跳转至内容

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2022

Add links
来自维客旅行
← January 2022 Votes for deletion archives for February 2022 (current) March 2022 →

This template is a currently unused template, nor was it ever used. As far as I'm aware, we only use these boxes if there are a reasonable amount of countries or dependencies that use that currency, such as the euro, the US dollar, the Australian dollar or the EC dollar. As the Indian rupee is not used officially anywhere outside India (while a co-official currency in Bhutan and Nepal), it is not necessary to have a specific exchange rate template for it and they can just be manually updated in India#Buy every so often. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pashley (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar case to Template:Exchange rate INR. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pashley (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect doesn't seem to be useful, merely because of its incorrect capitalisation. In its entire lifetime, it only received 507 pageviews, and such redirects with incorrect capitalisation are pointless – do we really need to create redirects for "British columbia" or San marino"? In all, whatever way, this redirect is not at all useful because it is obvious common knowledge that proper nouns are always capitalised. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the search box is indifferent to capitalisation anyway, but check with someone who can confirm. We also don't really want blue links to spelling errors. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The search box is indifferent to capitalisation, at least in most cases, which should include this one. Those not using the search box should know they need to spell things correctly, and if one does a typo in an article, it is better that it is obvious once you preview or save. –LPfi (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the issue was a red link in an edit summary somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot have redirects for every typo in edit summaries. It is easy to go to the correct page in cases like this, where the typo is obvious. When it isn't, it still isn't worse than if it were not linked at all, which is very much more common. If the link is important, add it to a new edit summary or put it on the talk page. –LPfi (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the benefit in removing this redirect? Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Hobbitschuster: who created this redirect. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pashley (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the point of a Disambiguation with only red links Tai123.123 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After doing more research, it seems most of the places are tiny villages, some that fail wiaa. Have struck my vote. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sometimes disambiguation pages with just one blue link have a point: when there are places more well-known than the one you create an article about (read: more well-known in some audience). In these cases using the name for the less-known place, redirecting the name there, or leaving the plain name a redlink could be confusing. With no blue link, and none assumed to pop up in the foreseeable future, I don't think there is a point – is that the case here?

–LPfi (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How likely is Port Gibson to be just called Gibson on the ground? Port Gibson is not on the coast. and is unlikely to be an actual port these days. There is also Gibsons, which could be added to the list. AlasdairW (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that those who try "Gibson" and don't get a match try again with "Port Gibson" – and a search would find it with "Gibson" without a disambig page. One problem with disambig pages like this is that they may be arbitrary lists, leaving out some much more important place. I think the page does more harm than good. Delete without prejudice; if some thought behind a new page is shown it may be worthwhile. –LPfi (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted.

Not another encyclopedic article! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, it's an outline, but it seems of some use to me, and it's definitely not encyclopedic, as an encyclopedic article would have way more content dealing with history and so forth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Merged. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason given by Graham87 under a speedy deletion request.

Block evasion, Te Reo Ahitereiria, see enwiki block logs of users in history

I declined the speedy just because I don't think we've ever deleted articles because of someone lock evading, we've only speedily deleted articles because of someone block evading like AC or the one Australian user who we all know. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can already tell that what I am going to write will be misconstrued, but with the caveats that block evasion is bad and I do not support anyone editing or soliciting someone else to edit while blocked in any fashion, I don't see the value in our community removing otherwise valid and potentially useful content just because of the source being someone who was editing while blocked. Remember, ttcf and is the traveler helped by removing this phrasebook? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the person who declined the speedy, I'm only going to say keep only because I cropped two banners for this article. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I now vote for delete per Graham87. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's now a discussion on Wikivoyage:User ban nominations relating to this nomination. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the person who nominated it for speedy deletion (honestly, kinda just to see what would happen). Not only because it's block evasion, but because casual travellers would be extremely unlikely to need such a resource: firstly, because its native speakers live in some of the most remote communities in Australia, both generally and more specifically for tourism (see the list at w:Pitjantjatjara#Some major communities); and secondly, because most of its speakers that a traveller would encounter (e.g. at roadhouses/general stores, on guided tours, at art galleries) would also be fluent in English. Casually walking around in these communities without an idea what you're doing would be foolhardy at best (snooping on private homes is rude and there could be sacred areas) and deadly at worst (see this news story for an idea of what I mean). The only people who would need such a resource are linguists and people working in those communities (e.g. as nurses/teachers), both of whom would have much more appropriate resources available to them. Graham87 (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable, although I cannot assess to usefulness – if I were going to a remote settlement in Nenetsia, I would try to learn the language at phrasebook level. The phrasebook now contains only the pronunciation of letters and the odd phrase. Except "hello" it is quite useless, and anybody able to make it more complete could as well start off from scratch. –LPfi (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because we cannot rely on the creator of this this article. User:Tai123.123 voted "Keep, assuming the information is correct". I don't see how we can assume that. If Justin can assure us that the content is "valid", I'll change my vote, but I am not prepared to assume that. Ground Zero (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tai123.123 has now changed their vote, so it's only Justin now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a regular contributor can assure us of the content. There are only 3 actual phrases in this phrasebook. When I tried these in Google Translate different languages were recognised for each of them, and none of the results metched our translation - maybe not a surprise for an obscure language but it didn't increase my confidence. AlasdairW (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

这不是一篇旅游文章，它是由一个绕过封锁的人创建的。不太可能成为有价值的旅游话题。--SHB2000 (讨论 | 贡献 | meta.wikimedia) 2022年2月12日 03:28 (UTC)[回复]

结果： 已删除。--SHB2000 (讨论 | 贡献 | meta.wikimedia) 2022年2月26日 23:46 (UTC)[回复]

这是一个冒犯性的词语，原因与我们不应有爱斯基摩人重定向页面类似：这里有两篇关于为什么它被认为是冒犯性的文章：--SHB2000 (讨论 | 贡献 | meta.wikimedia) 2022年2月13日 02:16 (UTC)[回复]

我添加了这样的注释，所以现在我说删除。
我们应该提到“abo”有时被使用并且非常冒犯吗？我认为不应该，但一个澳大利亚人的意见会受到欢迎。 Pashley (讨论) 2022年2月13日 03:21 (UTC)[回复]
这在澳大利亚#尊重中有提到。 Ikan Kekek (讨论) 2022年2月13日 04:07 (UTC)[回复]
也在土著澳大利亚文化#名称中提到。但我想听听@Yvwv: 的意见，他是这个重定向页面的创建者。 SHB2000 (讨论 | 贡献 | meta.wikimedia) 2022年2月13日 05:53 (UTC)[回复]
  • 删除 搜索“Aborigines”会列出50篇文章，其中许多不在澳大利亚。例如，台湾的海端、尼日利亚的Uromi以及马来西亚的Ayer Keroh有一个土著博物馆。所以重定向可能指向了错误的文章。我不知道这个词在其他国家是否冒犯。所以要么删除，要么将重定向更改为一篇涵盖其他国家使用该词的文章。 AlasdairW (讨论) 2022年2月13日 11:19 (UTC)[回复]
  • 保留 （我最初的回复是将其视为一篇文章，但现在我看到它是一个重定向，所以我删除了它以重新考虑）作为一个重定向，我们有美洲原住民、第一民族和犹太人的重定向。大多数民族没有重定向，但这可能归因于关于祖鲁人、豪萨族、罗姆人等的文章缺乏。如果民族可以作为重定向，我认为这应该很容易保留。从上面的讨论来看，似乎以任何方式提及这些人民在澳大利亚是“冒犯的”，但在澳大利亚以外，至少在北美，他们是Aborigines（大写“A”）。“犹太人”可能冒犯也可能中性，它是一个重定向。我不知道这个词在澳大利亚人（尤其是实际的土著居民而非白人/学者）中引起“冒犯”的程度，但在“澳大利亚”以外，“Aborigine”是完全中性的。它没有任何负面含义，所以保留它不应该是个问题。这是我听过的唯一一种提及他们的方式。如果我们不喜欢民族作为重定向，那是另一个话题。（编辑：我们有吉普赛人作为重定向，但没有罗姆人或罗姆人。有人声称“吉普赛人”也是冒犯性的，但它是最常见的称呼，所以这是合理的。重定向是基于特定文章的流行或可能的搜索词。对于Aborigines来说，这绝对是这样。 ChubbyWimbus (讨论) 2022年2月15日 14:10 (UTC)[回复]
    • 似乎冒犯性在于过于宽泛的泛化，谈论澳大利亚土著居民就像谈论欧洲原住民一样。我认为在正确的语境下是可以的，但语境应该清楚地表明一个人在谈论多个民族和文化。因此，问题不在于名称本身，而在于名称过去和现在的使用方式。–LPfi (讨论) 2022年2月15日 15:00 (UTC)[回复]
在美国，我们确实使用“美洲原住民”，他们比澳大利亚土著居民更多样化、数量更多，分布范围也更广，所以也许这就是为什么“冒犯”对我来说显得毫无意义/捏造的原因。但即使接受它在某种程度上“冒犯”，它仍然是一个基于国际术语以及该群体如何被引用的合理重定向。它似乎类似于吉普赛人。我认为Aborigine和gypsy在国际上都是他们所代表群体的最常用术语。它们作为重定向是有意义的。我不认为“Aborigine”在这方面有什么特别之处。 ChubbyWimbus (讨论) 2022年2月15日 16:05 (UTC)[回复]
  • 我记得一位刚从印度来的同事在一次关于加拿大第一民族人民的会议上使用了“红印第安人”这个词，为此她感到非常震惊。这是她在印度学到的词。澳大利亚的原住民长期以来被称为Aborigines，而澳大利亚以外的读者可能没有注意到术语的变化。一个重定向可以帮助他们找到正确的文章，并了解他们应该使用什么术语来避免冒犯。 Ground Zero (讨论) 2022年2月15日 16:39 (UTC)[回复]
  • 这是我在 90 年代教授的第二语言英语中所使用的术语。显然，术语已经随着时间而改变了。/Yvwv (讨论) 2022年2月15日 18:53 (UTC)[回复]
我惊讶于“红印第安人”在90年代仍在教授。1999年，澳大利亚就一项在宪法中添加序言的公投，其中一项内容是“向土著居民和托雷斯海峡岛民致敬”。因此，术语在那里也发生了变化。 Ground Zero (讨论) 2022年2月16日 19:35 (UTC)[回复]

结果： 重定向已保留。--SHB2000 (讨论 | 贡献 | meta.wikimedia) 2022年2月26日 23:49 (UTC)[回复]

只有一个条目，没有歧义的必要——我认为应该删除这个歧义页面（以便为链接的文章腾出空间），恢复Soumya-8974的页面移动，然后添加一个消歧页。--SHB2000 (讨论 | 贡献 | meta.wikimedia) 2022年2月8日 11:21 (UTC)[回复]

WP 指向孟买的那个。如果我们能找到它在孟买哪个区，我认为我们应该保留它，并链接到孟买地区和Raigad地区。 Tai123.123 (讨论) 2022年2月8日 16:16 (UTC)[回复]

结果： 无共识。--SHB2000 (讨论 | 贡献 | meta.wikimedia) 2022年2月27日 01:46 (UTC)[回复]

取自“https://wikivoyage.cn/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/February_2022&oldid=4397040”
© 2026 wikivoyage.cn. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License.