|
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. Nominating[edit]Add 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 hosted on the English Wikivoyage and not on Wikimedia Commons. The basic format for a deletion nomination is: ===[[Chicken]]=== Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~ Commenting[edit]All 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[edit]
Archiving[edit]After 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. First, describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion, with something like "archive as kept". Then add a line for the result to the discussion on the archive page. If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then the nomination should be mentioned on its talk page. Generally this is done by providing a link to the deletion discussion on the talk page. One should also indicate the result on the talk page. If the discussion is short, an alternative is to place an (identical duplicate) copy of the discussion on the talk page. See also:
|
 |
February 2026
[edit]No longer needed. Information previously in Kaghan page applied actually to Kaghan Valley which didn't have its page. I've created a page for Kaghan Valley and moved the information there, leaving Kaghan page empty. Aurimaz (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is not the way WMF wikis work. The article should have been moved to the new name, rather than having the content moved from Kaghan to Kaghan Valley. The former page cannot be deleted, as part of the article's history is connected to it. I will try to fix the mess. –LPfi (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- The histories cannot be merged, as the pages developed in parallel until the merger 21:32, 8 June 2013. I think the best path now is to simply redirect Kaghan to Kaghan Valley. Now done, after resurrecting the page (deleted by Ibaman). –LPfi (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hm, Kaghan was a useless skeleton before the merger, so perhaps the histories post 2013 could have been merged and the earlier Kaghan history deleted. Still, that might leave some odd discontinuities (merged with nothing?). I think the current state is the best we can get, history-wise. –LPfi (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- The histories cannot be merged, as the pages developed in parallel until the merger 21:32, 8 June 2013. I think the best path now is to simply redirect Kaghan to Kaghan Valley. Now done, after resurrecting the page (deleted by Ibaman). –LPfi (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep as a redirect. Pashley (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per Pashley; there is no harm in keeping redirects of such nature especially when it has to do with attribution. //shb (t | c | m) 12:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
See Template talk:Section link. HKLionel TALK 11:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as unnecessary. Pashley (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Keepfor now – it is more tedious to type, but it also looks noticeably cleaner and easier over typing & sect; when editing (and also easier on mobile). I agree with Ikan there is no consensus to implement this template, but that also doesn't mean deletion is the right call (I will look into this properly when I get the time). //shb (t | c | m) 12:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)- Do we want to recommend the "France § Eat" format over France#Eat? If not, then the difficulty of typing "§" on certain keyboards is a non-issue. It seems that the § format isn't too commonly used on this site. I think the advantage of using it, though apparently more correct, is trumped by the inconsistency or increased copy edit workload it creates, as most editors hardly will switch to it. Those who are careful with typography will in most cases use some piped version anyway (such as just France – mostly either the page or the section is implied by the context). –LPfi (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think so, yes: § (which is widely used everywhere) looks far more professional and polished over # (which is just MediaWiki syntax). //shb (t | c | m) 20:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not MediaWiki, but HTML syntax (which MediaWiki has inherited). –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Upon further thought, a very weak delete – I think the solution to typing that out on mobile would be to create a special template for § and add it in the footer (on desktop), as opposed to this template. //shb (t | c | m) 22:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think so, yes: § (which is widely used everywhere) looks far more professional and polished over # (which is just MediaWiki syntax). //shb (t | c | m) 20:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Do we want to recommend the "France § Eat" format over France#Eat? If not, then the difficulty of typing "§" on certain keyboards is a non-issue. It seems that the § format isn't too commonly used on this site. I think the advantage of using it, though apparently more correct, is trumped by the inconsistency or increased copy edit workload it creates, as most editors hardly will switch to it. Those who are careful with typography will in most cases use some piped version anyway (such as just France – mostly either the page or the section is implied by the context). –LPfi (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per LPfi's points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary and cumbersome. Mrkstvns (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
@CarlessParking: moved this to Los Baños leaving a redirect behind, then tagged the redirect for speedy deletion. I disagree -- to me the redirect seems harmless & could be kept -- so I changed the tag to vfd & am raising the question here. Other opinions?
Arguably we should have a dismbig page like w:Los Banos since there is also Los Banos, California. I doubt that is needed; currently, each article has a hatnote pointing to the other. Pashley (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with you there – keep. //shb (t | c | m) 20:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Generally: we don't want to break links to here from other sites, so if an article has been at a certain name for more than a negligible time, we should keep a redirect (or disambiguation, toplink or whatever) unless there are good reasons not to. –LPfi (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep, and maybe move the article back to this page. If you keyboard doesn't do accents, getting to Los Baños can be hard. AlasdairW (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Our guidelines tell us to create accent-less redirects (in this case: tilde-less) for names with unusual letters. See Wikivoyage:Naming conventions#Romanization. –LPfi (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep, and maybe move the article back to this page. If you keyboard doesn't do accents, getting to Los Baños can be hard. AlasdairW (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- That would be difficult since we use the tilde-less name for Los Banos, California. Pashley (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Generally: we don't want to break links to here from other sites, so if an article has been at a certain name for more than a negligible time, we should keep a redirect (or disambiguation, toplink or whatever) unless there are good reasons not to. –LPfi (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I know this has been marked as historical, but historical pages are usually kept to denote practices that may have been done in the past, some of which may still linger today. This page, however, is so wildly out of date that I don't think any of this has applied since Wikivoyage forked or when Wikidata was created. It is so misleading today that I don't think there's any value in keeping this. //shb (t | c | m) 01:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also FWIW, see the previous deletion discussion at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2010#Project:Tags – was kept but only had one user input their say, and this was 16 years ago. //shb (t | c | m) 01:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think keeping history is good, and I don't see how it is misleading as long as it is prominently marked as historic. However, {{Tag}} may need to add an error message or error category. It seems now to just show the HTML code, –LPfi (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- The future section is what I think is massively misleading (because that's never going to happen). But I think all of it is so irrelevant to how Wikivoyage and the MediaWiki software works today that there is nothing to be gained from keeping this; all of this was only relevant pre-fork. //shb (t | c | m) 08:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
It could be moved to a title clearly marking it as irrelevant/pre-fork, like subpages of w:WP:Historical archive. HKLionel TALK 03:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)- But why, though? What benefit does that actually have? //shb (t | c | m) 05:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to mw:Tags, preserving history, removing the content from view & helping people looking it up for technical reasons. HKLionel TALK 09:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- The future section is what I think is massively misleading (because that's never going to happen). But I think all of it is so irrelevant to how Wikivoyage and the MediaWiki software works today that there is nothing to be gained from keeping this; all of this was only relevant pre-fork. //shb (t | c | m) 08:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think keeping history is good, and I don't see how it is misleading as long as it is prominently marked as historic. However, {{Tag}} may need to add an error message or error category. It seems now to just show the HTML code, –LPfi (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. I can imagine no good reason to retain documentation on a feature that was never more than experimental & never on this site, especially since the experiment clearly failed. Pashley (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- OK, if it was never used more than experimentally, then I won't oppose deletion. As a side note: tags have been discussed for a long time on Commons, and the implementation of structured data can be seen as introducing them (with a lot of problems making them controversial though). –LPfi (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)