Another sad stub article created by an anon user, left abandoned for a little under 2 weeks. The state of the article makes it seem as though it's better to start from scratch, honestly. --SHB (t | c | m) 06:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pench National Park. Ground Zero (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect — I believe we should mention the written content somewhere, as Seoni has a population above 100,000 and a quick search shows it has hotels, restaurants, and points of interest. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So the best solution would really be for someone to flesh these out and make this a real article. w:Seoni, Madhya Pradesh doesn't really give us enough information to do that, though, I think. There's also w:Seoni district, and if we don't have articles about any other cities in the district, we could consider making an article for the whole district. What do you all think about that idea?

  In terms of sources, if anyone would like to try to add content for this district, the District of Seoni's website lists a bunch of points of interest, but each of them would have to be researched so that we don't just duplicate lists of names. This site has more information about a few of the points of interest. Tripadvisor lists several hotels. dot com/2023/11/22/seoni-madhya-pradesh-where-wilderness-meets-tranquility/ India Walkthrough (whose website triggered a spam filter) mentions 5 places to visit, but oddly, every one of them is linked to a Wikipedia article and not always one specific to the point of interest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed: Merge and redirect Pashley (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also fine with a merge and redirect to Pench National Park, for the record – anything is better than keeping this sad article. --SHB (t | c | m) 12:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given we're all in unanimous agreement, I've gone ahead and merged + redirected the page. --shb (t | c | m) 08:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: merged + redirected to Pench National Park. --shb (t | c | m) 08:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No travel content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the lack of travel content. --SHB (t | c | m) 21:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No travel content. Ground Zero (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because not only is there a lack of content, but it would also be difficult to impossible to write a cohesive article for this region. The mountain range spans multiple countries. There isn't even a clear redirect target if we were to redirect the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to write a reasonable extra-hierarchical region article for a multi-country mountain range, e.g. Himalayas, Andes, Alps, Appalachian Mountains. This article is not one of those & it does not seem clear that it might become one. Pashley (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to delete. --shb (t | c | m) 05:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the encyclopedic tone and structure of the article as it is currently stands, I don't think there is much salvageable from a travel perspective. Gizza ^(roam) 02:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – this is encyclopedic and fails the Wikivoyage:Bodies of water policy (and even if it were, it would be better to start afresh). //shb (t | c | m) 02:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably copyvio, not in Wikivoyage style. See User talk:106.213.82.43 (I dropped the ball by not following up, sorry). Speedy delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Speedy deleted as probable copyright violation, violation of Wikivoyage:Bodies of water policy, and no useful content. Ground Zero (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This itinerary article has remained a history article without travel content since it was created in 2017. User:LPfi raised this concern in 2022. No travel content has been added since then. Ground Zero (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – if it's gone for 8 years without any usable travel content, there is no guarantee that Someone Else (talk · contribs) will add travel content in the future (and likely won't). --SHB (t | c | m) 08:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. It is still useless – which is sad. The canal is interesting through its importance, now and when it originally was built. It was a significant nail in the coffin of the clippers (and Fogg uses it in Around the World in Eighty Days). It could be written as a real itinerary, although I don't know whether chartering a yacht for sailing (motoring) it is feasible. Perhaps some of it could be salvaged into other articles, but one would then need to find an article where its role would be significant enough for a paragraph or so on it.

  I would like to see the itinerary created. I don't know whether the current stub (with a quite well-developed Understand) encourages or discourages its creation. Perhaps we should move it to a talk page subpage (without redirect).

  –LPfi (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I support moving it to a talk page subpage with no redirect if we want to keep the content for future use. --SHB (t | c | m) 09:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This article was started by User:Yvwv. It also seems like the kind of topic that could interest User:Pashley, although he's made only one edit to it. Looking at the map, it appears that a couple more places on the canal could be added to the "Destinations" section (Qantara and Fayed, for example, which I see are red links that would need to have articles created for them, but w:Qantara Sharq (the eastern part of it) sounds interesting and w:Fayed, Egypt has a British military cemetery that also has graves of German POWs). If that could be done, we could add brief descriptions of each place, and we could give readers practical information about how to pay for passage through the canal, this could be a worthwhile article. Right now, it has the embryo of an itinerary, and it would be a pity to delete it if it really is a viable itinerary. But I don't think the itinerary is to Djibouti, let alone Aden, but just through the canal from Port Said to Port Suez. If it is not a viable itinerary, we should delete this article. So what about it, folks? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not in fact interest me much, but it is an important route & I think it has the potential to become a decent itinerary; I therefore have a mild preference for keeping it. However, I would not object strongly to deletion unless someone wants to volunteer to work on bringing it up to snuff. Pashley (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We give editors one year to develop itineraries, which I think is generous. In almost eight years, nothing has come of this article. Wikivoyage should not be a platform for amateur unsourced history essays. Ground Zero (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does have some potential to become a route, but probably not at the moment. Quick online research suggests that it is not possible to walk or cycle along a track beside the canal. There used to be cruise ships that went along the canal, but they appear not be running at the moment - see this from Cunard as an example. It could be moved to userspace to be reinstated when the situation has changed.

AlasdairW (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support moving it to user space if anyone wants to it. Ground Zero (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage has by nature been an experimental project; at least it was by the 2010s. Today, we might have a better judgement for which kind of articles are feasible, and which are not. /Yvwv (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one-year rule is for personal itineraries, not for famous routes like this. I think this stub can help somebody who wants to write the itinerary, which I suppose won't be soon, given the political situation. As a user page subpage, only the original author and those to happen to know about it can benefit from it, so I maintain: move to a subpage of the article talk page, without redirect, but with a link from the talk page. –LPfi (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one-year rule does not apply just to presently itineraries. See WV:itineraries. The article identified this as a shipping route used mainly by freighter. I do not think that this qualifies for the "famous itineraries" exception, even if it used to be one. If it is not something that travellers do in the 21st century, then we needn't keep it. Wikivoyage isn't a history book. If someone wants to spend the time to make this a travel article, then it would be worth keeping. But the evidence of the last 8 years is that no-one is. It's just an amateur history article. Leave that work for Wikipedia. Ground Zero (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if someone does make it a travel article, what's the point of having it in the first place if this isn't something travellers can do in the first place? (unless they work in the shipping industry, but that's an incredibly specific niche which I don't think anyone here is qualified to write about) SHB (t | c | m) 08:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:AlasdairW posted this link to Talk:Suez Route: "How to transit the Suez Canal by yacht". And it's not an old article but instead was published on September 26, 2024. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, interesting – I suppose that does change the equation a bit. --SHB (t | c | m) 09:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In my opinion, the flaw of ths article is in the opening sentence, "The Suez Route is a shipping route from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean, including the Suez Canal and the Red Sea." This is, indeed, a shipping route, but not a tourist route. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that it's a shipping route does not mean it's impossible to travel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The magazine article does show that it is possible to travel, but is lacking the details of the arrangements to make, and indicates that it is an area to be approached with great care. Realistically I think we can create a usable article when cruise ships return, but I doubt that would be before 2030. Cruise ships did use the canal until fairly recently, Commons has a photo of the Queen Mary 2 in the canal in 2009. AlasdairW (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Update - I have just seen that the MSC Euribia is scheduled to go through the canal this October on a voyage from Keil to Dubai. So somebody could expand the article using the route information given by this and other cruise companies. However the northbound cruise this April has been cancelled - instead they are going round the Cape. AlasdairW (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So what I gather from this discussion is it was possible to travel on this route and while it is still today, it is incredibly hard to do so. If it is, it should be added, but I think it's more dangerous to have incomplete travel information such as this which could imply it is possible to do so (well it is, but it does not capture the full nuance behind it) than to not have information at all. Since most of us here are not opposed to moving it into a subpage, shall we proceed with that? (@LPfi:, I assume Talk:Suez Route/2025 + note at the top) //shb (t | c | m) 00:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As long as some information is kept somewhere, I won't argue about where. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Moving it away (without redirect) is OK, as long as there is a clear link from the article's talk page (which should not be moved). If somebody writes an actually useful article on the route, then it obviously should be at the current title (or with a redirect from there). I think the safety concern would be handled well enough with appropriate text in Stay safe, and perhaps a caution- or warningbox, depending on how the situation has developed (it could be added now, for the moved-away version). –LPfi (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: moved to Talk:Suez Route/2025, with no redirect, and a mention from the talk page. //shb (t | c | m) 07:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article serves no purpose. It doesn't provide any travel information for the East Coast, isn't a title people are likely to enter into the search engine, and provides links to several disparate regions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term is used & might be searched for. Sure, the article is not necessary, but it is not harmful either. Pashley (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Pashley's comment. I mean, it is a possible search term. --Ypsilon (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would understand if it was just East Coast, but why would someone type "East Coast (United States of America)"? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's probably true, but as you start typing it in the search box, the article will show up in the dropdown menu. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I understand that it's an unlikely search term with the disambiguator and the amount of travel content here is, well, poor, but I do think the bar for extraregions is lower. //shb (t | c | m) 23:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. It's an obvious search term, searchers will see the logical disambig, and it's a good reference with proper links. Similarly, we have West Coast (United States of America), as we should. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "East Coast" is a likely search term, and it leads to a disambiguation page that links to this extraregion, which helpfully tells readers which Wikivoyage articles cover the East Coast of the US. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep people around the world do talk about the US East and West Coasts when talking about the United States from a travel perspective so it is relevant. As these regions don't fit under our breadcrumb structure, making them extra-heirarchial regions is appropriate. Gizza ^(roam) 02:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: consensus is to keep. //shb (t | c | m) 08:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An archaic term very rarely used nowadays and ultimately fails Wikivoyage:Bodies of water. Unlikely search term and there's no particularly good article to redirect this to. //shb (t | c | m) 09:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikivoyage is not an encyclopaedia. It is not a reasonable search term as no-one in the 21st century will think, "I'll plan a trip to the South Seas". People will have actual destinations in mind when searching. Ground Zero (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as it has no useful information, but after updating Retiring abroad and Dengue fever which link to it. AlasdairW (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think I'm the oldest regular here, but I seem to be the only one who doesn't find the expression so archaic and thinks it's a reasonable, helpful reference, which is what a disambiguation-type extra-region is supposed to be/do. I certainly came across this phrase often when I was growing up in the "archaic" 70s - the 1970s, not the 1870s. :-P Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting perspective – I didn't know it was used as late as the 1970s. (Now granted, I'm probably one of the youngest long-term editors on enwikivoyage, but I honestly thought it fell out of use way before that haha) //shb (t | c | m) 21:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  People used it in speech, maybe with a hint of irony and humorous mystification, but it was certainly used a lot in the cartoons, old movies and rerun TV shows I watched and in stuff I read. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. I'm the same generations as IK. The equivalent (Söderhavet) was used here too. I can very much imagine somebody searching for it before deciding on a specific destination. I see no problem in the page's existence. –LPfi (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oceania. I mean, I once searched up “South Pacific” on Wikivoyage, an equally archaic term for the same region, and it led me to Oceania. South Seas is just as popular of a term, so it would be great if you redirected. Everything’s nice and fair. CrunchLabs (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought North Pacific, North Atlantic, South Pacific and South Atlantic were current terms. If they're not, what substitutes for them now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Not archaic, but just as unused as the South Seas. The appropriate term for the region is Oceania. CrunchLabs (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The South Pacific is an ocean, or the southern part of it, and not interchangeable with Oceania. As I pointed out, there's also a North Pacific, etc. I believe the terms I laid out remain used by geographers. I suggest you look at w:Atlantic Ocean and w:Pacific Ocean. From the former, particularly note the Atlantic Ocean#Geology and plate tectonics section, which also mentions a Central Atlantic that I hadn't come across before. From the latter: "Ocean circulation (caused by the Coriolis effect) subdivides it into two largely independent volumes of water that meet at the equator, the North Pacific Ocean and the South Pacific Ocean (or more loosely the South Seas)." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ikan gives some reasons & as a boomer, I agree. Redirecting to Oceania does not work since "South Seas" includes the Philippines & Indonesia. Pashley (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah for the record I would not support a redirect to Oceania for the same reasons you mention either. //shb (t | c | m) 21:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I see it, the current redirect of South Pacific to Oceania is also wrong. It should redirect here or vice versa. I don't think it matters much which. Pashley (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess South Pacific is the more official name, and it is the name of an ocean but can also refer to a region, as in the musical. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Now, after much contemplating, I changed my mind. And not just because I'm from Generation Z. South Seas is another term for the South Pacific, which is not the same thing as Oceania. Oceania is a term for the countries of the subregions of Australasia, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia, whilst the South Pacific also includes the Southeast Asian Indonesian Archipelago and the Philippines. Yes, and the redirect of South Pacific to Oceania is also, therefore, wrong. I suggest you include that in a future topic on this page. CrunchLabs (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept pending the lack of consensus for 3 weeks. //shb (t | c | m) 22:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather confusing cross-namespace redirect (largely discouraged nowadays on most projects) and "bf" has other meanings that are not Wikivoyage:Be fair. I have replaced all non-talk page links with the projectspace equivalent (the projectspace equivalent is not an issue because the only thing related to Wikivoyage is Be fair, but you cannot say the same for the rest of the project). //shb (t | c | m) 04:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons given. Pashley (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, especially the point about cross-namespace redirects being discouraged, and this was one I hadn't ever come across. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ground Zero (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to delete. //shb (t | c | m) 10:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]