Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Votes for deletion)
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]

October 2021[edit]

Itineraries subject to one-year rule[edit]

While these may meet the technical test for deletion, there is a lot if useful information in the these articles. I think that many of these at already at usable quality. I think that the nominations should identify what is lacking from the articles so that those of us who are interested in improving them know what to add to make these articles usable. Ground Zero (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cape to Cape Track[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This itinerary is not properly formatted, and has little information on the route itself. TrailsWA doesn't seem to have much info on this route as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding what the route(s) are. If the route can be clarified, we could keep the article. Otherwise, it should be merged as relevant and redirected to South West (Western Australia), I figure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also having a little trouble figuring out what the route is. Not a bad idea to merge it in the SW WA article. Maybe @Graham87: might know more of this route given he's from Busselton (town in SW WA), and might have a better suggestion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: Nope, I don't know any more about this track than what's on Wikivoyage/Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I guess redirecting or deleting seems the only viable solution SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwandong Palgyeong[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks a proper route. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and article statement: “The border area can not be crossed, so the full itinerary cannot be experienced end to end.” --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although no specific route is described, it doesn't seem too difficult to find a route between the listed spots. They seem to be a sufficiently famous collection of sights close enough one to another to make a feasible itinerary. Your probably having to skip two of them doesn't ruin the itinerary (you cannot visit all the points on the Struve Geodetic Arc either). I hope somebody will improve this so that it becomes a real itinerary, but I don't see any need to delete it. –LPfi (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My initial thought was to delete this, or edit it to remove the two points in North Korea, as readers are unlikely to be able to visit these. However as the route is 500 years old, i think we should keep it as a list of 8 sights, but be clearer that only 6 sights can generally be visited. It might work better as a travel topic, as it is about the 8 points, not the route between. There are WP articles in several languages (but not English) - Javanese and Indonesian look the most useful for expanding the article. AlasdairW (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that's right: Keep and make it a travel topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like it to cover all 8 sights. This is a series of historic sights. The hard division of Korea is probably temporary, over the course of history, though we may not live to see reunification. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even without reunification, it may get possible to get a permission to visit those sights and to cross the border. There is no harm in mentioning the two that are hard to visit. We do that for the Gulf of Finland points of Struve Geodetic Arc. I also think the article is more useful as an itinerary than as a travel topic. For somebody who knows Korea, making it one in more than name should be quite easy. –LPfi (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greater China[edit]

This term seems politically controversial to both sides, no articles link to it, and it contains no travel information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @The dog2: who started this article to comment. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to plan a travel itinerary around "Greater China", and if they did, this article doesn't give them any useful information about doing so. Ground Zero (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is a term widely used in business circles. It is actually very common for the Shanghai office of a company to be responsible for distribution in Taiwan and Hong Kong as well. Yes, I know the overwhelming majority of young Hongkongers and Taiwanese are pro-independence and reject the Chinese identity, and this term may be offensive to them, but nevertheless, it is still commonly used in corporate settings. So let's say the Taipei office of a MNC reports to the Shanghai office (which is actually very common), they would list the Shanghai office as the "Greater China headquarters". Therefore, I'd say keep. The dog2 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True... but how relevant to travel is business? We do have Business travel, but... SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    People do travel for business meetings, even though I understand this has diminished quite a lot due to COVID. But one classic example of where this "Greater China" thing comes into play is the Pfizer vaccine. The vaccine was actually developed by a German startup company called BioNTech, but because they are a small company, they don't have the capability to distribute their vaccines globally, and therefore licensed the global distribution rights to Pfizer, except in "Greater China", where they licensed the distribution right to Chinese company Fosun instead. This became problematic because in business parlance, "Greater China" includes Taiwan, and the Taiwanese government refuses to deal with Chinese companies, so that led to problems in the procurement process, since Pfizer would also not sell vaccines Taiwan due to the fact that they don't have the distribution rights in "Greater China". The dog2 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your example relates to pharmaceutical licensing, and not to business travel. Wikivoyage should not try to be an encyclopedia of everything. Ground Zero (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is an actual geographical region though and not a travel topic. But anyway, it is common in the corporate world for the Taipei office of a company to report to the Shanghai office as the "Greater China" headquarters, so in such a situation, executives at the Taiwan office will be making regular trips to mainland China for business meetings. The dog2 (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this kind of information could be added to Taiwan#Understand, but I can't see a good reason to have a stub article about the term. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, perhaps a suitable compromise will be do redirect to the East Asia article, and have a sentence under Countries and Regions stating what the term means and when it is used. The dog2 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced. No one is looking for travel information under this name, and what business you can do where is not really our thing to tell. –LPfi (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But in business contracts, whenever it says "Greater China", it is understood to include Taiwan and Hong Kong. Yes, I get the point that the overwhelming majority of young Hongkongers and Taiwanese are pro-independence and find this term deeply offensive, and that the overwhelming majority of Westerners want to show solidarity with the Hong Kong and Taiwan independence activists, but it is a fact that in the business world, this term is still widely used and there is no ambiguity about what the term means. I am not taking a political stand against Hong Kong or Taiwan independence here. I am just pointing out that it is what it is, and until the business world changes its parlance on its own, it's not our job at Wikivoyage to campaign against the use of the term. Our only job is to reflect what the situation is. If the Hong Kong and Taiwan independence activists want to campaign against the use of this term, they should be free to do so on Twitter, YouTube or wherever, but not on Wikivoyage. The dog2 (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone doing business in "Greater China" already knows that the term means PRC+Taiwan+HK, so in addition to providing no useful travel information, this article serves no-one. Ground Zero (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I have offered a compromise. We could redirect this to East Asia, and explain in the disclaimer box that the term "Greater China" is often used in business settings to encompass mainland China, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan. And I also don't mind if we add a disclaimer that the term "Greater China" is offensive to Hong Kong and Taiwan independence activists. The dog2 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced that this article, even as a redirect, is of any benefit to anyone. We shouldn't be creating articles for every geographic term that exists. My vote remains "delete". Ground Zero (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Taiwan, Macau, and Hong Kong are already mentioned in the China article, so even if for some reason a traveler doesn't remember their names but is interested in the "alternative" Chinese destinations, they can easily find them. I doubt someone will look up "Greater China" but not bother looking at the China or East Asia articles which both list these 3 destinations very prominently. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could consider starting the article Territorial disputes in East Asia and mention the aspects relevant to visitors: visa rules, border checks, etc. /Yvwv (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if that article were to be created, it could cover DPRK/ROK disputes as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That title doesn't sound travel-related to me. Whatever is relevant in it should be covered in Visa trouble or a similar article with worldwide scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ikan Kekek. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Pashley (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't support a creation of that article. But if it were started then... But I think Visa trouble does the job SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park[edit]

While yes this is a real national park it doesn't help tourists as we have individual for all three components, Mt. Fuji, Hakone and the Izu Islands. It could be turned into an extra hierarchal region and have links to all 3 other articles or be deleted Tai123.123 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also all sleep sections are listed in the fuji 5 lakes article. Tai123.123 (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's no way we're deleting that much info. It could be merged, but I don't really like doing that for park articles though since I think all national parks should get their own article. (except for those like Cataract National Park) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    but like I mentioned all that info is already listed at Mt. Fuji and Fuji 5 lakes. Tai123.123 (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but information can be mentioned twice if needed. (an example is Thredbo also being mentioned in Kosciuszko National Park) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really get the argument for deletion: the article should give an overview, and then you can look up the more detailed information in the three other articles, kind of how regions work. That could be an argument of it being classified as extra-hierarchical region – but where is the information on the park expected to be if not here? As extraregion, no advice is given on what to include. Izu Peninsula says nothing about the national park although parts are included. Hakone says it is a popular destination, but nothing about where it is or how to get around there. Izu Islands doesn't even say that. I don't know how national parks work in Japan; do you User:Tai123.123 think national parks are an irrelevant concept there? –LPfi (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LPfi Could I make it an extra hierarchal region with just a understand section and links to the other 4 articles. Tai123.123 (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe @Pashley: who'd know better than myself with Asian destinations might have a better solution, but... I'm not too sure. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thank you Tai123.123 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Extraregions don't have standard templates and status criteria, so there is little support for expanding such an article, and most information should be kept out of it. On the other hand, a park article can be referenced for everything that is relevant for visiting the park, such as fees and permits. I'd say a national park should have a park article, unless the concept is irrelevant for the traveller (which might be the case in e.g. Norway). Now, it seems many visitors to specific destinations in this park don't care about the national park as such. Whether nobody should care is an open question – we need some local expertise to answer it. –LPfi (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot help much here; I've travelled in Asia, but alas I haven't visited Japan yet.
Since is a national park, I'm inclined to think this should have a park article if possible. On the other hand, we do have extraregion articles with quite a bit of text, e.g Lake Tai or Himalayas. Pashley (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand what Tai123.123 is saying. I also feel that the Japanese "National Parks" are useless. Some points about them:
1. Most are not coherent destinations. No one says they are going to "Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park". Ever. Or "Daisen-Oki National Park"/"Ise-Shima National Park"/etc. Saying that would be nonsensical. You would say you went to Mount Fuji. Or Hakone. Or the Izu Peninsula. Or just Shizuoka. They are not like Yellowstone, which is a distinct destination that you can actually pinpoint on a map and if you tell people you're going to Yellowstone, people will know exactly where you're going.
2. Many are so expansive to the point of being meaningless. "Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park" is a good example of this. It spans over half of Shizuoka (prefecture) and Yamanashi (prefecture) plus part of Kanagawa, along with a bunch of islands.
3. Going along with point 2, they encompass many cities, so there aren't any destinations in "Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park" that wouldn't be covered more sensibly in another article. Even in Japanese tourism ads, they are placed with the other destinations in the city and may or may not even mention that they are part of the park at all.
4. Again, going along with the above, there are no clear ways to "enjoy" a lot of these "park". Sure, you can plan a trip to Hakone, but it's not as if nature is even important (or at least is not always the most prominent attraction) in much of the "park" area. A lot of the "park" consists of "In this town, there's this one place, and in that town there's that place". Most end up just mish-mashes of random natural features in a region. For example, Rakujuen Garden in Mishima is part of this exact "national park". This garden is almost directly outside of Mishima Station in the middle of the city. It's a garden (man-made), so of course it has natural features, but to say you were in a National Park after visiting the garden? It's technically true, but it's also ridiculous. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChubbyWimbus, Thank you for articulating my points much better than I could've, could I make it an extra region with a lede paragraph and links to the four primary destinations that make up the park, as I feel a conventional park template wouldn't work here. Also @LPfi, @SHB2000, I feel you should read ChubbyWimbus's as it explains my points better than I did. Tai123.123 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still inclined to vote keep, as a park article. Yesterday, I started a Wyrrabalong National Park article. For the most part, its just an urban park which doesn't get much visitors in the first place and it only has an area of 6.2km2 (by comparison, the parks these size I've been to in the US and Canada are only usually a municipal park). But yet I still think it should have its own article.
Even more, a few months ago, I started a Sydney Harbour National Park. It's only got an area of around 3km2, and it can easily be merged into Sydney/Harbour Islands. But obviously not, because it's a star article. No one usually says "I'm going to Sydney Harbour National Park". Usually, most say where they're going in the park (such as North Head or Middle Head/Gubbuh Gubbuh or whatever), or just say "Sydney Harbour" which isn't the same as the park. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These articles (I mean most of our Japanese national park articles) never should have been created to begin with, but now that we have them, I don't think our policy permits deleting them. They are "real" places in terms of being real designated national parks. We could put them all together in a National Parks of Japan article where they can be named and described. Then if someone is interested in them, they can add destinations. If the destinations become too numerous and/or a user takes genuine interest in a specific park, they can create an article for it. This article, for example, was created in 2004 and nearly 20 years later still has no real content. Places to sleep between Yamanashi, Shizuoka, and Hakone is not really content about Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park. Someone could easily copy-paste the "Sleep" listing in Hakone to create more false content. These kinds of articles should be focused around the "Sees" and "Dos" first and foremost, and this one has zero listings. Others have the same or just a couple. An article for Japan's National Parks with all of them listed would be a good incubator article and a nice way to see them all together. If we do that, this and most others, should be merged into the new article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TTCF, we can delete useless articles. But I suppose some travellers will find the name of the national park somewhere, so it is a useful search term. As the park has parts in several regions, a redirect isn't particularly useful. Instead we can have "a lead paragraph and links to the four primary destinations that make up the park" as Tai123.123 puts it. I don't see any problem with having the page formatted as a park article. A guide park article requires "different choices for which parts of the park to visit, and information on multiple attractions and things to do", which is the primary intent with this article (and these can be Mount Fuji, Izu Islands etc. and not listings from those articles). Then it should tell about how to get in and around, and have accommodation listings. Most of the transportation and accommodation can be handled by references to the linked destinations, but some isn't covered by these, and some of what isn't covered suits the park article better. The page banner and Go next are hardly problems. So I think we can have quite good a park article without unduly doubling information or removing it from from the proper destinations.
I support the creation of a National Parks of Japan article, but I think the national park articles should be kept anyway. If they have pointers to the real destinations they are usable (in the common sense of the word), The understand of the main article should explain that the parks as such are not very interesting, and should probably link the real destinations in addition to the park articles. The only problem I see is that somebody might start copying listings from the destination articles to the park articles, but we can probably make it very clear (in the Understands?) that listings are found at the real destinations rather than in the park article.
LPfi (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We sort of already do that with Kosciuszko National Park (although it's not complete yet). Don't see why we can't do it for this one. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. We do have Pyhä-Luosto National Park, so if necessary, we can turn this article into this exact format, but I still think all parks should have their own articles except for some random parks with no POIs in Australia or Israel. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current Pyhä-Luosto disambiguation page is not a good example, as the national park article should be written – there is nothing special preventing it. Some of the destinations in the park are easily reached from the adjacent ski resorts, so listed there, but they should instead refer to the national park article proper, as soon as it exists. However, it is not high priority for me and I don't think anybody else intends to write it. –LPfi (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChubbyWimbus @LPfi @SHB2000, I rewrote the article to be an extra region on one of my user pages, could you please check it. It's found here, User:Tai123.123/Fuji Tai123.123 (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this were to be an extraregion, I'd prefer to keep some of the text though, somewhat like the examples Pashley suggested above. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still prefer the solution I outlined above, regardless of whether it is called a park or extraregion. The current setup is close to a disambiguation page. If doing it that way, I think the cultural importance of Mount Fuji should be emphasised: travellers should primarily be approaching a holy mountain. This applies to all holy sights, more importantly the stranger one finds the holiness. –LPfi (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer that too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the solution you outlined, do you mean creating a NP of Japan page and not focusing on individual articles. Tai123.123 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also you can edit the template I sent above if you want to further much Fuji’s Importance (yes I know you shouldn’t edit other people’s user page but I give consent). Tai123.123 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a "national park", I think the cultural aspects of the mountain are actually better deemphasized in favor of the natural aspects. Its cultural/spiritual significance got it registered as a World Heritage Site, but it is the nature that got it registered as part of a national park. What is said about Mount Fuji should be focused on enjoying it for its flora, fauna, lakes, etc. The park has nothing to do with "holiness" and should definitely not be framed as such. Mount Fuji is also just one part of this "park", so it should not be depicted as the sole or even main feature of the park. You cannot even see the mountain from most of the Izu Peninsula and maybe also the islands. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But what this park is about should be explained in that article, and what national parks in Japan are about in general should also be explained somewhere. I have only just learnt they are different from those I know about. –LPfi (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi I can't find the reason all these different destinations were shoved together in one park. Like @ChubbyWimbus mentioned it's a were hodgepodge of places both natural and man made. Tai123.123 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same as LPfi here. While national parks that I'm familiar with can include 1.7km2 parks like Malabar Headland National Park, and I too have just learned that Nat Parks aren't the same everywhere. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the National Parks of Japan article. I didn't add to Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park, because I think Tai123.123 should add what he wrote for attribution purposes. I didn't link to any of the current park articles, either. I figured we should work out the vision here first. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it is an official national park & possible search term. Reduce it to something like an extra-hierarchical region or disambig page. Pashley (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done! Going to archive soon if we have no comments as we’ve reached a conclusion Tai123.123 (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Pashley (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same. LGTM. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:51, 22 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]

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]