either. A bot maintaining it is a good idea, if it is technically possible. Vidimian (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- It would need a bot, but I don't think disambiguation pages even show up in Special:LonelyPages, at least not anymore. AZ is a disambiguation page since Sep 29 yet, it's not linked from any article, but yet it doesn't show up Special:LonelyPages. Must've been a change in the MediaWiki software (I certainly wasn't aware that disambig pages once showed up in Special:LonelyPages). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Outcome: no consensus; deletion discussion left open for another 7 days. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
November 2022
Unclear scope; barely any content. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- If anyone added maps, we could keep it. If not, the content should be moved somewhere, I guess, but it's not remotely usable at this point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I will add the routes. /Yvwv (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think this should be deleted after today's changes. Twsabin (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, keep now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
There's a lot of travel content in this article, isn't there? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. It lists four proper articles on the topic (and one related one), which might be found through this one. As such I think it should be kept. It could be developed further to better put those four (and probably some yet-to-be-created ones) in a context. It was created less than a year ago, although not touched since spring. –LPfi (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)