Why need this disambiguation page when Antwerp is nowhere else in the world except itself in Belgium. Antwerp (province) is already showing in the breadcrumb menu in the Antwerp article and form part of the hierarchy. There are some more disambiguation pages like this that need to deleted as well such as Rio de Janeiro (disambiguation) or perhaps Babylon (New York) as well. --Saqib (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2012 (CEST)
- Delete - Yes, we need to set a precedent on this, as I don't believe any particular policy states whether disambiguations must be created for two places, even if both are mentioned in the hierarchy. JamesA >talk 10:36, 21 October 2012 (CEST)
- Delete - Yes, James and Saqib have correct reasoning (same as London and Paris) and one should not need 2 clicks to go to Antwerp.
—The preceding comment was added by Alice (talk • contribs) I'm sorry. I thought I did sign my name. I'll try again: --126.96.36.199 13:15, 22 October 2012 (CEST)Sorry about this. Very strange. Try again: -- (WV-en) Alice✉ 13:17, 22 October 2012 (CEST)
- London and Paris disambiguation pages should be kept. --Saqib (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (CEST)
- Actually, London and Paris are both in Ontario. K7L (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2012 (CEST)
- Remove otheruses from Antwerp. No doubt the otheruses template and the reference to the disamb page in the Antwerp article should be removed. It looks stupid, and it is redundant. I think that will have the desired effect here. As to whether we need to delete the disamb page, it's cheap, and neither here nor there really. The page isn't the problem, it is the link from the Antwerp article. --Inas (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2012 (CEST)
- Keep I do not understand why these pages have been nominated for deletion. They all are used when there are multiple destinations with the same name. It doesn't matter if they're in the same country, different levels of geographical hierarchy (city vs. province; Georgia (state) vs. Georgia the country—or one destination is located within the geographical hierarchy of the other page of the same name—ie., Antwerp vs. Antwerp (province). The fact is more than one page/destination uses the same name (without "province" or the region name attached in parentheses)—the first criteria on Wikivoyage:Disambiguation pagesand therefore no reason to delete the disambiguation page! Now, as for which page is displayed when typing the name (whether Antwerp should lead to the city, province, or disambiguation page), that is another matter and, per policy, a message in italics should be placed at the top of that page with a link to the disambiguation page or other destination with the same name (but region/region level attached in parentheses).AHeneen (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your argument is very convincing. I think you're exactly right: The disambiguation should be kept, but the Antwerp city guide should load whenever someone searches for "Antwerp." Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't really see the point in these articles, but that's a matter for a policy discussion, not a deletion rationale. --Peter Talk 10:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, with regret until we have the policy discussion. But where should policy discussion go?
- To me, it seems silly to have a disambig page and an other uses tag in a case like Antwerp where it is a city & surrounding area. There is a city/prefecture ambiguity for many places in China (e.g. see map in Pearl_River_Delta) and current practice is to just write an article for the city and any significant smaller places (e.g. Fuzhou with links to Mawei, Changle, Fuqing) with no prefecture article at all, let alone disambig pages. That seems sensible to me. Looking at the Antwerp_(province) article, I see little point to it either, let alone the disambig page. Pashley (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)