|
Votes for deletion
This page lists articles, files and templates that are nominated for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can make a nomination or comment on any nomination. Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our deletion policy. If our deletion policy leads towards a merge or redirect, then coordinate this on the discussion page of the article. The purpose of this page is limited to the interpretation and application of our deletion policy. You can discuss what our deletion policies should be on the deletion policy discussion page. Nominating[edit]Add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article, file or template being proposed for deletion, so that people viewing it will be aware. Place the tag at the very top, before everything else, except the page banner. Do note though, if you're tagging a template for deletion, use <noinclude>{{vfd}}</noinclude> instead of {{vfd}} alone. Add a link to the article, file or template at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your recommendation using four tildes ("~~~~"). If you're nominating a file for deletion, make sure it's actually hosted on the English Wikivoyage and not on Wikimedia Commons. The basic format for a deletion nomination is: ===[[Chicken]]=== Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~ Commenting[edit]All Wikivoyagers are invited to comment on articles, files or templates listed for deletion. The format for comments is: ===[[Chicken]]=== * '''Delete'''. Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (UTC) * '''Keep'''. There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~ When leaving comments you may elect to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If you recommend redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Any attempt to merge content from an article to some other destination must retain the edit history to comply with the attribution (CC BY-SA) requirements of the free license, so it may be possible to merge and redirect but not to merge and delete. Sign your comment using four tildes ("~~~~"). Deleting, or not[edit]
Archiving[edit]After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root archives page has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted). When archiving, always make it clear to other editors what the outcome of the discussion was. First, describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion, with something like "archive as kept". Then add a line for the result to the discussion on the archive page. If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then the nomination should be mentioned on its talk page. Generally this is done by providing a link to the deletion discussion on the talk page. One should also indicate the result on the talk page. If the discussion is short, an alternative is to place an (identical duplicate) copy of the discussion on the talk page. See also:
|
 |
October 2025
[edit]Another XNR, could be an actual place name. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Vigo (or Galicia). Mos is a municipality on the edge of Vigo Airport east of Vigo. The place should be mentioned wherever it redirects as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Good thinking. I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Vigo per SC. //shb (t | c | m) 08:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Another XNR, could be the ISO country code for French Polynesia. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. If we did need a cross-namespace redirect to Wikivoyage:Plunge_forward, which I don't think we do, then I'd prefer just "plunge". Pashley (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to French Polynesia per nom. //shb (t | c | m) 21:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- That makes sense, I guess. It probably wouldn't be a common search term in _English_ Wikivoyage, but it wouldn't hurt. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- ISO codes are pretty universal, IMO. I've also never seen FP being used to refer to French Polynesia, only PF, even in English (though I suppose not a place that comes up often in English since most people would just say Tahiti or Bora Bora even though they refer to specific islands). //shb (t | c | m) 08:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Mild support for redirecting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- There are still 100 uses of this redirect (down from ~150). Nomination is expected to close tomorrow, but I do ask that whoever gets around to closing this wait until I've fixed up all uses of the redirect – hopefully I do it by tonight, but I might not finish it. //shb (t | c | m) 07:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Down to 50 – maybe I can finish replacing all uses tonight (and some don't need to be replaced as they're in userspace). //shb (t | c | m) 07:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Ignore my last two messages. //shb (t | c | m) 08:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Down to 50 – maybe I can finish replacing all uses tonight (and some don't need to be replaced as they're in userspace). //shb (t | c | m) 07:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- ISO codes are pretty universal, IMO. I've also never seen FP being used to refer to French Polynesia, only PF, even in English (though I suppose not a place that comes up often in English since most people would just say Tahiti or Bora Bora even though they refer to specific islands). //shb (t | c | m) 08:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- That makes sense, I guess. It probably wouldn't be a common search term in _English_ Wikivoyage, but it wouldn't hurt. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not convinced this would be a search term for French Polynesia. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 01:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
A rather astonishing cross-namespace redirect (XNR). Should redirect to common scams or similar. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect per nomination, although a specific article addressing touts could be a good idea as they're not necessarily scammers. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- I do use this redirect fairly often, so I lean toward keep, but I could live without it if there's a consensus to delete or redirect elsewhere.
- For a redirect in main space, I don't like a redirect to scams since as mentioned above not all touts are scammers. Perhaps to Shopping#Bad_places which does mention touts. Or make a section on touts in the Shopping article & redirect there. I do not think there's enough to say (yet?) about touting to justify a separate article. Pashley (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, a separate article for tips for dealing with persistent touts when you travel could certainly be useful. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to common scams]. //shb (t | c | m) 21:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I have started Touts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Let's redirect this term there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Awesome. If there aren't any more objections in the next 48 hours, shall we speedy close this since it's not going to be deleted? //shb (t | c | m) 21:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Given that touts has been created (bravo!) I'd say the redirect is not needed & tout should still be deleted. Pashley (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Why not redirect to that article? I guess it's inessential because typing "tout" in the search box would find "Touts". Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's a reasonable redirect term because that is what both Wikidata and Wikipedia use and it's a mostly harmless redirect anyway. //shb (t | c | m) 23:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Why not redirect to that article? I guess it's inessential because typing "tout" in the search box would find "Touts". Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Given that touts has been created (bravo!) I'd say the redirect is not needed & tout should still be deleted. Pashley (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Awesome. If there aren't any more objections in the next 48 hours, shall we speedy close this since it's not going to be deleted? //shb (t | c | m) 21:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Let's redirect this term there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to the new article Touts. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Another XNR, could be the ISO language code for Greek. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Seems too confusing, as it means "the" in Spanish. Might be best to delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Whether the better cross-namespace redirect xl might be deleted is debatable (I'd say no) but this one should certainly go. Pashley (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- In addition to masculine "the" in Spanish, I think it's also some definite article in Arabic, plus in colloquial Swedish it means electricity :D . Delete. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, an alternate transliteration for "al", Arabic for "the". El also means elevated train, as for example in Chicago. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. //shb (t | c | m) 21:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Have also fixed all the links. //shb (t | c | m) 23:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 01:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Ground Zero (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, The article is a stub and contains nothing. Maroontruths (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Originally I supported a merge, but I think this is an outright AI fabrication. I've searched Google Maps around the nearby village of Banéfo-Mifi, and the only lake in the area is Lake Baleng, which is identified by the article as a different lake. Yet the description of Lake Mifi sounds like the actual description of Lake Baleng. The content sounds Chat-GPTish, so I suggest we delete entirely. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Ground Zero (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Fine to delete. There were similar problems with other articles created by the user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy Pashley (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, though this can likely can be speedily deleted sooner as per our policy on abandoned stubs. I ran this article through an AI checker and I mostly got results saying it was human-written, but there are too few words in this article for an AI checker to accurately check. //shb (t | c | m) 23:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Maroontruths (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's my impression (which could be wrong!) that many places in this region have multiple names, so "Lake Mifi" could be called "Lake Something Else" in another language/context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- That's a point I hadn't thought of. However, I can't find it anywhere online. The thing is, there is only one lake in the area that fits the author's description from what I can tell of satellite imagery: Lake Baleng. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Another case — this article isn't even clear on the name of the lake (Tissongo?), and if you look up that lake online, it's just a body of water. On satellite (blurry) it's not even clear there are any settlements and certainly no amenities near it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per discussion at Talk:Lake sanaga. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per IK. //shb (t | c | m) 23:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Ground Zero (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per discussion at Talk: Lake Sanaga. Maroontruths (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Unilaterally created subregion article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Would it make more sense to redirect to Lancashire or delete? I don't know the region very well. //shb (t | c | m) 22:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- A redirect could be OK, I suppose. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- What policy does it violate? Maroontruths (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect. In this case, the geographical descriptor is a common phrase, and Britannica even has an article on it. But that's insufficient for an extraregion, IMO. So redirect to Lancashire. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect. This is a useless article. There is likely an argument for subdividing Lancashire, but that argument has not been made anywhere, and no-one has provided a plan for subdividing the whole region. Creating a random, undefined subregion is not helpful. Ground Zero (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete The page was created by a user who is now banned, and has no content worth merging. I have briefly visited Lancashire and don't see the need to split East from West. West Lancashire is a local government district with borough status, but I doubt that most visitors would notice. AlasdairW (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Mainspace redirect to WV:Welcome, business owners. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Cross-namespace redirects are a bad idea in nearly all cases. Pashley (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- They save keystrokes in edit summaries, but that doesn't make them a good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: also, for the record, I checked and couldn’t find any places with the name that could be a redirect target. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. //shb (t | c | m) 21:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ground Zero (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
It seems that cross-namespace redirects are bad enough, so this soft redirect to another wiki is no good (What does "Wts" even mean?). JsfasdF252 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, unless the creator of the redirect has a good explanation for this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- When I saw this page, I assumed that it was created 20 years ago, when Wts linked to the project's shared space. Wts had the sort of content that is now on Commons or the pages in meta:Wikivoyage. The old site has a page with this name, which was created in 2006, and maybe didn't make it here after the fork because it was a shared page. AlasdairW (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Koavf: started this. If they dont have a good reason for keeping it, i would support deleting it right away. Ground Zero (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- It had a number of incoming redlinks, so that was my thinking. If anyone wants it deleted, I've no strong feelings, but it would be best if someone could fix those redlinks so that they don't show up in reports. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. That really wasn't a good reason to create a useless redirect. I think there's too much of an obsession about making everything completely statistically neat. (By the way, Wts was Wikitravel Shared, which I remember as the repository of images Wikitravel used, so obviously not something that's needed now.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Koavf: btw sure, I will try and edit them out over the next few days (as I've been doing with the last few x-namespace redirects). //shb (t | c | m) 06:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Seems there was only one use of this redirect that's not on a user talk page, excluding this, some of them on Wikitravel pages. Not much is lost. //shb (t | c | m) 08:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but redlinks on user talk pages also pollute reports. If we just keep these, they will keep on populating Special:WantedPages. It's nice to keep the integrity of these messages, but if someone really needs to see what it used to look like, it's in the history. It would be good to get rid of all of these extraneous redlinks to make the reports more useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think in such cases it might be better to delink those pages? //shb (t | c | m) 10:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- A reasonable proposal. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Done, I've delinked all uses of it (by adding nowiki surrounding the text such that it does not change the content of the message). Interestingly, almost all uses of this came from W. Frank (talk · contribs) who is indeffed here for vandalism. Dunno if that changes anything here, but interesting to note regardless. //shb (t | c | m) 11:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- A reasonable proposal. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think in such cases it might be better to delink those pages? //shb (t | c | m) 10:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but redlinks on user talk pages also pollute reports. If we just keep these, they will keep on populating Special:WantedPages. It's nice to keep the integrity of these messages, but if someone really needs to see what it used to look like, it's in the history. It would be good to get rid of all of these extraneous redlinks to make the reports more useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Seems there was only one use of this redirect that's not on a user talk page, excluding this, some of them on Wikitravel pages. Not much is lost. //shb (t | c | m) 08:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- It had a number of incoming redlinks, so that was my thinking. If anyone wants it deleted, I've no strong feelings, but it would be best if someone could fix those redlinks so that they don't show up in reports. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete – Wikivoyage has been independent for just shy of 13 years now, any redirect relating to Wikitravel is unneeded. //shb (t | c | m) 23:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete If links appearing on Special:WantedPages is an issue, maybe somebody can create a version of WantedPages that excludes red links from talk pages, user pages and VFD archives. AlasdairW (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Contains no travel information and nothing useful beyond the lead. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Wikivoyage isn't a dictionary. Ground Zero (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Animal ethics. Ground Zero (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to
Natural attractionsAnimal ethics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Keep – It intends to cover endangered animals that don't have their own articles, with an advice to all such animals. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree on not deleting, but what's the advantage to not merging and redirecting it as I propose? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Natural attractions is just list of links with a brief overview, and the topic I'm trying to cover is specific to endangered animals, which are by definition rare in the wild. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not as brief, and with the addition of the introductory text in "Endangered animals", less brief. I just don't see the advantage of having this subtopic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Natural attractions is just list of links with a brief overview, and the topic I'm trying to cover is specific to endangered animals, which are by definition rare in the wild. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that there is anything about endangered species that differs from non-endangered ones from the traveller's viewpoint, other than that you should be more respectful, which can be stated in a short paragraph (I think we already have such language in most if not all of the relevant articles). It also seems that nobody is adding the content that would make this article useful.
- I would appreciate an addition to the page that would show the intension and why it is better suited here than in Animal ethics, Birdwatching, Eurasian wildlife or similar articles.
- –LPfi (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I support redirecting to Animal ethics. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Animal ethics makes the most sense to me. //shb (t | c | m) 12:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that's more apt than Natural attractions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Animal ethics makes the most sense to me. //shb (t | c | m) 12:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I support redirecting to Animal ethics. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree on not deleting, but what's the advantage to not merging and redirecting it as I propose? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Redundant cross-namespace redirect which I've replaced all uses for (except two uses in userspace). //shb (t | c | m) 23:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, as with the others. Ground Zero (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Not useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Can refer to an actual place instead of the standard section "Do". Note that see is a dab page. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- What place can it refer to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- There are three tiny villages in Bosnia Herzergovina called Do, but all have populations less than 200. The only attraction appears to be taking a selfie next the village's sign. AlasdairW (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
* Delete. No significant towns or travel destinations with this name, and we want to avoid cross-namespace redirects. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I should've looked closely, as it isn't a cross-namespace redirect. Keep. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Doh! Ground Zero (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. This isn't a cross-namespace redirect, and I think it's nice to have redirects from each of our standard section headers to the most relevant travel topic article. The tiny villages seem too small to be a real source of confusion, but if we ever do create articles for them we can make this a disambiguation page or use a hatnote. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think I agree with this. Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Another cross-namespace redirect (XNR). Could also be an ISO country code for Ghana. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- But the nomination - confusingly -is not for deletion. This is another example of why it's a bad idea to use this page to propose merges. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete or merge – I'm indifferent to either. I'm not sure how common Gh is compared to AT or PF which are far more widely used. //shb (t | c | m) 07:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
A rather astonishing XNR. Should redirect to alcoholic beverages#Bars and pubs. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would rather not delete this one because a) there are more than 500 uses of it; b) most of them have not been replaced. I will try and replace them, but in the meantime, keep. //shb (t | c | m) 04:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not asking to delete, but redirect to a mainspace article like alcoholic beverages#Bars and pubs, which actually describes pubs. Maybe a hatnote is needed to for our pub, which is not mentioned there. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree in theory, but let's wait for further remarks by SHB. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, right, I get what you [Sbb] mean – I'm in the midst of replacing all links (give me a day or two), but yes, I support redirecting this to alcoholic beverages once I finish doing so. //shb (t | c | m) 06:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- This gets an average of 3 views per day, and there have been a few days where there were over 100 views, so a hatnote is essential if the redirect is changed. AlasdairW (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, right, I get what you [Sbb] mean – I'm in the midst of replacing all links (give me a day or two), but yes, I support redirecting this to alcoholic beverages once I finish doing so. //shb (t | c | m) 06:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree in theory, but let's wait for further remarks by SHB. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not asking to delete, but redirect to a mainspace article like alcoholic beverages#Bars and pubs, which actually describes pubs. Maybe a hatnote is needed to for our pub, which is not mentioned there. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I think that British pubs ought to be its own travel topic as it's an entire cultural phenomenon in itself, and Pub should redirect there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Same as el, but in Arabic instead of Spanish. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Normally I'd have suggested redirecting to Albania, but that feels far too ambiguous when the L is not capitalised. //shb (t | c | m) 05:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. This one has a strange trajectory - from "Accommodation listings" to "Sleep", which it does not suggest as an abbreviation. I don't see how we would redirect the Arabic word for "the" to Albania, and I don't think we should have a disambiguation page for a non-place name, unless there's a town called "Al" somewhere that could have a viable article, which wouldn't shock me. (Its slogan could be "You can call me Al". :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete 370 people live in the village of Al, Iran, so I doubt it will get an article. There are short Wikipedia articles about it in 4 languages but none have any detail. AlasdairW (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Same as al and el, but Italian. Maybe redirect to Israel, as "IL" is strongly associated with that country (cf. kl → Kuala Lumpur). --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think I would create a disambiguation page for IL (deleted for being a cross-namespace redirect a bit under a decade ago) disambiguating between Israel and Illinois since both are commonly used. Il should then redirect to IL. //shb (t | c | m) 09:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. If people want to find the articles for Israel or Illinois they can just type those into the search bar. To me, it isn't obvious that "Il" is either of these places. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Another small village in Iran, Il, Iran has a population of 285. AlasdairW (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
What?? We already have wia and wiaa, no need for another. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete – Na to me means sodium, but even then I have no idea how "Na" relates to What is an article. //shb (t | c | m) 09:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting, just came across Special:Diff/970578 and apparently Na in this context means non-article. That's obvious to practically no one, not even those well-versed with abbreviations. //shb (t | c | m) 07:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. There are historical places associated with this name, but they existed so long ago that there would be no reason to redirect. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nah, we don't need this redirect. Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Barring new information, I agree. Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Another pointless cross-namespace redirect (XNR). Also, an ISO country code for Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Ditto. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete – I see some merit for redirecting SH (with the H capitalised), but in lowercase form is just too uncommon for an already uncommon ISO code used. //shb (t | c | m) 11:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Another XNR. Also, an ISO country code for Poland, or as per SelfieCity, a Spanish village. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps disambiguation? PO could be mistaken for both PL (Poland) or Portugal (PT). //shb (t | c | m) 09:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear I have no issues with deletion either. //shb (t | c | m) 11:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete. PO stands for neither Poland nor Portugal. We don't want to get into having redirects for mistakes where 50% of the letters are wrong. "PO" means "post office" to me, but I wouldn't enter that into a search engine and expect to get a useful result. Ground Zero (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Pô. Ground Zero (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Pô I think this present redirect makes it harder to get to Pô, if you don't type the accent. AlasdairW (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Pô. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, AlasdairW, but isn't that exactly why we would want a redirect? I can't type ô on my computer. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, redirecting to Pô is a good idea. Redirecting elsewhere causes difficulties in reaching Pô. AlasdairW (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Understood, I agree! --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- There's one difficulty: when I see "Po", I think of the Po River Valley in Northern Italy, which is the country's rice-growing area and also industrialized, so it's important, prominent and centered around Italy's longest river. I think this needs a disambiguation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- That did occur to me, too, but we don't have an article for the Po River or the valley. I think there's a case for an extraregion considering the importance of the region within Italy and its cohesiveness as a unit.
- Until then, I'd suggest a compromise, that we put a statement of "Not to be confused with" at the beginning of the Pô article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- There's one difficulty: when I see "Po", I think of the Po River Valley in Northern Italy, which is the country's rice-growing area and also industrialized, so it's important, prominent and centered around Italy's longest river. I think this needs a disambiguation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Understood, I agree! --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, redirecting to Pô is a good idea. Redirecting elsewhere causes difficulties in reaching Pô. AlasdairW (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable suggestion. I have added that to Pô. Ground Zero (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. I'm ok with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable suggestion. I have added that to Pô. Ground Zero (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Another XNR. Redirect to arriving by plane or arriving in a new city. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've replaced the only instance of this redirect. I think arriving by plane is what I think of when "arrivals" is mentioned, but I don't object to a disambig page. //shb (t | c | m) 11:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- To me, redirecting to Arriving by plane makes the most sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- On this site, Wikivoyage:Arrivals lounge is the first thing I think of, so I think we need a disambiguation page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Arriving by plane per above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm skeptical about this, as there are many ways to arrive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'd support a disambig page then. //shb (t | c | m) 07:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Until we have articles on other ways to arrive, I suggest redirecting it to arriving by plane. After that, once the articles on other ways are created, we can then convert it into a dab page. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- I tend to disagree. I'd sooner associate Arrivals with Immigration than arriving by plane. Plus we do have articles about driving, train travel and I think bus travel and traveling by ship. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm skeptical about this, as there are many ways to arrive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)