Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from VFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.


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 located on the English Wikivoyage and not on Wikimedia Commons.

The basic format for a deletion nomination is:

Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~


All Wikivoyagers are invited to comment on articles, files or templates listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

* '''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]

  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to delete, an administrator may delete it.
  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to redirect or merge, any Wikivoyager may do it. If you make a redirect, please check for any resulting broken redirects or double redirects.
  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
  • If there is no consensus after 14 days, allow a further 7 days for discussion.
    • If, after the additional 7 days, there is no consensus, the page should be kept – any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
    • If, after the additional 7 days, there is a consensus, implement it in line with the first three points above.
  • When deleting a template, consider first replacing it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name. Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it.
  • When deleting an article, check "What links here". Either remove the newly-broken links from the articles or point them somewhere else. Inbound redirects to a deleted page should either be deleted or redirected elsewhere.


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. This can be done by adding the result to the discussion in a separate edit from the one in which you remove the discussion from this page; or you can describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion.

If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the discussion page of the article, file or template being kept or redirected.

See also:

Icon delete talk.svg

September 2021[edit]


  • Delete Pointless template. Doesn't really save any effort typing {{Own}} than just typing Own work. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep When numerous files were deleted due to FoP reasons on Commons, I had just paste the code. Not a valid reason for deletion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Commons needs such template to provide translation. Apart from "own", there are many commonly used templates. I am not sure we want to create templates here for all of them, and one might want to check the validity of the description – while doing that, removing the braces is not that big an effort, I think. It is irritating to get a lot of red text at saving, but I believe avoiding it is a loosing game. –LPfi (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue though is that images could get deleted any moment from Commons, so wasting time by having to manually type "Own work" may be time consuming. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also could do what @Ikan Kekek: does at times when they locally upload files for this very same reason, but I'm not very comfortable messing with attribution for obvious reasons. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's easier to write "Own work" than "{{Own}}". Gizza (roam) 23:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with DaGizza. Pashley (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The point is that if you copy the Commons description, you already have "{{Own}}" there. For it to say "Own work" without the template you have to delete the curlies and add " work". Same with "{{photo}}", "{{other date}}", "{{Location}}" (ours is not the same), "{{Object location}}", etc. –LPfi (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But usually, here's a typical commons description:
|description=en:Al-Akbar a Surabaya Mosque fr:La mosquée Al-Akbar a Surabaya.
|date=2016-11-30 09:04:33
|other versions=
The location, photo, otherdate and all that isn't really used for locally hosted files, but the "Own work" is. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that authorship information needs to stay, and {{own}} is the most common template. I'd very much have also the other information saved. On the other hand, leaving the template(s) redlinked is not the end of the world. Rather, I'd leave it redlinked until author information is corrected. Indeed, author=[Commons user] and {{self|CC-BY or whatever}} are nearly always incorrect in files threatened by deletion at Commons because of freedom of panorama issues – we seldom have the architect as Commons user, and that's why we need to host them locally. –LPfi (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is your suggestion that we should copy all the Commons templates here? I think it's quite acceptable for different Wikis to have somewhat different interfaces, and I simply copy the relevant text from the Commons files pages in a coherent way which does not break the attributions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, but those templates which save time, including {{own}}. Much better to use this template then remove the curly braces and then have to type "Own work". I wouldn't though, want to copy langswitch for the descriptions as it won't work here and for the descriptions, technically we should only be having the English version although I don't think anyone follows it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just an FYI, but if the consensus is to delete, I am not going to delete it and I warn the same to whoever is going to delete it to avoid legal trouble. By deleting it, you break the attribution which would used to say "Own work" but now all it will say is Template:Own which does not provide the correct attribution. While I wouldn't go against consensus, I will not do something which can get us into legal trouble and breaks CC BY SA. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be corrected – but on every individual file. Usually files are uploaded locally because the uploader is not the author of the work depicted. Until the template is replaced by the correct description of authorship, the file is a copyright violation. –LPfi (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the template is usually used in the source field, while the photographer is attributed in the author field. The source field is mostly for internal use, so a broken template is no big deal (other than that it gives a bad image of us if common). –LPfi (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically no, because for any viewer, when clicking the image, it comes up with the author info and the source, which are the two key things needed for attribution. The author field is something that is a different issue, but then the source info is what would be missing by deleting this template. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: It's well past 14 days, and there's consensus to delete (3 deletes, 1 keep and LPfi who's neutral), but I don't want to break attribution links. Do we keep or delete? I personally won't go against consensus, but this is a much harmless template that if deleted, breaks source links and attribution. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replace links, then Delete. I am still in the belief that this template is used in the source field, not in the attribution field, and thus deletion will not break attribution, but it does not hurt to check. The source field is mostly for internal use, so a broken template there is no big deal, but it doesn't hurt to repair the descriptions there while checking the attribution, and if the source field also has legal implications, then doing that might be important. –LPfi (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is used on seven pages, I'm taking care of those. I also think "source: own" is as good as "source: own work". –LPfi (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: Six of the seven files are attributed to Wikivoyage users without user page. Am I correct in assuming the links should go to user pages on Commons? The seventh is a blue link, but I assume it is the Commons user page that was linked before the move. I wait until having an answer, as there is no hurry. –LPfi (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs to go to Commons, but in general, I'm having the feeling of "why do we need to fix the sources of all files when this is used on something that's perfectly fine" sort of feeling.
As far as I know, the source field is important to know where we got the image from, and the author alone is not good enough (and it quite annoys me when we have external news sources use these images and solely attributes "Wikimedia Commons" and not the author). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source field is important for checking validity of copyright information, and sometimes important for getting better versions or complementing the description. "Own" is as good as it gets for own photos – you won't be able to check the original in my memory card. For attribution, image agencies are often cited without mentioning the author, so extending the practice to Commons images is understandable, although frustrating, violating the licence, and illegal in Finland (probably in all EU).
Important though is that we get the author right. A JD at Commons should not be attributed as JD at Wikivoyage. If they are redlinked here, there is no way a third party can know that they are Joe Doe at, the page prominently linked at their user page at Commons, or even to know that JD at Wikivoyage is the same person as JD at Commons (them for some reason knowing the latter). Cf attributing my Commons images to "LPfi" at WT!
LPfi (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be a wise idea to revisit this later? Given that WOSlinker's obviously doesn't understand why this template was created and hasn't made any comment on this discussion except their own nomination, and their reason for deletion also is not a valid reason for deletion, maybe revisit this in a month or so? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: I'd like to fix the attribution of those images sooner rather than later. For the template itself, there is no hurry, but I don't see there is any reason to have this discussion here for an additional month. –LPfi (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021[edit]

Eastern Canada and Western Canada[edit]

Similar reasoning to the previous nomination. The article text of Eastern Canada states in the second (of two) sentences, “This region is so vast and diverse geographically, that anything that can be said of Eastern Canada probably also applies of all of Canada, so there is no separate guide on Wikivoyage to Eastern Canada.” Therefore this appears useless as these regions can be found via our Canada article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added Western Canada for the stated reason. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete (edit 12:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC): I now choose to redirect per subsequent comments), while I did nominate Eastern Australia a while ago, the issue with E and W Canada is that these terms are not used as much as "East Coast US", "West Coast US" or "East Coast Australia", and not to say how ambiguous it is. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Canadian opinion:
Eastern Canada is ambiguous. I'm from Ottawa, and called that "Eastern Canada" on Facebook (our article agrees) & I was taken to task by a Maritimer who insisted Ontario & Quebec were "Central Canada" and only Atlantic Canada should count as Eastern. I see no point either to making this a redirect to Atlantic Canada or to making it a complicated disambig page. Delete.
Western Canada is unambiguous & widely used. Keep. Pashley (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Eastern Canada should be referring to Atlantic Canada. Yes, the article incorrectly stated that Ontario and Quebec are in Eastern Canada. Yes, it should be revised to correct the error. No, that reason shouldn't justify deleting the page. Western Canada is correct. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to disagree with that though, since I always thought that Ontario and Quebec were also part of Eastern Canada, until yesterday and Manitoba and anything west of that is considered Central Canada. I'd see what @Ground Zero: would say about this re Eastern Canada. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to Canada. The terms are used differently by different people. When Albertan cars sported bumperstickers in the 1980s that said "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark", they weren't talking about Atlantic Canadians. If we have to have an article on Eastern Canada (and I think that definitional articles are a waste of the reader's time), it should reflect the various definitions. By redredirectingbthe reader to Canada, they land on more useful information.
As far as Western Canada goes, that term is used for the four Western provinces, but can include Yukon and NWT. Same thing: I would redirect it to Canada, where the reader will be able to choose the regional articles they are interested in. Ground Zero (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And sometimes Manitobans point out that their province is at the geographical centre of Canada, but few people take notice of what Manitobans say. Ground Zero (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Canada, per Ground Zero. Canada has more useful information also for those who would find the right article from the disambiguation page. –LPfi (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Australia[edit]

While I did nominate this article a couple of months ago, I'm nominating this a second time for an entirely different reason. Similar to the E/W Canada situation, I'd argue this is ambiguous. While this article represents it in a way that all the eastern jurisdictions are listed, we run into a whole load of issues:

  • Queensland is not always considered as "eastern", and sometimes Eastern Australia can only mean the jurisdictions that use AEST/AEDT time zone (New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and two other territories).
  • South Australia is also sometimes considered to be part of Eastern Australia (Radelaide is considered to be one of the four state capitals of Eastern Australia).
  • Sometimes Eastern Australia only refers to mainland states and territories, so Tasmania and Macquarie Island wouldn't fit in here
  • Renaming the article to "East Coast Australia" also poses a problem, as the Australian Capital Territory does not have a coastline, and then again we have the Tas/MI issue. And even more, Victoria (state) wouldn't be listed here since it only has a south coast, not an east.
  • I suppose redirecting this to the Australia article may help, but that does not really explain "what eastern Australia means"

It is a commonly used term in Western Australia (the only state not mentioned here), and maybe the Territory? But... it's far too ambiguous. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it make sense to make this a redirect to Australia in case someone uses it as a search term? If not, I will defer to your local knowledge. Ground Zero (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately my local knowledge won't really help because this term is only really used daily by people in Western Australia. I generally use "East Coast Australia", but that often does not include Tasmania nor South Australia. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Southwest (United States of America) and South (United States of America) have similar boundary problems. The fact that some people use a term to indicate different locations doesn't mean that we should get rid of the pages. This is really just the problem with people complaining that the official city boundaries are not the ones used in the Wikivoyage article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SW US to me also includes California while S US also includes Florida to me. But those aren't extraregions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Florida is part of the Southeast geographically and part the South historically but not so much culturally now. California is not part of the Southwest; it is a West Coast state. However, part of Texas is Southwestern. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still consider Texas to be southern given it's literally in the south. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said part of Texas. The most "Southern" part of Texas is the eastern part, where there were huge cotton plantations that were tended by enslaved people before the Civil War, not the huge areas of open ranch land in the west. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Central[edit]

This is another cardinal point page, and similar to the reason that ThunderingTyphoons! gave a few months ago here. On top of that, almost all places that have a north and a central have a north central, even though it may not be in common use. In my opinion, delete per the exact arguments given before. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Another cardinal point page, but this one is a redirect. There's hundreds of "South Centrals" in use, despite not used commonly. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central West[edit]

Another cardinal point disambg page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest (disambiguation)[edit]

Another cardinal point disambg page. Mid West WA should just be placed in a hatnote (something like For the Mid West in Western Australia, see Mid West (Western Australia) since I doubt anyone outside Western Australia would be thinking of Mid West WA and this also just opens a can of worms to a lot more "Mid Wests" to be listed there. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This looks like change for the sake of change. The disambig probably should be expanded, Central Wyoming has a red link for Midwest (Wyoming) - whether this town of 400 people with one museum needs an article is debatable. AlasdairW (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pashley (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a cardinal point, and how common a name is this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Coast, Central Coast, South Coast, West Coast, and East Coast[edit]

There's literally a ton of all these places. Similar to the other cardinal point dbs, these ones are quite pointless. Much of these are also region articles, with one notable exception of Central Coast (New South Wales) which was also a region article before last month. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (pending better rationale for deleting). There are, for example, five articles called "West Coast", each with a parenthetical disambiguator. The disambiguation page covers them all. What is pointless about that? What makes it different from other disambiguation pages – or are we heading towards deleting all disambiguation pages? I may be missing the point – can the rationale for deleting be explained more fully. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nurg: It's a similar rationale as here. There's tons of "North Coasts", "East Coasts" etc, despite not all of them being in common use, hence why cardinal point dbs are somewhat useless, hence why makes it different from other db pages. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And even for some of them such as South Coast, why is there no mention of the US (which is basically most of South (United States of America) + Florida). I'd presume there's much more not listed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not just cardinal points, obviously – they include "Coast". In some cases they are official proper names (or the short form thereof), being the names of local government areas. There are tons of west coasts in the world, but we have just five articles called "West Coast" (all of which are included). Or six, if we count West Coast (United States of America), though that is not a proper destination article. We also once had West Coast (Canada), which was merged into British Columbia. We don't try to include every west coast in the world. Covering the 5 or so articles is perfectly manageable. Also useful, IMO – certainly I don't see any harm. Nurg (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep but keep short. Trying to list everything that can be called by those names (which was the argument in the linked discussion) would be a fool's errand – it'd mean listing any shore of any destination, and somebody using a mere descriptive term will understand it might not turn up anything. It is easy to go via Estonia if you are searching for the northern coast of Estonia.
    On the other hand, for articles by those names, with disambiguation suffix, we need the disambiguation page. People cannot guess what disambiguation suffixes we have chosen, and relying on the search box is not the way to go. Also destination areas officially called by those names, and articles on destinations for which we use it by itself as a proper name (in the article or when referencing it), should be listed on the disambiguation page. For these, the denomination should be in bold in the lead.
    LPfi (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SHB2000 The reason there's no "south coast" in the U.S. is that it's called the Gulf Coast. Florida has a West Coast (on the gulf) and an East Coast (on the Atlantic). It does not have a south coast. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Horse[edit]

Hungry Horse is a small settlement 7 miles east of Columbia Falls, Montana. The article itself is very sparse and its contents could be merged into Columbia Falls in a "Nearby" section (the article itself could be redirected as well). It also fails to meet WV:SLEEPTHERE criteria. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a very touty listing. All of that could be merged, though. I think the proposal is sensible, unless there's a lot that someone wants to add to the currently sparse or empty sections in the Hungry Horse article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should check a map, but my instinct here is to support merge and redirect to Columbia Falls. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also go merge and redirect as this may be a likely search term. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer keep & detout, but merge & redirect is OK too. Definitely not delete since it is a real place & possible search term. Pashley (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore, Eastern Shore and South Shore[edit]

For the same reasons mentioned above with all the coasts. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pashley (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Except for those of Sydney and Montréal, the articles listed in North Shore seemed to be named so. I don't see any more reason for deleting such disambiguation pages than for deleting Victoria. Just keep the pages clean of litter. –LPfi (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we decide to keep these, we need to add the North Shore and South Shore of Long Island to the terms, because they're widely used. I still think deletion is probably the best route, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Have a look at the talk page of the article (I've pasted below).

I want to quibble with this redirect. In the U.S., "bathroom" is most likely to mean "toilet," and we have an article about Toilets. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I also feel this should be redirected to Toilets (or have links to both articles) Tai123.123 (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Same meaning in Australia. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
And then the problem is that it has a different meaning in the UK. I wish we could have left well enough alone and not had this redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
vfd? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe. But let's see if we can resolve this here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Yvwv? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
By the way bathroom redirects to hygiene while this redirects to toilets Tai123.123 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
We can make a disambiguation page. /Yvwv (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Is that really essential? This is not a term specifically related to travel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
But IMO, I don't think we need this db page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

And that explains this nom. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Coast[edit]

Reasons are similar to the cardinal point redirects & West Coast etc. above. Also, this one is incomplete; it does not have the Gulf coasts of Mexico, Panama, ... or of Saudi Arabia. Pashley (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I was quite surprised that that article had none for Mexico. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long we have articles by that name (with disambiguation suffix). Some of the articles could be moved to better names and removed from the disambiguation page, but if there are some missing we cannot get rid of it. –LPfi (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — this is a tourist destination usually referring to the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. This isn't used arbitrarily as the cardinal directions are used. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we then rewrite this to mention that tourist destination in plain text? There is a distinction between "more than one place" and "split between several articles". –LPfi (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I just noticed we have Gulf Of Mexico which overlaps with this disambiguation page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]