Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy Voyage Tips and guide

Archived discussions Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy/Archive 2004-2013 Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy/Archive 2014-2019

Contents

In the current vfd discussion surrounding the Korean county articles that were created, myself and Hobbitschuster have pointed out how illogical it is to make the created articles into redirects just because the user refuses to add descriptions to their listings. The reason given by ThunderingTyphoons! is that it's policy. Although the policy does actually state that redirecting is USUALLY preferred over deletion rather than absolutely, I still think the merging preference in this vfd discussion is a case where the policy goes against TTCF and common sense.

While I agree that merging real places often makes sense, there should generally be some consideration of the destinations being merged (and the articles they are being merged into). That is not the case in this vfd discussion. Users voted to "merge" because they're "real places", but the issues with these articles have nothing to do with the destinations. The issues brought forth in the discussion were that:

• The article creator is blocked on another Wiki: Not a valid reason to merge their articles
• The article creator uses sockpuppets: Not a valid reason to merge articles
• The user's English or translations are poor: Not a valid reason to merge articles
• The content may be copied from another source: Not a valid reason to merge articles
• The article creator added listings without descriptions: Not a valid reason to merge articles
• The article creator doesn't respond to correspondence: Not a valid reason to merge articles.
• The article creator created too many articles with too little content: May be a valid reason to merge at the moment (I'm not sure), but shouldn't be

Most of the reasons for the nomination are about the user and not the destinations. It seems everyone should have been voting to "Keep", but I'm going to assume that it is the last point that is making everyone vote "merge" (correct me if I'm wrong). If that's the case, I think the only sensible option is to delete them. We should be merging articles that cannot support their own articles, not articles that the creator refuses to add descriptions to. It doesn't serve the traveler to merge every article that a user creates just because they created too many (or for reason related to the user themselves). It feels like we're punishing (or ourselves) for little reason other than "policy". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think there is some misrepresentation of at least my own position on the proposed Korea redirects, so I will clarify. As I explained in that discussion, where enough content has been added to the articles created by the editor in question to make them useful articles for travellers, I have removed them from the deletion/redirect nomination. Because ttcf. The remaining articles aren't useful for travellers, and don't have content worth merging, so I think they should be deleted and redirected to the regional article. Because ttcf. To quote from the original nomination, "I propose to delete/redirect these crappy articles because they are not useful to travellers...." The place names are valid search terms, so a redirect makes sense, in my opinion.

Our failed attempts to engage the contributor to get more useful content demonstrate that my aim (and the aim of the others who tried to coach the contributor) has been to build better articles. The excessive focus on the "punishment" argument is misplaced and does not represent what has been going on here. Ground Zero (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Delete and redirect" is not something our policies allow. And I am not sure whether we should allow for it. And there is the question whether those articles are likely search terms and which benefit it would bring to make them redirects... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ground Zero I put all of the things brought up into the list above but as I stated, I assume the last one (too many articles without much content by a single user) is the reason for the merging. I believe you stated that the listings without descriptions are "eyesores" and make WV look bad. I don't necessarily agree with that, nor do I think that is a valid reason to merge articles. If the articles themselves are "crappy because they are not useful" then why would redirecting them make them more useful than outright deleting them? The articles in that vfd actually DID have attraction names which was much more useful than a redirect. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:ChubbyWimbus I never called the articles "eyesores". I wrote that they are not useful to travellers. Lists of sights, restaurants, hotels, etc., are not useful for travellers or good for Wikivoyage. It is telling readers "do your own research". Then what is Wikivoyage for? We need to provide better quality information to attract and be useful for readers. If there were any useful information in the articles, I'd be willing to wait to see if the article can grow. But I've tried on some of these articles and haven't been able to find stuff worth adding. If you think there is useful information out there, please add it. Ground Zero (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not clear what the purpose of this discussion is, very possibly because I'm not reading closely enough. ChubbyWimbus, are you proposing to change the deletion policy? If so, how? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am proposing a change to the "merge not delete" policy: If the situation arises that a user creates numerous articles with little or no content and the articles are brought to question (without improvements being made), then deletion is preferred over merging. It's better to just return them to their state of non-existence until someone wants to create them with attention to those destinations. An issue with mass article creation says nothing about the destinations themselves. Merging should be done with consideration of specific articles. The answer to mass article creation shouldn't be mass merging those articles. Mass merging is at least as bad (I'd say worse) than mass empty article creation. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see, thank you for being specific. You say a couple of times that deletion is preferable to merging; why is that, in your view? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

To me, merging articles should require some sort of consideration of the destination itself. In the case of mass article creation, the issue is not about the article destinations themselves but rather that a large number were created without content. In that case, I find it preferable to return them to their previous state (aka: delete them). As I stated above, I don't think it makes sense to "solve" mass article creation with mass merging. It is akin to making all redlinks into redirects. It's thoughtless and counterproductive.

LPfi makes a point on the same vfd that I agree with (and have made before): We prefer to redirect real places. However, that requires that there is some information on the place in the target article, either from before or added when redirecting. If the reader has no idea why he or she ended up in North Gyeongsang after typing Bonghwa County, and the former is no help in planning a trip to the latter, then a redirect does not serve the traveller. If providing useful information in the redirect target is more trouble than it's worth (for those of us who would have to add the info, not a hypothetical local), then deleting is a better path.

ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

To the point that "delete and redirect" is not possible per policy, turning articles with insufficient content or usefulness into redirects is pretty common practice, and I would very much doubt it's against any policy. I completely agree with Ground Zero's position. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please read the discussion before responding. "Delete and redirect" was not proposed anywhere. Also, this is a policy change discussion (again, please read before responding), so citing the policy is moot. The proposal is a small change in that if a user is found to be creating excessive amounts of blank or near-blank articles, the articles should simply be deleted rather than merged/redirected. The mass creation of blank articles is no more harmful than the mass creation of redirects. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The fact that I replied only to one comment in no way suggests that I hadn't already read the rest of the thread. I agree that if there are a large (or even small) number of useless articles, such as the Telstra man creates about tiny villages in Australia, they should be simply deleted. I just doubt that's true in regard to these counties. They seem like useful and reasonable search terms to me, and that's why I think they should be turned into redirects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not true. I often delete pages started by spambots, touters and vandals. Shall we edit that text? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Either that, or rephrase to something like "We rarely delete pages that are the result of good-faith attempts to improve the travel guide."--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good ideas from both. Edit as Ikan suggests, to text about as TT suggests. Pashley (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, guys. I should mention, there's another reason to delete pages: They're verbatim copies from Wikipedia without credit or from non-copyleft sites. So maybe:

"We rarely delete pages that are not copied from other sites and are the result of good-faith attempts to improve the travel guide." Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I guess I may make this change within a day or so if there's no comment, knowing that it can always be reverted or edited further at any time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your version is good.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Edited accordingly. I wasn't sure whether to maintain the bolding on "rarely delete pages" that was in the previous version. I chose to keep it, but I'd be OK with not using bolding there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering on why don't we have a policy on obvious results, that are unlikely to change. A good example of this is VFD#Somali Sea or VFD#AFL. It's obvious that there's zero chance of it being kept. I'm wondering on why does it have to be kept for 14 days and why not have a policy to delete it after seven days.

Here's the proposed addition:

• If via vfd, the result is obvious, with an enough majority such as everyone voting keep or delete, it may be deleted after 7 days from the nomination. However, even if one user votes something different to the rest of the community, it must be kept for the full 14 days.

Does that look good? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would be happy with that as a change for articles less than 6 months old, balanced with a change to 28 days for articles more than 5 years old (unless the editors that have made a significant contribution agree to deletion when it can be sooner). We are a travel site and it is quite possible that the one regular contributor who knows a location is travelling offline for 7 days. AlasdairW (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

I don't like this term as often the page creators seem to think they are helping in some way, although they are not. One editor has been creating a lot of articles that are completely blank, or are skeletons that don't even identify what region the town is in. I believe he is doing this to earn points in the Nigerian Expedition competition. He has ignored my post on his talk page asking if he plans to add travel content, and continued creating skeleton articles.

Do we have a policy on deleting articles created by a "page creation vandal"? Ground Zero (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. We do this to Brendan all the time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with our policy. I think only the terminology needs to be changed. "Page creation" shouldn't be associated with vandalism, in my opinion. Disruptive page creation, unproductive page creation, and productive page creation are in my view the three different categories here, though some may be able to think of better terminologies for each of these ideas.

Disruptive page creation would be Brendan's or any vandal's page creation, or copyvio. A few of the Nigeria Expedition's articles are in this category due to copyvio.

Unproductive page creation is the creation of blank, but otherwise acceptable, pages. Some of the Nigeria Expedition's articles are in this category, such as those you've mentioned.

Productive page creation is the creation of useful articles. Many of the Nigeria Expedition's articles have useful travel information and are in this category. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

On the Nigeria Expedition talk page I've raised the issue that the editors who are creating useful articles are at a disadvantage in the competition to the few who are engaging in "unproductive page creation", the term I will use from now on. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I think the competition should consider rewarding by content, maybe by bytes or usable articles instead of total articles. Which account organizes the expedition? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

(just SHB) I don't think we do, but I have no objections in deleting them. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Nigerian edit-a-thon ends on January 31st. I would wait until the competition ends before deleting them en masse. Edriiic has told them on the Nigeria WhatsApp group about the important expanding the skeletons and I'm assuming that most of the editors will get around to expanding them. I agree that the lack of communication from one particular editor is a concern though. I'd ask Edriiic to encourage the new editors to reply on their user talk pages and give a rough timeframe on when they will expand each of the articles they've started. Gizza ^(roam) 00:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The editor in question has finally responded, and seems to be indicating that they plan to expand the articles, so I will not delete any of them. I have asked that they focus on doing so before they create any more new articles. They have already created a lot of articles, so I think they have a lot of article-building ahead of them. Ground Zero (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Previous discussion is at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2014-2019#Deleting_NEW_empty_articles & the following section. Pashley (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

In particular, I think my comments at the end of Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2014-2019#Completely_empty_skeletons are rather good evidence that such things should usually be kept. Pashley (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

During my solo expedition to improve or redirect scores of very short articles, I came across so many skeleton articles that had sat unimproved for 10-15 years. The ones I redirected did not meet wv:wiaa in my opinion. It is not our policy that every point on the map qualifies for an article in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

While we have had this rule of "don't delete real places", I think it is time to abolish that rule. To be honest, I had never understood the purpose of that policy in the first place, and even more so with the deletion requests. At the moment, the only reason that we've been using to delete real places is because of a copyright violation, but with the recent Nigeria Expedition, many articles have also been deleted because they are just barebone skeletons or because they are copied from another article or Wikipedia without attribution, also making it a copyright violation but fixable. Then there has also been the Lake Como stub creating IP who also had many of their articles deleted.

Oba Akoko is a good example. As of Special:PermaLink/4348076, it has nothing but section headers, and the only reason that we have to not delete it is because of the "don't delete real places" rule. Otherwise, it's stubby, it does not serve travelers and a new user is much more likely to start a fresh new article than convert a redirect into an existing article owing to the preloaded skeletons that pop up when starting a new page.

And then we have the user who has created a bunch of Lake Como stubs, most of which are copyvios, but even if they weren't, they were stubby and they do not help at all. IMO, the traveler should come first, not new users.

Therefore, I propose to just abolish the policy that real places cannot be deleted and they can still go through the process through vfd should they be deleted (except in cases of page creation vandalism by the one Australian user who we all know). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like you prefer m:Immediatism to m:Eventualism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think what we should have is exceptions to the policy, not its abolition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I definitely leans towards eventualism than immediatism but of the two choices (deletion vs redirecting) I prefer deletion because when you link to that article and it's red, it becomes clear that we don't have content on it, unlike a redirect where you see blue and are more likely to assume there is content when there is none. It's particularly apparent on project pages like Wikivoyage:World cities, Wikivoyage:Requested articles and some of the expedition pages where we list out cities that are both blue and redlinks and the reds are meant to signal articles that should eventual be created.

I still however, prefer keeping real places over both deleting and redirecting because it is much easier to expand an article with a skeleton than start from scratch. When I recreate an article that was deleted because it was too short, I use the latest deletion version as a base, which I can view only because I'm an admin. Similarly, I find articles to expand in Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item, if the article prior to being redirected was connected to Wikidata, as is most often the case. But these methods are either not possible or well known for most editors, which is why I believe both deleting and redirecting stunt the long-term growth of Wikivoyage, though redirecting is worse. Gizza ^(roam) 05:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

There are three things we can do with stubs and skeleton articles:

A. Leave it alone for future growth,

B. Redirect to a nearby city or the region immediately above, or

C. Delete.

Having stubs and empty skeletons (A) does not put the reader first, it puts the project first. A reader who clicks on a blue link should get some information, and not a stub or a skeleton. Stubs and skeletons decrease the value of Wikivoyage to readers because of the annoyance factor. With the article skeletons, it is very easy to create a new article.

Not annoying readers is in the long-term interest of Wikivoyage because the more returning readers we get, the more editors we will have.

I know that some editors feel that redirecting to a nearby place or a region (B) also annoys readers if the articles don't say anything about the place the reader was hoping to find out about by clicking a blue link.

That really leaves deletion (C) as the best option for us. Readers navigating by using links won't be irritated by false promises. Those readers using Search to navigate will be disappointed by finding no results, but readers know that getting no results from a search is always a possibility. Ground Zero (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't feel like an extremely short article puts the project first. The median amount of time a reader spends on a page in less than a few seconds. This is true on basically all the wikis; readers often want just the most basic information (where's that again?). Also, by having a stub, we're enabling the Page Previews to provide that information even when people don't click all the way through. Having two sentences and a link to something else actually is helpful to these readers.

(I don't feel the same about a that has no content beyond the section headings.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

If it is just a line or two, it is more convenient for the reader to have that in a region article without a link. Ground Zero (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

If it's only in one article, and if that line or two won't interrupt the flow of the article, then you might be right. But would you want to have multiple articles each include a line or two, thus duplicating content across all of those articles?

And what if it would disrupt the article you're writing? You might want to write something "To find lower-cost accommodations during the music festival, look for options as far away as Boondocks to the north and Big City to the east". You probably don't want to double the length of that sentence by cramming "(a rural area in the North County on the side of the Big Mountain that is increasingly popular for cross-country skiing during the winter)" into the middle of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

If someone is just searching a place up to see where it is, aren't they more likely to use Wikipedia rather than a travel guide? Tai123.123 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It doesn't even have to be in a region article – it can be in a topic article (such as the redirect for Savage River National Park) (ps to Tai123.123, if someone is looking for a place just to see where it is, wouldn't they be using something like Google Maps or OpenStreetMap rather than Wikipedia?) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

When you are already on this site, why would you want to switch to another site? And if you did, you might wonder whether the location you found was actually the relevant one. There are more than 1,000 places in the world named San Jose. If you see one of the many San Joses mentioned in an article here, and you want to know where it is, then following the link should provide certainty. The traveler is actually served by the existence of San Jose (Palawan), even though it is not usable in its current state, and the traveler would not be better served by having a red link at Palawan#Cities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I said Wikipedia as it’s affiliated with Wikimedia and when one simply plugs a city name into a search engine it will be one of the first results (it will also have other basic information). Tai123.123 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Tai, "plugging a city name into the search engine" is never as quick and easy as "clicking the correct link". Also, if you do that for my example, you'll end up at w:en:San José, which lists 139 different articles, 138 of which are guaranteed to be the wrong one. Expecting people to do extra work (searching) and giving them a mostly-wrong and always-confusing answer (how confident are you that you could always guess which one of these places was mentioned at Wikivoyage?) is not really helping the traveler. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep the policy, possibly with some exceptions made specific, e.g. copyvio articles. There is a lot of previous discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2014-2019#Deleting_NEW_empty_articles and the following sections. —The preceding comment was added by Pashley (talk • contribs) 13:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I've been in support of permitting the deletion of real places for a while. We've had discussions about redirecting vs leaving articles a handful of times before with no resolve (this proposal being the latest proof of that). I think allowing a deletion option might help to end those debates. I believe last time this was discussed, someone mentioned possibly giving users a time limit to add enough content to prevent deletion. The idea seemed to have some tepid support as I recall, but we never implemented or tested it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• I'd like to point out that there's another solution for " redirecting to a nearby place or a region also annoys readers if the articles don't say anything about the place the reader was hoping to find out": Saying something about that place as part of the redirection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Creating new content is always an ideal solution. But when we are addressing situations where dozens or scores of articles have been created with no travel information, it's not a realistic one. Ground Zero (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

As an example, see the thousands of Puerto Rican skeletons currently nominated at vfd#Puerto Rico skeletons with a byte count lower than 600 created by Ligocsicnarf89 (talk · contribs). Our policy does not permit the deletion of those. As I mentioned, this is to allow real places to be nominated at vfd because as GZ mentions, it's not realistic. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

There are of course alternatives. The guidelines actually suggests we leave the articles alone, but enough editors are/have been dissatisfied with that to make it a non-solution. Editors could also add enough content to the articles to make them minimally viable articles and I believe Ground Zero has said that he tried to do that before making redirects, but this is not always possible and is unfair to expect of editors who may not know or care about the destination stubs created by others. This is also the issue with the redirects. If you do not have enough knowledge to make the article minimally viable, it is unlikely that you will have enough knowledge to provide meaningful information in the redirected article either, and just saying "This article also covers..." when it doesn't isn't enough. The deletion option just seems better than the other options. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage does permit deletions of page-creation vandalism. Allowing deletions of masses of pages with essentially no content that the article-starter hasn't gotten back to in months is not a stretch and I don't think it requires us to do anything other than make such situations exceptions to the existing policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Some batches of useless near-empty outlines are created in good faith, so applying "page creation vandalism" is an insult to the user. A slight rewording might suffice, but the rule was created for vandalism. I think batches of outline created for a project, where the participants (or the single user) disappeared or lost interest before adding content, could be deleted through VFD, if that seems what is best for the traveller.
• An individual bare outline is not too frustrating for the reader (such things happen on wikis), but when a region contains many bare or weak outlines, they are frustrating, and likewise, if a user coming to the site mostly meets weak articles, they might not return. We need to keep the project and region wide proportion of useless articles low enough. We could discuss the outlines of a region at VFD.
• Redirecting would make sense if people wouldn't otherwise find what we have to tell about the place, but people come there by a search, which would turn up the mention in the region article, or by links from other articles, which could go directly to the region, if that's what makes sense. Redirects do make sense in some cases, but not as general solution.
• A link to the redirect from the redirect target (often the region) is confusing, and turning a redirect into an article requires some expertise. The existing workarounds are suboptimal.
• If there is something salvageable in a to-be-deleted outline, it can be moved to the region article or the talk page. There are other possible solutions to this. Of course, if there is enough salvageable material, the outline should probably be kept or properly merged.

–LPfi (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

"if a user coming to the site mostly meets weak articles, they might not return": This sounds plausible, but most of our traffic is via search engines, and I doubt that people spend a lot of time remembering which site they used in the past when the search engine's snippet looks promising. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I for one remember bad sites if I encounter them often. I might click the link, but click "back" as soon as I recognise the layout. –LPfi (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

We could also fall into the trap if a user looks at a terrible empty page on the museum piece and then thinks this may be the same site, but this really isn't the place for that and it's off topic to what this original thread was about so I'll stop it there.

However, it is worth noting that I have never seen an outline skeleton pop up in my search results. I won't comment any further on that though, as it's off topic, but I think the point is clear. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ In light of a recent discussion and to prevent this discussion from dying, I propose we change the policy to the following:

When possible, we try and redirect real places into neighbouring or nearby destinations when possible. However, when that is not possible, or if it is not in the best interests of the traveller, deletion may be discussed at votes for deletion. Exceptions of when real places can be speedily deleted include copyvios, if the page was created in bad faith, vandalism or when most of the article violates wv:outside.

Does that seem like a suitable compromise? That way, deletions of real places can be discussed at vfd because the current policy does not permit so. Pinging participants of this discussion: @LPfi, WhatamIdoing, Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero, DaGizza, ChubbyWimbus, Pashley, Tai123.123:. Before I finish off my comment, here's a quick list of who's in favour and against the proposal:

In favour of deleting real places:

• SHB2000 (myself)
• Ground Zero
• ChubbyWimbus

Against deleting real places and in favour of redirecting:

• Pashley
• WhatamIdoing

Can't tell or don't fall into either of the above two categories:

• Ikan Kekek – which I'm judging based on their comments, is to keep the policy, but all the real places discussed at vfd are made as exceptions.
• Tai123.123 – made two comments that were not enough to judge which side they were taking.
• Gizza – against deleting, but also against redirecting. In favour of keeping.
• LPfi – who seems to be taking a stance either side.

To those that oppose deleting and favour redirecting, I would like for you to reconsider your opinion. Just because real places can be nominated for deletion, it doesn't mean they have to. It is not like we're going to nominate every single damn article which looks stubby to us, and the only reasons why there's a lot of real places currently nominated for vfd right now is because there's a lot of Nigeria articles that do not serve the traveller. This new amended policy discourages nominating regular articles, unless there's good reason to so after these Nigeria articles have been cleaned up, it is unlikely we'll be seeing any real places nominated for deletion, and maybe a maximum of maybe five pages (if we don't have any sort of major projects or expeditions like this).

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Most readers have no idea what "wv:outside" refers to (I didn't), and by "violating" it, you mean including only listings of places out of town, so let's please be clear. It seems to me, we are still talking about exceptions to policy. This would be my proposed language:

Articles for real places that cannot support an article are normally redirected to articles for nearby destinations. However, when that is not possible, or if it is deemed not to be in the best interests of the traveller, they may be nominated for deletion at votes for deletion. In cases of copyright violation or large-scale page-creation vandalism, cases in which all of the information is about places outside the destination, or persistent lack of information on the order of including only the text "[Destination name] is in Region name", speedy deletion may be necessary and appropriate. In some such cases, especially deletions due to copyright violation, good-faith recreation of the deleted article in a way that solves the problem is welcome.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Support – your version seems clearer to me and also addresses on whether recreating an article is permitted or not. Only thing I'd suggest is replacing "[City name]" with "[Destination name]" as parks, city districts and rural areas are also included. Not sure about dive guides. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Support I think this addresses all of the concerns and may help alleviate the redirect discussions by providing a deletion option without completely abandoning our "don't delete real places" policy which is mostly good. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

SHB2000, I substituted your term. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Support, The new version is worded in a less ambiguous manner and strikes a balance between both the redirecting and the deleting sides. Tai123.123 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Support. What isn't said in that paragraph can be sorted out at VFD, and language can be added later as appropriate, such as if some class of articles is brought up there too often. –LPfi (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think it will be important to move this discussion to Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion, as that's the intuitive place to find it in the future. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

or Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Support We clearly need something like this. I think that most cases should be VFD, not speedy. (We also should consider what the rules will be for any future competitions to avoid mass creation of articles with little useful content.) AlasdairW (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I'd note that the VfD thread on the multiple articles about Puerto Rico helped facilitate a great editing project, whereas speedily deleting everything would have been less useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think that, for competitions, it might be useful to recommend that page creation not 'count' unless at least three useful listings, including one place to sleep, get added. We can't force contest organizers to adopt a recommendation, just like we can't force contest organizers to tell us about their contest plans in advance, but I suspect that most of them would be happy to follow our advice. (This proposal sounds fine to me, too.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

As there has been no comment for two weeks, I have plunged forward and updated the deletion policy to reflect Ikan's wording – putting an end to our "don't delete real places" policy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I still think this creates exceptions and does not put that policy to an end. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think the new policy more so that you can nominate real places for deletion, but it is strongly discouraged where as the previous policy did not allow for exceptions at all. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I, too, support Ikan's proposed new version of this policy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Comment Before redirecting anything, there should be some minimum requirement that the target article at least boldly mention the redirected place at least once (Wikipedia's redirect style "Plastic window glass, also known as Perspex, Lexan or Plexiglas after the most common trade names, is..." specifically listing all of the redirected names in the intro blurb) and preferably have at least one relevant listing in either the main body or the "Nearby" section. There's no point redirecting Toronto (Prince Edward Island) if the target article doesn't mention it and doesn't provide anything to see or do there. 66.102.87.40 17:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  The English Wikipedia doesn't do this consistently, and w:en:Paracetamol brand names should be all the explanation why. I particularly do not want to see us develop a rule that says "If it's not mentioned in the current version of the article, then the redirect should be deleted". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Often the reader can be expected to know that they reached the right article, and all they need may be the Get in and Get around info. In other cases a redirect without further mention is confusing and frustrating. We cannot list all suburbs and neighbourhoods of large cities (even in cases where the city article to look for isn't obvious), so there needs to be a sound judgement call; if a redirect will be confusing or frustrating, either add a note or don't redirect. –LPfi (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  100 percent agree. An alternate for cities with city districts, could be something like Sydney/City East#Orientation listing all the neighbourhoods and such a redirect like Woolloomooloo wouldn't seem confusing. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

There was discussion (Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2014-2019#Speedy_delete_imported_user_pages_with_no_contributions) shortly after the WT->WV move of deleting useless accounts with the (WT-en) marking:

no contributions

edited only in their own user space

vandalism only

As I read it, there was consensus in 2014 that such deletions were a good idea. However, checking a few now I see the accounts are still there.

Should we delete them now? I'd say yes. Pashley (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The point of accounts with deleted contributions was raised. If somebody wants to use time on user pages of vandals who only ever edited in their own user page, I don't think I mind, but as one has to be careful, I think that either the pages are too few to be worth worrying about, or this is a non-trivial undertaking. I don't see the cleanup worth any possible confusion. –LPfi (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm with LPfi here; I don't mind them being deleted, but I also don't see how this is worth worrying about. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

We do not allow deletion of itineraries and travel topic articles that are at outline status for one year after creation, but we do not address itineraries and travel topic articles that are only stubs or skeletons. These are usually created by passers-by who do not provide any travel content. I propose to add this text:

[Article entries should be deleted from the site when...]

... they are itineraries or travel topics that are stubs or skeletons that have not been raised to Outline status within one week of being created, and there is no suitable travel topic to redirect to.

Comments? (Please do not use this discussion to propose or discuss changes to the one-year rule for outline articles -- that should be discussed separately.) Ground Zero (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think "raised to Outline status" is somewhat unclear in this context. Wikivoyage:Outline articles says "An outline article is a status rating for any article in Wikivoyage that has template sections but still does not address its subject sufficiently to be very useful for other travellers." By that standard, Istanbul with children and Great Redwood Trail are both outline articles already. What about something like "...stubs or skeletons that still have no substantive information at least a week after being created..."? Would that capture what this proposal aims to achieve? —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Granger, you have to read the second paragraph, too:

"In general, outline articles are incomplete articles. Subjects worth having an article about are usually worth having at least a paragraph written or at least a few listings in each of the standard template sections."

Istanbul with children does not qualify as an outline article.

My objection to Great Redwood Trail is that there is no such trail. It is only a proposal. Wikivoyage does not maintain articles on fictitious places, except as joke articles. There are no jokes in this article. Ground Zero (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The second paragraph seems to be saying that an outline article is incomplete in that, like the two articles I mentioned, it lacks "at least a paragraph written or at least a few listings in each of the standard template sections". —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage:Article status is clearer: " Outline – Has at least an introduction and a template outline laid out for the article, but not much more." But if people are going to read Wikivoyage:Outline articles and conclude that an article skeleton is sufficient, then we should raise the bar a little higher. Creating an article with only the skeleton is the same as adding an idea for an article to Wikivoyage:Requested articles, except that Wikivoyage ends up hosting an article of no use to readers for up to a year. Let me think on what that higher standard could be. Ground Zero (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

How about a month after being created? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why wait a month when someone has created a stub then walked away? Do they ever co back a month later to work on it again? I don't think so. No travel content is being removed in this kind of deletion. Just crappy non-articles. Ground Zero (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because vfd threads take time and work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

If a month is too long for some people, let's at least extend the deadline to two weeks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

2 weeks is better than a month, IMO. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, per Mx. Granger's comment, I have added the wording from Wikivoyage:Article status:

[Article entries should be deleted from the site when...]

... they are itineraries or travel topics that are stubs or skeletons that have not been raised to Outline status within one week of being created, i.e., has at least an introduction that explains what the article is about, links to at least five articles that are relevant to the topic or itinerary, and a template outline laid out for the article, and there is no suitable travel topic to redirect to.

Ground Zero (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Itinerary status and Travel topic status both say, about the introduction: "this can be as short as a single sentence [...]". That single sentence is what should go into Requested articles; I don't see it adding significant quality to the article above what can be inferred from its title.

If we want to be able to delete such more or less empty outlines after one or two weeks, or a month, I'd raise the bar higher for those to be left. Travel topics are often created as outlines with an outline of just Understand (or the equivalent), Destinations and See also. I think the introduction should either tell more than the self-evident (something worth somewhere if the page is abandoned), or what approach to the topic is intended. For itineraries, the template is more elaborate, but we should still require an introduction of several sentences, or some other substantive edits. It could explain why the itinerary is worthwhile or have the route roughly laid out.

I don't support the "[and if] there is no suitable travel topic to redirect to". I don't want a bunch of redirects just because somebody created skeletons.

–LPfi (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I support Ground Zero's proposal if the proposal below doesn't pass (I'm nigh certain my proposal below won't pass because oo-woo change is too hard for this community to apparently handle). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

If articles created without even one sentence added are common, then I don't object. However, such a change would not affect articles with an unedited skeleton and and an introduction of "The Dales walk is a trail in Yorkshire." If that's all one has to tell about the trail, then one shouldn't create an outline to be lying around for a year (see my post about the Wikibooks 7-day rule). –LPfi (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: I wasn't thinking that an "introduction" could be as basic as "The Dales walk is a trail in Yorkshire", but if it can be interpreted that way, then that wouldn't work. I've added a clarification above (in plain text) to address this. Ground Zero (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The problem is the definition of outline status for those two article types (I haven't checked others). As long as the one-sentence skeletons are defined as outlines, we cannot have "i.e." with another definition.

I don't think a template is necessary for keeping them – newcomers often don't apply a template even if they make a valuable contribution. It is often quite easy for somebody more seasoned to add it.

The five links are also unnecessary at the early stage. I prefer creating the context first and I don't see why we should prescribe the order in which work is done as long as there is a real start.

–LPfi (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think "has at least an introduction that explains what the article is about" is a helpful addition, but I strongly disagree with the requirement for "links to at least five articles that are relevant to the topic or itinerary". I don't think that's a good measure of whether an article is useful. For many articles about short itineraries, there aren't that many relevant links. Looking at two itineraries I worked on – Oak Trail is a pretty complete article IMHO but it barely meets the proposed standard, and only because it gives so many options for how to get to the trail. Around Erhai Lake by electric scooter, also a pretty detailed article, only meets the five-article standard if we count the "Go next" section. A seaside stroll in Helsinki (which I haven't worked on) is at guide status and has fewer than five links to other articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I also agree with LPfi's point about the definition of outline and "i.e.". —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the number of links is not relevant, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Having links to destinations is the "proof of concept". An itinerary or a travel topic is bvery much the idea of one person forvan article. Someone could create a thousand articles that say nothing more that "This article us about travelling to [city] with children" or "This is article is about travel to [coty] for LGBT people". While these are valid concepts, they are only valid articles if they have travel information jn them.

However, it seems like there is more consensus developing around adopting the Wikibooks' policy as proposed below, so I think it makes more sense to focus on refining that proposal than to work on this one further. Ground Zero (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Any long-distance itinerary would have links to several articles, for intermediate destinations, for Get in and so on. However, one may want to add those not when creating the page but when it starts to approach usable, after several weeks of work (which may be interrupted). For travel topics, I would hesitate even more to start with links to destinations. E.g. for Foraging, I'd like to have the structure in place first, pondering what vegetation zones and the like to handle, what foraging might be interesting and possible there and only at a very late stage, having come up with a good structure and done significant research recommend some specific destinations. My article could get deleted even when close to a good "usable", while somebody else could had thrown in a dozen random links (now the article links e.g. Asia, Europe and North America – I don't oppose linking the continents, but I don't see how those links significantly improve the article, which still is a stub in my book, as its header structure doesn't show any vision on how to make the article usable). –LPfi (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, no. No-one is going to delete an article that someone is actively working on. That isn't a realistic scenario. And VfDs remain open for two weeks, during which someone working on an article can get the deletion postponed by saying, "Hey! I'm working on that article!" All of our active editors would rather see an article expanded than deleted.

But as I wrote above, it seems like there is more consensus developing around adopting the Wikibooks' policy as proposed below, so I think it makes more sense to focus on refining that proposal than to work on this one further. Ground Zero (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm back after a bit of a temporary reduced editing due to exams IRL, but this is a concept that I'm all-too familiar with that we have yet to discuss on the English Wikivoyage.

To summarise what this means, unlike a speedy deletion, anything listed on b:en:Wikibooks:Deletion_policy#Meaningful content is eligible, but is not instant. If a page has some content but it does not pass the criteria for a speedy deletion, but isn't worth having a full 14-day discussion, it's custom to add b:Template:Qr-em and let the creator know. If the page hasn't been touched after 7 days, it is then up to an admin or not to see whether it should be speedily deleted or not. Unsuccessful queries can always be converted to a regular RfD (or VfD in our case) deletion. Keep in mind that it's 7 days since the last edit not the date of creation.

This allows a lot of flexibility when it comes to mostly-useless articles that have little to no interest for travellers and prevents the "create useless uninformative crappy outline and run" page creations.

What does everyone else think about adoping this policy for stub/skeleton itineraries and travel topics?

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

For more context, these are the types of articles that we normally delete (assume the redlinks are section headers – it's the nature of WB which is why they're redlinks). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think clear intent is enough to allow for the one year. That may be enough for somebody else to continue the work, if the subject isn't too obscure – which a random admin seeing the page often won't be able to judge.

The articles to delete, in my view, are those the author of which didn't bother to come up with a vision on how to approach the subject, just hoped somebody else would do all the work. Those should have been listed at Requested articles instead, but the creator assumed the stub will be more probable to get edits, with no more effort from their side.

While getting an article up to usable takes enough time that nobody can be required to do it at once, you should have the vision before hitting "save" on an outline, and time to show at least part of that vision in writing before going for a coffee. If you then have to run for the train and aren't back for a week or two, so be it, but if you got interrupted before finishing the first few sentences, then starting over is no big deal.

–LPfi (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Re "The articles to delete, in my view, are those the author of which didn't bother to come up with a vision on how to approach the subject, just hoped somebody else would do all the work.": those are the articles we routinely delete on Wikibooks for similar reasons and we have a very small editor base over there, too (and some of the users like myself don't get involved in content work). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maybe "intent" in the linked guideline should be interpreted as less than the "vision" that I would require. Anyway, the point in the intended guideline addition would be to get rid of some stubs and nearly bare skeletons without having to discuss them at length. Where to put the threshold depends on what articles the actual problem is about. After a year we can easily see that a personal outline itinerary is abandoned and that's it (or discuss whether a well-known itinerary is famous enough).

If adding this rule, we need to have it handle as many abandoned useless stubs and outlines as possible, without needing discussions on whether the editor might come back and then be disappointed that their outline was deleted, and whether the actual content is worth preserving in some way. That is: it needs to handle as many obvious cases as possible, and to be used for as few cases as possible that may result in discussions.

–LPfi (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed 100 per cent on your second paragraph. The cut on Wikivoyage as of now is less clear than on Wikibooks, but having a clear-cut definition resolves this. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can support this approach too. Ground Zero (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think something like this seems like a reasonable approach too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The equivalent of https://web.archive.org/web/20231120210748/https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Kangeanic on this site would be an itinerary article that describes an itinerary in one sentence. If it's a clear description, I would not support deletion before a year is up. However, if we're talking about a destination article, one sentence would be obviously insufficient and should cause the article to be deleted if it's not fleshed out more, but I'd suggest waiting a month unless it's a Brendan edit (which is actually probable) and in case of any doubt, going through Vfd because that might prompt someone to do some work on the article if the destination is a plausible one. In short, "What is considered 'meaningful content' depends on the namespace" needs to be adapted on this site as "What is 'meaningful content' depends on context," so the result, to me, is a rough and not necessarily extremely clear judgment call that requires discretion. If we want to make the policy clearer, we have to define more clearly what "meaningful content" means on this site and what signifies its absence in any article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fair points – and agreed re destination articles. Just a quick note, though: namespace on Wikibooks refers to the types of articles (e.g. destination, itinerary, topic, etc.) because there are separate namespaces for cookbooks and Wikijunior books. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Though I still think a month is quite a long time, FWIW. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Make it 2 weeks, if necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That works with me. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

We don't want judgement calls that require discretion for speedy deletions, and we don't want discussions here about whether or not to wait a year. The threshold should be low enough that any speedy deletion would be on pages clearly below what people find valuable, and crappy enough that the creator shouldn't be surprised. –LPfi (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

If it's borderline, then shouldn't that go on WV:VFD instead? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

No. Then it should wait for a year. Discussing whether to wait for a year are wasted time. If it isn't a clear case, then having it wait is usually little harm. –LPfi (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not if it's done en masse. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000: Do you have wording in mind to add to this policy? think that would help focus the discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure – I'll do so when I get home this arvo (UTC+11). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay, this is the best I could think of right now.

Low-quality articles with no significant value that have been abandoned by its creator may be tagged with {{qr-em}}. After at least 14 from the last edit, it will be automatically added to Category:Speedy deletion candidates. If the administrator reviewing the page deems it unworthy, it will be deleted; if it is borderline, it will be converted into a Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion nomination; if it's deemed usable, the tag will be speedily removed.

I'll make the template tomorrow since I'll be away overseas from Friday. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that 14 days from the last edit would be the period mostly likely to get consensus. Ground Zero (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Replaced the placeholder with 14. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this. A few suggestions:

1. I think anyone should be free to remove the tag, not only an administrator. If anyone thinks the article is worth keeping, that should merit a discussion rather than resting on a single administrator's judgement.
2. The word "usable" sometimes refers to a specific status around here, which I assume is not what's meant in this proposal.
3. I'd prefer to name the template something less opaque.

How about:

If a low-quality article with no significant value has been abandoned by its creator, it may be tagged with {{Queried page}}. Any editor who believes the page might be worth keeping may remove the tag or convert it to a Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion nomination. If the tag is still present 14 days from the article's last edit, the article will be automatically added to Category:Speedy deletion candidates, at which point it can be deleted by any administrator.

I assume that all articles tagged with the template can be added to some tracking category like Category:Queried pages even before 14 days have passed, so that interested editors can try to save them.

—Granger (talk · contribs) 14:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that works with me. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

How is one expected to know whether an article is abandoned? Aren't you allowed to have a break of two weeks until any article you work on becomes "valuable"? What is low quality with no significant value? I think the two criteria for speedy deletion after two weeks need to be clarified – I don't think there is any consensus on them yet. –LPfi (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

We are talking about articles that an editor has generated created with almost no effort, and are therefore easily re-created if the editor decides to come back to them. I am not sympathetic to someone who creates a stub or a skeleton, and then takes an extended break. These editors just don't come back, and if they do, they haven't lost much work at all. Realistically we are not talking about regular contributors either. These are people who drop in to Wikivoyage, then disappear. Ground Zero (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think every one of us has some idea about what articles we are talking about; I have no confidence in our seeing the same threshold. I don't think it is ideal if admins are just given a carte blanche to delete weak articles that haven't been edited in 14 days. Having to first add the queried template gives some protection, but not much. This stub was unedited for two weeks, created by a regular. It was not a bare outline – it had original content – but it didn't satisfy any of the criteria suggested above. Would it be a speedy delete candidate? It was expanded by another editor some five months later. –LPfi (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I created a model of the template at User:SHB2000/Query – it's modelled from the Wikibooks equivalent, reworded it a bit, but largely kept similar for the sake of consistency. Feel free to amend the page and move it into template-space at anytime (make sure it's moved and not copied+pasted since the history contains the WB attribution). Since I'll be away from tomorrow, I'll leave you all to it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

As there has been no further discussion for three weeks, I think we have reached a consensus. I have replaced "article" by "itinerary or travel topic", because a low-quality destination article would be normally redirected, rather than deleted. I note the User:LPfi does not agree with the rest of the discussants that this is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Here is the proposal:

If a low-quality itinerary or travel topic with no significant value has been abandoned by its creator, it may be tagged with User:SHB2000/Query. Any editor who believes the page might be worth keeping may remove the tag or convert it to a Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion nomination. If the tag is still present 14 days from the article's last edit, the article will be automatically added to Category:Speedy deletion candidates, at which point it can be deleted by any administrator.

Is there any further discussion before this is adopted? Ground Zero (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000, LPfi, Ikan Kekek: Pinging the other editors from this discussion, in case they want to comment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

+1. LGTM. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The proposal doesn't address what "abandoned" means. Also the "no significant value" is up to very varying interpretations. It seems, with this wording, that most any topic or itinerary article that hasn't reached usable can be deleted if left alone for 14 days. I think that is unreasonable, but if I am alone here, I can just hope for admins not deleting pages with a good start.

I don't see my saying that stub destination articles aren't a problem; I have argued for deleting rather than redirecting before, but this discussion wasn't about them.

–LPfi (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

As with a lot of Wikivoyage policies, this relies on the discretion of editors. But this discretion extends only to to putting a template on an article. Any editor would be able to remove the template.

We could add in wording to clarify that this applies to articles that lack linked destinations, that are not clearly explained, and haven't had any substantive edits for two weeks. Then there would be another two weeks with the template on it, so the creator (and anyonevelse) would have a month to get the article underway. This is really generous, when we're falling about articles that really should be in user space, or as you suggested, on the Requests for Articles list. Ground Zero (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think editors are likely to feel free to unilaterally remove templates, unless the templates specifically say that anyone can remove them if they disagree with the content of the template. I can say for my part that I'd be most likely to start a thread on the talk page to discuss the template if I disagreed with it. And in that case, I'm quite unsure there'd be value in having added it instead of simply starting a talk page thread right away. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: I've edited the template to indicate that anyone can remove it. Does that help? —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Somewhat. Sorry for the possibly naive question, but where can I see the current version of the template? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: It's at User:SHB2000/Query (and don't despair!). It'll eventually be moved to {{Query}} once it's been finalised. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. If we want to say anyone can remove this template, we should use exactly those words: "If anyone thinks this article is worth keeping, they can remove this template." Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Mx. Granger adjusted the template so it says "If you think it's worth keeping, you can remove this template." I guess both say the same, one is direct while the other is more inclusive. I'm fine with either your's or Granger's. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Though are there any objections to moving User:SHB2000/Query to Template:Query? I'll do so if there are no objections. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that should wait until there's consensus for the proposal. Currently I don't really see consensus one way or another – we have three users in favor and two who still seem skeptical. Maybe it would be worth posting in the pub, or pinging recent VFD participants, to get wider input. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I still think "Anyone who thinks this article is worth keeping can remove this template" would be a clearer phrasing. I think the use of this template could be highly subjective and could be abused, and I'm not enthusiastic about it, but I won't stand in the way if the phrasing is improved a little further and others want it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to change the wording as you see fit – there haven't been any objections since Dec 31 to your wording (yes, I'm more than happy for you to edit my userspace). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done, though starting with the word "However." Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

If we have a template which keeps track of how long since the last edit, I think we can wait longer before deleting the article - two months not two weeks. Two weeks may not be enough time for a new editor who starts an itinerary then packs his bags to go and walk the route before adding the details. The template may get added to an article the day after it was created, so I would prefer a 60 day time limit, when I think we can be sure that the article has been abandoned.

I also think that the template should not just be called Query, as that name might be wanted later for a more common query, and isn't explanatory: say Template:Stub_article_speedy. AlasdairW (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Or e.g. stub_article_pending, not to confuse this with ordinary speedy deletions. Still, I think we need something more specific than "no significant value" for pages to qualify for the template and deletion. –LPfi (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

What wording do you propose instead? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any wording handy, but I think the proposal critically depends on our finding a good wording. A vague one causes uncertainty among new good-faith editors, which is worse than having some worthless stubs sitting around. –LPfi (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whatever wording we choose will have some ambiguity and "no significant value" or "no meaningful content" are no different. I don't think it's worth holding the stick over something that cannot be overcome. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

We don't have a template that tracks the days since the last edit, but there's a piece of code there that does it. As for why 2 weeks and not 2 months, that defeats the entire point of this process as that's more than enough time for the article to pass 4 VfD noms. Ground Zero's comment sums it in a nutshell why everything is proposed the way it is: "We are talking about articles that an editor has generated created with almost no effort, and are therefore easily re-created if the editor decides to come back to them. I am not sympathetic to someone who creates a stub or a skeleton, and then takes an extended break. These editors just don't come back, and if they do, they haven't lost much work at all." That's frankly also my stance and what general consensus is leaning towards. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I hope that the creator of Denmark with children proves me wrong, but for now it does not look like a genuine attempt to create an article that will benefit travellers. Two weeks is enough to judge this editor's intentions. This is something that should be in space, not in article space. Ground Zero (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's a bit ridiculous to wait until March 9 when you consider that the user has made no global edits since Jan 7, the day the article was created. Keeping stubby articles like that potentially drives readers away. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

That one looks like a test. But them having no contribution since, doesn't tell that they abandoned it, but rather that they haven't been around editing at all, such as because of upset plans or an accident. I think the risk of driving editors away with a vague template is worse than the risk caused by a moderate number of stubs. –LPfi (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't object if the template was used with a 14 day limit on articles like Denmark with children that have absolutely no travel content. But the template could also be applied to an article with two paragraphs of useful information - eg if this article only gave information about plastic brick based theme parks.

Although a deleted article could be readily recreated, a newish editor won't do that - there is off-putting warnings if you try to create any article which has been deleted - they will simply go away in a huff. A long as the article isn't linked from prominent pages, it doesn't matter if it is there for 3 or 6 months - very few people will see it. AlasdairW (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AlasdairW: If the tag is applied with articles that have some useful information, the policy allows anyone to remove the tag. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This discussion is about "stubs or skeletons". If anyone thinks the article deserves more consideration, they can remove the template during the 14-day period. Anyone. This is not a nuclear option. it's a "hey, is there any point in keeping this" option. Articles van be found through search engines, and skeleton articles greet new readers with a message of "this us a waste of your time". Wikivoyage is 18 years old now. We should do better than skeletons. Ground Zero (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The number of stubs this is about is quite small and they are usually not linked from anywhere, so I don't think they affect the average reader. The primary reason for the proposal, I think, is that they are irritating for janitors who cannot act upon them right away, other than bringing them to VFD anyway, where they cause long debates on whether we should wait until the year is up.

What about adding timestamp functionality to {{outlineitinerary}}, {{outlinetopic}} and {{stub}}? After two weeks the pages could be added to a maintenance category, and a reviewer (any user) would either add a "checked" parameter for those that seem serious or add the template this is about. The latter would show a warning, and 60 days later automatically add them to Category:Speedy deletion candidates. During the 60 days anybody could remove the template, if they find it has enough value not to be speedy deleted when the time is up.

If the article never had any significant original content (a few paragraphs or so) and hasn't been edited in the 60 days, it can reasonably be thought to have been abandoned and could be deleted without further discussion.

This means a three-step procedure:

• When you notice a new article on RecentChanges, check that it has the appropriate outline template, with timestamp.
• After two weeks, when you see it in the outline review category, either mark it as serious work ("checked") or add the 60-day template.
• After 60 days more, check the history and either add the "checked" parameter and remove the 60-day template, leave the page for others to review, or delete the page (with the appropriate reason, to be added to the menu).

This adds one step to simple speedy deletion after abandonment, which I don't find unreasonable. I also think that getting rid of worthless stubs in some reasonable time frame is more important than getting rid of them fast.

I chose the threshold "a few paragraphs of original content" as I think the effort put into the page is a better measure than the value of the page, which is in the eyes of the person adding the template.

The 60 days are there for us to be reasonably sure that the page is indeed abandoned by the creator. Starting an itinerary article to continue working after having gone there is quite a possible scenario (mentioned by somebody above). If somebody just creates the empty outline before departing, then they should understand it was deleted (perhaps the warning on recreating it needs to be tweaked, to better account for deletions based on content rather than title).

I still think that scaring off good-faith editors by deleting badly formatted or incomplete contributions is a much more severe risk than turning off readers by having search engines direct them to empty outlines. If we take the latter risk seriously, then we have a lot of destination articles to work on with much higher priority.

–LPfi (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think anything over 14 days is far too much, let alone 60 days. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

For a bare outline. If some work has been done, then the issue is different. The threshold cannot be "significant value", which is opaque to the newcomer. An article isn't valuable for the reader until it reaches "usable". Whether it is valuable for the community depends on community dynamics, which cannot be known by the newcomer.

If we cannot come up with criteria that are transparent to the good-faith newcomer, then they shouldn't be shown to the newcomer. If we want to give them a warning, then it needs to be a warning they can understand and act upon.

A two-week break in working on an article is totally acceptable, so the threshold for deleting the article that soon should be so low that no serious efforts are affected. No more than one sentence of original text or text slightly reworded from Wikipedia? I think my two-week threshold would be at that level, approximately.

–LPfi (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek, LPfi, Mx. Granger, AlasdairW: Did we ever come to a resolution with GZ's proposal? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, it doesn't look to me like we did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some time back we discussed Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2014-2019#Speedy_delete_imported_user_pages_with_no_contributions. Consensus was that they could go, but I see many still exist.

Would anyone object if I now deleted a bunch? Would anyone like to help? Could someone automate the process & save us the trouble? Pashley (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

See also #Ancient accounts above. Pashley (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I said in the latter linked thread, deleting would not harm in the typical case, but isn't worth the effort – especially as one has to do some checks.

If they have contributed media to Wikimedia Commons attributing the imported user page, then it shouldn't be deleted. Neither should it if also the media are imported. I assume there may be other pitfalls.

–LPfi (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply