Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2025

← October 2025

Votes for deletion archives for November 2025

(current) December 2025 →

Endangered animals

Contains no travel information and nothing useful beyond the lead. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: –LPfi (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Wikivoyage isn't a dictionary. Ground Zero (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animal ethics. Ground Zero (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ~~Natural attractions~~ Animal ethics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. I support redirecting to Animal ethics. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Animal ethics makes the most sense to me. //shb (t | c | m) 12:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's more apt than Natural attractions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected to animal ethics. //shb (t | c | m) 22:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fpp

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)[reply]

Delete, as with the others. Ground Zero (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pashley (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to delete. //shb (t | c | m) 22:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do

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)[reply]

What place can it refer to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

* 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Doh! Ground Zero (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think I agree with this. Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for this reason. For the villages, it might be better to create Do (disambiguation) because activities is clearly the main topic. //shb (t | c | m) 08:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pashley (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to keep. //shb (t | c | m) 11:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gh

Another cross-namespace redirect (XNR). Could also be an ISO country code for Ghana. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete. Pashley (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted per consensus. //shb (t | c | m) 06:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pub

A rather astonishing XNR. Should redirect to alcoholic beverages#Bars and pubs. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree in theory, but let's wait for further remarks by SHB. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm switching to a full keep per Pashley. I'll continue to replace the links slowly, but it's a huge task, and one that I wouldn't encourage doing unless you want to procrastinate. If British pubs is created (which I hope someone does, because it sounds like a good travel topic), then I will support changing the redirect target, but it's no biggie for the timebeing. //shb (t | c | m) 08:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
But if so, with a hatnote mentioning the Travellers' pub. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I do not find it at all astonishing & consider it useful. Pashley (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept. //shb (t | c | m) 06:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al

Same as el, but in Arabic instead of Spanish. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Supposedly there's a neighbourhood of Yenişehir called Al. Yenişehir is a redlink, though. :/ //shb (t | c | m) 06:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pashley (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: overwhelming consensus to delete. //shb (t | c | m) 06:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Il

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete Another small village in Iran, Il, Iran has a population of 285. AlasdairW (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pashley (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: overwhelming consensus to delete. //shb (t | c | m) 06:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Na

What?? We already have wia and wiaa, no need for another. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nah, we don't need this redirect. Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Barring new information, I agree. Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pashley (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: overwhelming consensus to delete. //shb (t | c | m) 06:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PO

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)[reply]

Perhaps disambiguation? PO could be mistaken for both PL (Poland) or Portugal (PT). //shb (t | c | m) 09:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I have no issues with deletion either. //shb (t | c | m) 11:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~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)[reply]

Redirect to Pô. Ground Zero (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, redirecting to Pô is a good idea. Redirecting elsewhere causes difficulties in reaching Pô. AlasdairW (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I agree! --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

That's a reasonable suggestion. I have added that to Pô. Ground Zero (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I'm ok with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pashley (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected to Pô. //shb (t | c | m) 06:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sh

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)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete. Pashley (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to delete. //shb (t | c | m) 06:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrivals

Another XNR. Redirect to arriving by plane or arriving in a new city. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To me, redirecting to Arriving by plane makes the most sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Redirect to Arriving by plane per above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical about this, as there are many ways to arrive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a disambig page then. //shb (t | c | m) 07:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Delete. There is no need for a redirect or disambiguation. Pashley (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I turned this into a dismabig given how long this has been up for. //shb (t | c | m) 10:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and Policy outline

Two more cross-namespace redirects. The words aren't specific enough to redirect to a travel topic, and there aren't any places that share the name "Policy". --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy outline is not useful. Why are we deleting all these cross-namespace redirects again? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WV:XNR:

"The creation of cross-namespace redirects (typically from mainspace (ns-0) to projectspace (ns-4)) is generally discouraged – these can accidentally mislead readers and have the potential to confuse bots/external tools. Any new cross-namespace redirects should either be immediately moved to their corresponding namespaces (without a redirect) or be speedily deleted."

That said, they're not as explicitly against policy as I thought they were. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it was added starting on 16 September 2025, after a talk page thread that had 2 participants. My main issue is that we have to type longer redirects, so I'm starting to have misgivings about this, but they would have mainly applied to redirects we already got rid of... Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, when I proposed that I also didn't expect that change (or more so existing practice encoded into policy) to be this drastic – it was more or less what I'd been slowly doing for months now regarding lesser-used cross-namespace redirects because replacing all uses of them do take time, so maybe you'd only see me nominating one or two such XNRs a month. //shb (t | c | m) 22:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I restarted that discussion. It was not a consensus, has led to vast consequences, and I regret my votes to delete very useful cross-namespace redirects that saved a lot of typing for high-volume editors like me. I'd like to take those votes back and undelete the most useful of those redirects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete policy outline and hold policy for the timebeing – there are 64 uses of it atp. //shb (t | c | m) 22:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no place named "Policy", why not keep Policy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this reply, but I think for now yes. We can restart this discussion once all uses of policy have been replaced. //shb (t | c | m) 10:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: no consensus. //shb (t | c | m) 23:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motherland of Neutrality

I have no idea who will search up this term as a substitute for Turkmenistan, nor do I understand how this term is unique to Turkmenistan either (cc Niyaz Jahanov (talk · contribs), since you created this redirect). //shb (t | c | m) 23:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted. We don't need to waste time debating deletion of propaganda redirects. Ground Zero (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maiduguri International Airport

If the article had been about Lagos Airport, that could have been reasonable, but this is a secondary airport in Nigeria that obviously fails the criteria at Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition#Article criteria. I'd support speedy deletion, but I think a discussion is necessary per policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maiduguri#Get in per the Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition#Article criteria. Anything but keep, really. //shb (t | c | m) 03:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is fine, but a redirect is pointless & confuses searches when city & airport have the same name. We should not just delete since there is history that should be preserved, so move to the alternate name "Muhammadu Buhari International Airport" without leaving a redirect behind, then redirect that to Maiduguri#Get in. Pashley (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything to merge? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Unusually we appear to have more information on this airport than WP (in any of the 11 languages). The airport had 213,000 passengers in 2021, when we normally have articles about airports with that many flights in a year. AlasdairW (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maiduguri#Get in. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maiduguri#Get in. Ground Zero (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected. No useful content that could be merged, though. //shb (t | c | m) 06:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

☏

Yes, the telephone icon is the redirect name. I'd speedily delete, but I won't make the decision by myself, and no-one is paying any attention to Talk:☏. I hope everyone agrees that symbols are inadmissible as article or redirect names, and if that is not explicit in Wikivoyage:Deletion policy, since we're now encountering an example of it, we should add this guideline in clear language. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed – we shouldn't allow emoji in title names the same way we don't permit non-Latin characters. Delete. //shb (t | c | m) 02:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: speedily deleted. I don't think we should waste time ion silliness like this. And i don't think we need to spend time developing a policy to deal with a single instance of an icon being used as a redirect. If it happens several times, it would be worth doing. Ground Zero (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]