|
Welcome to Votes for undeletion
It may occur from time to time that we delete an page by mistake — that is, that the page doesn't actually meet the standards for deleting articles listed on the VFD page. In this case, a Wikivoyager should link to the page on this page, with an explanation of why the deletion wasn't in accordance with our deletion policy. Articles and images are still considered guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a nomination is uncontested or a consensus arises that the page was deleted unnecessarily, then an administrator should reinstate the page. Otherwise, the page will stay deleted. Please list new pages below. |
Deleted and creation-protected by User:Ibaman. Inappropriately labeled as vandalism, creation protection also inappropriate. There are clearly multiple travel topics called the "Forum", including a town with Forum in its title, so IDK why it was labeled as vandalism and creation-protected, and I'd like an explanation from Ibaman as to the use of the vandalism tag. As noted in deletion policy, "We rarely delete pages that are not copied from other sites and are the result of good-faith attempts to improve the travel guide. It's not often necessary to do so." Purplebackpack89 19:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- What was the reason this was deleted in the first place? I wouldn't call a disambig page out of scope, at least not "out of scope" as defined by WV:CSD. //shb (t | c | m) 22:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- @SHB2000: Ibaman didn't give any other reasons other than out of scope, you might want to ask them. You might also want to ask why they consider it vandalism, because that tag is wrong too. Purplebackpack89 22:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- "Forum" is a common English word. We do not normally have disambiguation pages for common English words. If it were complete, it would link to hundreds and hundreds of articles. Ground Zero (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- IMO I don't think it should be an disambiguation (though I doubt it would be that long on Wikivoyage, even if complete), but I also don't think it should have speedily been deleted (much less so with protection labeled as "page-creation vandalism" – where's the AGF in that). I support
speedy undeletionand listing it through proper procedure at WV:VfD. //shb (t | c | m) 22:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC) (edit: struck !vote – see my comment below)- I admit the tag sounds harsh, but the other choices "excessive vandalism", "excessive spamming", etc. would apply even less. As I said in the talk page, a disambiguation page named "Forum" is of little use in this travel guide, as would be articles named "Island" or "Stadium". They would contain hundreds of entries, which per WV:Avoid long lists, is something better not done in the first place. As per "Forum", it would generate little more than a list of non-articles along the Forum Romanum itinerary article. I stand by my decision of treating it as a standard WIAA procedure. Ibaman (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- ftr I agree regarding its usefulness, just not that it fails WIAA (meaning it shouldn't be deleted). //shb (t | c | m) 23:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, Forum is categorised as a "Place name disambiguation page" and looking at the list of articles linked there, there are plenty of destinations and tourist sights either called Forum or containing the word Forum. This is far from a clear-cut case. At the very least, this should have been raised with the page creator or discussed more widely with the community before a decision was made. In particular as PBP is an established, good-faith editor and not at all a vandal. I support undeletion. Gizza (roam) 23:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- I never called this user a vandal or any words, but they accused me of blocking, which is untrue and sounded unpleasant. I wish I had a less harsh-sounding tag to use. Moreover, it must be said, I contributed a lot on the Roman Empire article, and am aware about the quantity and quality of existing examples of "Roman Forum" that can be visited. And let's not get started on the toponym's legal sense. Again, I don't see scope in Wikivoyage, really. Ibaman (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- You said a page I created was vandalism. If that ain't calling me a vandal, it's for pretty damn near. I didn't accuse you of HAVING blocked me, but your impulsiveness at deleting pages had me worried about your impulsiveness on the block button as well. I AM glad you have steered clear of using it.
- As for "I chose vandalism because...the other choices...would apply even less", the upshot here is that NONE of the criteria for speedy deletion applied here and it should have been discussed before being deleted. And I'm concerned that this may not be the only Ibaman deletion that requires scrutiny. Purplebackpack89 01:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- :w:Forum seems to primarily list things other than places; it lists two entities under Places: an unincorporated community (with a short stub article) and a summit. There are many places listed under Buildings, but if you search for those (malls, entertainment and sports venues, libraries…), you'd better know what city they are in. –LPfi (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I never called this user a vandal or any words, but they accused me of blocking, which is untrue and sounded unpleasant. I wish I had a less harsh-sounding tag to use. Moreover, it must be said, I contributed a lot on the Roman Empire article, and am aware about the quantity and quality of existing examples of "Roman Forum" that can be visited. And let's not get started on the toponym's legal sense. Again, I don't see scope in Wikivoyage, really. Ibaman (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, Forum is categorised as a "Place name disambiguation page" and looking at the list of articles linked there, there are plenty of destinations and tourist sights either called Forum or containing the word Forum. This is far from a clear-cut case. At the very least, this should have been raised with the page creator or discussed more widely with the community before a decision was made. In particular as PBP is an established, good-faith editor and not at all a vandal. I support undeletion. Gizza (roam) 23:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- ftr I agree regarding its usefulness, just not that it fails WIAA (meaning it shouldn't be deleted). //shb (t | c | m) 23:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- I admit the tag sounds harsh, but the other choices "excessive vandalism", "excessive spamming", etc. would apply even less. As I said in the talk page, a disambiguation page named "Forum" is of little use in this travel guide, as would be articles named "Island" or "Stadium". They would contain hundreds of entries, which per WV:Avoid long lists, is something better not done in the first place. As per "Forum", it would generate little more than a list of non-articles along the Forum Romanum itinerary article. I stand by my decision of treating it as a standard WIAA procedure. Ibaman (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- IMO I don't think it should be an disambiguation (though I doubt it would be that long on Wikivoyage, even if complete), but I also don't think it should have speedily been deleted (much less so with protection labeled as "page-creation vandalism" – where's the AGF in that). I support
- "Forum" is a common English word. We do not normally have disambiguation pages for common English words. If it were complete, it would link to hundreds and hundreds of articles. Ground Zero (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- @SHB2000: Ibaman didn't give any other reasons other than out of scope, you might want to ask them. You might also want to ask why they consider it vandalism, because that tag is wrong too. Purplebackpack89 22:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose undeletion. I cannot see either that such a page is useful or that it even comes close to satisfying Wikivoyage:What is an article?. Pashley (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Majorly disagree with your interpretation of WIAA. In WIAA#Non destination-style articles, both disambiguation pages and redirects of common attractions are mentioned. Purplebackpack89 10:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Just for the record, here's the entire deleted text for non-admins (and admins if you want to save a few clicks):
{{pagebanner|Disambiguation banner.png}}
__NOTOC__
There is more than one place called the '''Forum''':
* [[Blandford Forum]], town in Dorset, UK
* [[Rome/Colosseo|Roman Forum]], which contains the Colosseum, the Forum, and the Capitoline Museum.
* [[Ancient Rome tour|Forum Romanum tour]]
* Kia Forum, entertainment venue in [[Inglewood]]
{{disamb}}- //shb (t | c | m) 06:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose undeletion. There are likely hundreds of entertainment venues and shopping centres called "forum". Wikipedia explains that "Fora were a regular part of every Roman province in the Republic and the Empire, with archaeological examples at: Forum of Plovdiv, Bulgaria; Forum of Philippi, Greece; Forum of Thessaloniki, Greece; Forum of Beirut, Lebanon; Forum and Provincial Forum of Mérida, Spain; Colonial forum and Provincial forum of Tarragona, Spain". Yes, Mérida and Tarragona each have two fora. Ground Zero (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think the disambiguation page should have been speedily deleted without discussion, but I consider this discussion functionally equivalent to a votes for deletion discussion and oppose undeletion, based on the same text posted by Ibaman. If there are more communities with "Forum" in their names that people realistically might confuse with one another, we can revisit the question, but neither the Roman Forum nor the Forum in Inglewood are places that need a disambiguation. All that said, @Ibaman, you always have the option of choosing "other" as a deletion reason and typing in a reason, and I surely believe this disambiguation was created in good faith and merited discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- for the record, I tried to change the "deletion reason" tag, more than once, I admit it was not the best choice, it was done on autopilot. Ibaman (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- If we're gonna consider this as a functionally equivalent to a VfD discussion, I'll state that I too oppose permanent undeletion for the reasons you've mentioned. //shb (t | c | m) 11:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a reasonable approach. Whether speedy deletion or vote-for-deletion was more appropriate, we are now having that discussion, so there is no need to undelete. Ground Zero (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also w:Montreal Forum. Pashley (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- And Forum shopping center in Helsinki :) . Forum, inasfar it's relevant to travel, would mostly refer to the fora of cities in the former Roman Empire so it could work as a redirect to Roman_Empire#Roman_town_planning_and_architecture but I don't think it would merit a standalone article, therefore I too oppose undeletion. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Ypsilon To clarify, this was a disambiguation page, not a travel entry Purplebackpack89 21:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- And Forum shopping center in Helsinki :) . Forum, inasfar it's relevant to travel, would mostly refer to the fora of cities in the former Roman Empire so it could work as a redirect to Roman_Empire#Roman_town_planning_and_architecture but I don't think it would merit a standalone article, therefore I too oppose undeletion. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also w:Montreal Forum. Pashley (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a reasonable approach. Whether speedy deletion or vote-for-deletion was more appropriate, we are now having that discussion, so there is no need to undelete. Ground Zero (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Should be redirected to Paris/20th arrondissement, as Père Lachaise Cemetery is. I'd do it myself, but Ibaman was too liberal with page-creation protection (AGAIN!), so I can't. I'd note that occasionally Père Lachaise is used to refer to the area around the cemetery as well as the cemetery itself. Purplebackpack89 01:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Undelete and redirect per nom. I don't think it's an unreasonable redirect or search term. //shb (t | c | m) 02:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ditto. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Neutral. It is not unreasonable but it does not seem useful given that a search for "Père Lachaise" will find the existing redirect. However, redirects are cheap so I do not object to having this one. Pashley (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Done Undeleted and redirected. Ibaman (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Official name of India, similar to Islamic Republic of Iran, People's Republic of China, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, etc. Deleted by Ikan Kekek for vague reasons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why is it needed? I probably deleted it because I kept seeing that official name being added to the text of the India article and got confused, but I don't really see how it's useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- By that logic, most official names should be deleted. Actually, I'm baffled to see redirects of official names of many countries, but none for India, and that's even deleted. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Restore as redirect Redirects are cheap and should rarely be deleted Purplebackpack89 13:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)