Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2026

No longer needed. Information previously in Kaghan page applied actually to Kaghan Valley which didn't have its page. I've created a page for Kaghan Valley and moved the information there, leaving Kaghan page empty. Aurimaz (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the way WMF wikis work. The article should have been moved to the new name, rather than having the content moved from Kaghan to Kaghan Valley. The former page cannot be deleted, as part of the article's history is connected to it. I will try to fix the mess. –LPfi (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The histories cannot be merged, as the pages developed in parallel until the merger 21:32, 8 June 2013. I think the best path now is to simply redirect Kaghan to Kaghan Valley. Now done, after resurrecting the page (deleted by Ibaman). –LPfi (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, Kaghan was a useless skeleton before the merger, so perhaps the histories post 2013 could have been merged and the earlier Kaghan history deleted. Still, that might leave some odd discontinuities (merged with nothing?). I think the current state is the best we can get, history-wise. –LPfi (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect. Pashley (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Pashley; there is no harm in keeping redirects of such nature especially when it has to do with attribution. //shb (t | c | m) 12:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: consensus leaning keep. //shb (t | c | m) 05:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect, see User_talk:Sbb1413#Odd_redirect Pashley (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support as creator of this redirect. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done as author request. //shb (t | c | m) 21:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Section link. HKLionel TALK 11:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary. Pashley (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now – it is more tedious to type, but it also looks noticeably cleaner and easier over typing & sect; when editing (and also easier on mobile). I agree with Ikan there is no consensus to implement this template, but that also doesn't mean deletion is the right call (I will look into this properly when I get the time). //shb (t | c | m) 12:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Do we want to recommend the "France § Eat" format over France#Eat? If not, then the difficulty of typing "§" on certain keyboards is a non-issue. It seems that the § format isn't too commonly used on this site. I think the advantage of using it, though apparently more correct, is trumped by the inconsistency or increased copy edit workload it creates, as most editors hardly will switch to it. Those who are careful with typography will in most cases use some piped version anyway (such as just France – mostly either the page or the section is implied by the context). –LPfi (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think so, yes: § (which is widely used everywhere) looks far more professional and polished over # (which is just MediaWiki syntax). //shb (t | c | m) 20:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not MediaWiki, but HTML syntax (which MediaWiki has inherited). –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon further thought, a very weak delete – I think the solution to typing that out on mobile would be to create a special template for § and add it in the footer (on desktop), as opposed to this template. //shb (t | c | m) 22:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per LPfi's points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unnecessary and cumbersome. Mrkstvns (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Done //shb (t | c | m) 22:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This has resulted in red links at locations like Milan#See. Sdkb ^talk 12:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sdkb: Archives normally should not be edited, but just FYI: all taken care of. Next time you see the same problem, please make the same substitutions. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Going from a structured representation with the template to a plain text representation feels like a step backward to me. To avoid having to edit this archive further, where would I go to challenge the overall decision to delete? Sdkb ^talk 20:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikivoyage:Votes for undeletion, usually. //shb (t | c | m) 22:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Opened a discussion at Wikivoyage:Votes_for_undeletion#Template:Section_link. Sdkb ^talk 13:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CarlessParking: moved this to Los Baños leaving a redirect behind, then tagged the redirect for speedy deletion. I disagree -- to me the redirect seems harmless & could be kept -- so I changed the tag to vfd & am raising the question here. Other opinions?

Arguably we should have a dismbig page like w:Los Banos since there is also Los Banos, California. I doubt that is needed; currently, each article has a hatnote pointing to the other. Pashley (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there – keep. //shb (t | c | m) 20:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Generally: we don't want to break links to here from other sites, so if an article has been at a certain name for more than a negligible time, we should keep a redirect (or disambiguation, toplink or whatever) unless there are good reasons not to. –LPfi (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep, and maybe move the article back to this page. If you keyboard doesn't do accents, getting to Los Baños can be hard. AlasdairW (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Our guidelines tell us to create accent-less redirects (in this case: tilde-less) for names with unusual letters. See Wikivoyage:Naming conventions#Romanization. –LPfi (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would be difficult since we use the tilde-less name for Los Banos, California. Pashley (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then use a toplink – which is in place in Los Banos. –LPfi (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept. //shb (t | c | m) 09:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has been marked as historical, but historical pages are usually kept to denote practices that may have been done in the past, some of which may still linger today. This page, however, is so wildly out of date that I don't think any of this has applied since Wikivoyage forked or when Wikidata was created. It is so misleading today that I don't think there's any value in keeping this. //shb (t | c | m) 01:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also FWIW, see the previous deletion discussion at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2010#Project:Tags – was kept but only had one user input their say, and this was 16 years ago. //shb (t | c | m) 01:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think keeping history is good, and I don't see how it is misleading as long as it is prominently marked as historic. However, {{Tag}} may need to add an error message or error category. It seems now to just show the HTML code, –LPfi (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The future section is what I think is massively misleading (because that's never going to happen). But I think all of it is so irrelevant to how Wikivoyage and the MediaWiki software works today that there is nothing to be gained from keeping this; all of this was only relevant pre-fork. //shb (t | c | m) 08:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It could be moved to a title clearly marking it as irrelevant/pre-fork, like subpages of w:WP:Historical archive. HKLionel TALK 03:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But why, though? What benefit does that actually have? //shb (t | c | m) 05:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to mw:Tags, preserving history, removing the content from view & helping people looking it up for technical reasons. HKLionel TALK 09:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can imagine no good reason to retain documentation on a feature that was never more than experimental & never on this site, especially since the experiment clearly failed. Pashley (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if it was never used more than experimentally, then I won't oppose deletion. As a side note: tags have been discussed for a long time on Commons, and the implementation of structured data can be seen as introducing them (with a lot of problems making them controversial though). –LPfi (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just confusing and not relevant to the Project. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been over 14 days now – can an uninvolved admin delete this? //shb (t | c | m) 09:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Deleted per consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect with a misspelling of "monasteries". If it were monasteries in north east india, I would not object. But there's a misspelling in the current redirect. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The redirect takes the reader to an empty See section. I would be happy to move it to the correct spelling if it went to some useful information. AlasdairW (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alasdair. //shb (t | c | m) 21:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge anything worth saving into Sacred sites of South Asia, then delete. Pashley (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AlasdairW, SHB2000, Pashley: Should Monasteries in North-Eastern India be deleted too? Here, "monasteries" is spelt properly, yet as Alasdair alluded, there are no monasteries mentioned in the "See" section of North-Eastern India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete. Pashley (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Although Monasteries in North-Eastern India did have a little content, it has been redirected without any merging that I could find. The one monastery that is mentioned doesn't have any info on Wikipedia. AlasdairW (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have just expanded the "See" section to mention that one notable monastery in NE India. The section is just a summary of different types of attractions one can expect in the region, nothing more. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. //shb (t | c | m) 22:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to delete/ //shb (t | c | m) 00:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-19077-76 (talk · contribs) has created many questionable redirects, but this one takes the cake. Its spelling is just too obscure that I don't think any reasonable English speaker will come to think this as a spelling for Kazakhstan. //shb (t | c | m) 23:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However it does appear to be a local name for the country. It is the fourth word in the article and wikipedia:Kazakhstan has Qazaqstan Respublikasy (Kazakh). So it may not appear to be much different from having Deutschland redirect to Germany. AlasdairW (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, interesting; in that case I think this should be speedily kept. //shb (t | c | m) 23:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See this BBC article for background: Kazakhstan to Qazaqstan: Why would a country switch its alphabet?. AlasdairW (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Valid native name of the country, just like Deutschland for Germany, or Bharat for India. Only redirects that are non-native as well as non-English should be questioned (cf. WP:RLOTE). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Pashley (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: can be snowball kept since there's no argument for deletion anymore. //shb (t | c | m) 06:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover from the Wikitravel era. Delete. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. Delete. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. Delete. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. Delete. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Double namespace. Delete. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted all the Wts namespace redirects. These are all relics from a namespace that doesn't exist anymore – there isn't even a remote chance these redirects could ever be useful. shb (t | c | m) 08:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]