跳转至内容

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2010

Add links
来自维客旅行

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in October 2010. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/September 2010 or Project:Votes for deletion/November 2010 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Yes, this place merits an article. But the info is a direct lift from Wikipedia, probably by the hotel, which also plugs itself in Wikipedia. (WT-en) Shep 14:04, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

I've removed the plug from the Wikipedia article, although I left most of what the contributor wrote. Given the timestamps, it's reasonable to assume the author made the edits on both wikis, so only the lead section of our article is a copyright violation (because of lack of attribution). We could replace that lead with a Wikivoyage-style lead and template and be okay copyright-wise. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:01, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
It is a real place that "merits an article", so keep. It needs to be either cleaned up or blanked, though. (WT-en) Pashley 20:03, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:56, 3 October 2010 (EDT)

No substantial edits in two years, points to a non-existent district article, would be easy to merge with London, which was suggested on its talk page at the time.

Result: Merge tag added for London. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:09, 3 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. It seems to be a commercial yacht enterprise. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:53, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. This is linked to the section called Cruise Lines and is a page mirrored after the Carnival Conquest page which has not been taken down. (WT-en) Brickell 13:40, 2 September 2010 (EDT) adrienne
  • Delete immediately. This is just a commercial plug. If based on Carnival Conquest then that page should also be deleted. (WT-en) Shep 14:43, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete Commercial page and i added Carnival Conquest for deletion too. (WT-en) jan 15:25, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Cruise ships. In order to address Peter's concerns without allowing spammy adverts I'm proposing that any new articles on cruise ships be redirected until consensus is reached on how to handle cruise ships in general. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:54, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Keep. All information is factual-not "touting". The information on cruising is relevant to travelers wishing to "travel by sea". There is no flowery language used. The article gives specifics about the the fleet of 2 cruise ships and links to many destinations within Wikivoyage. There are other cruise ships/ cruise lines with pages on Wikivoyage-as long as they stick to the facts of what traveling aboard their vessel is about - it is clearly relevant to traveling in general. A photo was added to enhance the page also(WT-en) Brickell 16:58, 2 September 2010 (EDT) adrienne

  • This page has been redirected to: "SeaDream I & II". The new page title includes an "&", which appears to make the page unsearchable. It can still be reached through the redirect from "SeaDream Yacht Club", but that's about it. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 01:51, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Cruise ships per Project:What is an article?#Proposed Moratorium. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:06, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Cruise ships per Project:What is an article?#Proposed Moratorium. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:06, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

The provenance of the image on Commons is not at all clear, and there seems to be a thumbnailing issue (probably due to the diacritic in the filename). It was in use on our Rio de Janeiro page, but I've replaced it with a much better daytime shot of the same part of the stadium. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:05, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:10, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Unmanageable, subjective, with no clear basis, standard, or rubric, plus it's a Wikipedia-style list to boot. The discussion page already looks like a vfd discussion.

  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 10:18, 16 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep - It is manageable, the basis is clear, and it is not more or less subjective than any other "stay safe" entry. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 94.66.217.42 (talk • contribs)
  • Give it some rope - It may or may not turn out to be something useful. I have my doubts, but the main contributor may have the ability to change it to something the rest of us can see as potentially usable, so I would suggest let it develop for a few more weeks. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:46, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete I think it definitely IS more subjective than the "Stay Safe" sections, which give room for complexity. The rubric doesn't even make sense. What does "War Zone" status for health mean? A health rating of 8 means you need an escort?? What's a level 3 "stupid thing" in the homosexuality or religion category? What sort of "something bad" is happening in Peru? Is Brazil really so dangerous that it should be avoided at all cost? The numbers/ratings don't make any sense! You can't trust a single thing in the article, because everything needs clarified further, which requires users to click on the country and go to the "stay safe" section. In my opinion, a watered down "What does it mean?" guide to important topics/issues can do nothing but mislead travelers.(WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:35, 18 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I largely agree with ChubbyWimbus and the discussion on its talk page, with the added problem that assigning a single decimal value to an entire nation is foolish. We can and should mention specific local or regional safety concerns in appropriate detail in the appropriate articles, but assigning a single "crime" value to the entirety of Brazil is as absurd as a continent-wide weather forecast. There's been no evidence that the original contributor can turn it into something useful, only adding more vague and disputable numbers. — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 17:32, 18 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I am all for quantifying abstract, subjective notions, and hate to discourage new contributors, but the problem is as CW and Mr Guillaime identify—a single value for an entire and diverse country is neither very meaningful nor helpful for a traveler. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:58, 22 September 2010 (EDT)
  • I don't know. It's pretty handy to have a one-stop reference for whether I should be wary of religious strife at the North Pole, and just what exactly is the current state of gay rights in Space. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:48, 22 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I agree that in its current form this article is doomed. If the original author is open to some suggestions, an article such as "Worldwide safety concerns" that is sub-divided by specific issues might be of use. For example: military threats (list war zones & areas with active militias or terrorism danger), disease threats (list areas where specific diseases are a concern), crime threats (list of areas with higher-than-average incidence of violent crime), etc. An all-in-one list that simply provides a single number without any description is not meaningful, however. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:58, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

There are three pages. St. Andrew's, St. Andrews, and St Andrews. The first two are for the same Canadian city. The last is for the home of golf in Scotland.

  • Merge, rename, and redirect. The home of golf is vastly better known, so it should keep the name. The two Canadian pages should be merged and renamed St Andrews (New Bruswick). I created a disambig page pointing to the current names. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 19:10, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:26, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Jeffreys Bay. There were a number of links to this page from talk pages, so I've redirected to avoid breaking them. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:34, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

There are two pages, Ruaha National Park. and Ruaha National Park. The one with the period in the name is the better page but not named well.

  • Merge and delete. There is no need to redirect a pagename ending in period. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 18:54, 21 September 2010 (EDT)
    • Yes, there is; to maintain the attribution history of the content. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:59, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Ruaha National Park deleted and Ruaha National Park. merged into it.. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:44, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Saint-Barthelemy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:57, 9 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Recaş. There was no content that needed merging. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:57, 9 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image. If it was larger it might make sense to incorporate it into an article, but image quality for a thumbnail is low, and thumbnails are often red-flags as potential copyvios so I think it's best to just delete. If anyone wants to keep this please be sure to incorporate it into an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. It was uploaded by one of our regular users, but it's unused now and the subject matter doesn't appear to be anything that would be useful in our guides. If anyone wants to keep this please be sure to incorporate it into an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. The same location as Image:DKLouisianaC.jpg, which isn't really subject matter for our guides. If anyone wants to keep this please be sure to incorporate it into an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

While listing multiple images in the same VFD is usually to be avoided, all images uploaded by this user are orphaned and look like copyvios

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of two people sitting on a hill. No model release and no relevance to travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a fish, apparently uploaded to promote a fishing charter company. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. A now-orphaned image. It's a map, but at 120x155 pixels it's far too small to be of any possible use, and the license information indicates that it's not CC-SA compatible. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a person with no model release specified. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, and the comment on the image page is simply "from website", which makes this suspicious as a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned photograph of a map with no indication provided that the copyright holder of the map has released it for use under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned photograph of a bus schedule with no indication provided that the copyright holder of the schedule has released it for use under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. These are the same image. Orphaned images with recognizable people and no model release. In addition, these appear to have been uploaded in order to promote a specific tour company, something that we usually discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that appears to have been uploaded in order to promote a specific tour company, something that we usually discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a pill bottle. No relevance to travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a hotel. If someone feels strongly that this should be kept then it needs to be incorporated into an article, otherwise orphaned images are subject to deletion per policy. I would argue strongly that a thumbnail that is currently unused is not a high enough quality image to merit keeping around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of several people standing in front of a bus; no model releases provided, and not particularly relevant to travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of several people. It's a low quality thumbnail and there are no model releases provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a hotel. It's unused and appears to have been uploaded to promote a specific business, something we typically discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a hotel. It's unused and appears to have been uploaded to promote a specific business, something we typically discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:29, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of a bar interior. We typically do not use images of specific businesses unless they are notable for some reason, and this one is not. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:29, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 未使用的酒吧/餐厅内部图像。除非有特殊原因，否则我们通常不使用特定企业的图片，这张图片没有。此外，照片中有可识别的人。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 00:29, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 未使用的照明装置图像。“®”符号在图像名称中也表明该图像可能存在侵犯版权的风险。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 00:29, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的动漫图像。违反了我们“任何图像中最多七名穿着动物主题内衣的女孩”的指南。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 00:29, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

虽然通常最好将图片单独列在VFD提名中，但该用户上传的所有图片都是孤立的，并且似乎是为了宣传目的而上传的，这是我们通常不鼓励的。

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的缩略图，公然宣传酒店，这是我们通常不鼓励的。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 00:50, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的缩略图，似乎是为了宣传某家酒店而上传的，这是我们通常不鼓励的。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 00:50, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的页眉背景图像副本。看起来像是有人在尝试测试我们的图像上传功能；它确实有效。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 00:50, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的特定餐厅食物拼贴画。我们通常不鼓励此类宣传图片。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 00:50, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 这是同一张图片的两个副本（不同尺寸）。两者都是孤立的，并且是关于某人的宠物老鼠的，因此与我们的指南无关。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 00:50, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的，有几个可识别的人骑自行车合影的缩略图。未提供肖像权释放，并且与我们的指南不太相关。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 00:55, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的低质量缩略图，似乎是为了宣传某家酒店而上传的。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的图片，似乎是为了宣传某家酒店而上传的。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的特定酒店宣传海报。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 未使用的个人图像。没有肖像权释放，且与旅行无关。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 未使用的个人图像。没有肖像权释放，且与旅行无关。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的卡通图像，描绘了一名女子带着行李箱。可能是抄袭，而且她嘴巴的形状让我感到不适。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的缩略图。图像显示是从另一个网站复制的，但未表明可以重新许可为CC-SA。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的低质量酒店内部图像。通常情况下，只有在图片能说明城市或地区的特色时，我们才会使用此类图片，而这张图片不符合条件。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 未使用的个人头部缩略图。没有肖像权释放，且与旅行无关。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 未使用的两人图像。没有肖像权释放，且与旅行无关。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 未使用的个人在岩石上摆姿势的图像。没有肖像权释放，且与我们的指南无关。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 未使用的个人在船上的图像。没有肖像权释放，且与我们的指南无关。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的椅子图像。违反了我们“不允许孤立的椅子图像”的政策。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的图片，描绘了要么一个非常大的长椅，要么一个非常小的女人。无论哪种情况，该图片都未被使用，因此将被删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的肯德基餐厅图像。我不敢想象我们会在文章中使用它，但如果有人认为它应该被保留，则应该将其解孤立。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 孤立的头像。未提供肖像权释放，且与我们的指南无关。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:52, 2010年10月1日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:34, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

结果：已重定向。 没有需要合并的内容。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:44, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

  • 合并并重定向。 似乎有两页是关于同一个城镇的：Belgaum 和 Belguam。我相信 Belgaum 是正确的拼写（？）。 --(WT-en) Bill in STL 01:17, 2010年9月27日 (EDT)

结果：已重定向。 没有需要合并的内容。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 19:44, 2010年10月15日 (EDT)

结果：重定向至 Caransebeş。 这是维基百科和罗马尼亚维基语伴使用的名称。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 10:26, 2010年10月23日 (EDT)

结果：重定向至 Caransebeş。 这是维基百科和罗马尼亚维基语伴使用的名称。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 10:26, 2010年10月23日 (EDT)

结果：已保留。 Roraima (Brazil) 已移动到 Roraima。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 10:37, 2010年10月23日 (EDT)

结果：已重定向。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 11:09, 2010年10月23日 (EDT)

  • 我猜你是指合并并重定向，因为这似乎正是这种情况。 – (WT-en) Vidimian 04:50, 2010年9月26日 (EDT)
谢谢。 --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:19, 2010年9月26日 (EDT)

结果：已添加合并标签。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 11:22, 2010年10月23日 (EDT)

  • 删除并重定向。这似乎是一个关于L'Aquila (province)的页面。此页面没有独特的信息可以合并到正确命名的文章中。 --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:19, 2010年9月26日 (EDT)
是的。请快速删除。(WT-en) Shep 09:44, 2010年9月26日 (EDT)
  • 只需重定向。政策是重定向可能的拼写错误。 (WT-en) Pashley 06:11, 2010年9月27日 (EDT)
    • L'Acquila 是一个可能的拼写错误；对于 L'Acquila (province) 是否也如此？ (WT-en) LtPowers 11:21, 2010年9月27日 (EDT)
      • 无论如何，它指的是一个真实的地名，而那些应始终重定向。 --(WT-en) Peter 讨论 19:06, 2010年9月27日 (EDT)
        • 但那只是一个经验法则。人们有可能输入“（省）”这个消歧词吗？ (WT-en) LtPowers 10:41, 2010年9月28日 (EDT)
          • 不，但那既不是问题也不是政策背后的原因。重定向比删除更便宜，因为它们不需要经过这个过程。默认选项是重定向。 --(WT-en) Peter 讨论 16:46, 2010年9月28日 (EDT)

结果：已重定向。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:32, 2010年10月23日 (EDT)

结果：已添加合并标签。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:35, 2010年10月23日 (EDT)

结果：已重定向。 没有需要合并的内容。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:42, 2010年10月23日 (EDT)

结果：已添加合并标签。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:46, 2010年10月23日 (EDT)

  • 删除。 这是关于一个湖泊，它位于一个州立公园内/附近。我们通常不为水体或州立公园创建文章。如果保留，文章需要检查并格式化或删除链接。 --(WT-en) Bill in STL 22:54, 2010年9月24日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 21:56, 2010年10月23日 (EDT)

文件名输入错误，已创建并使用正确的文章 (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) 讨论 09:00, 2010年10月11日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 20:30, 2010年10月29日 (EDT)

取自“https://zh.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/October_2010&oldid=1890664”
© 2026 wikivoyage.cn. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License.