Appendix talk:Geographical index

Appendix:Geographical index
There's not much information here and in its sub-pages. I reckon either using this page or Appendix:Place names to store it - probably Appendix:Place names cos it is already a bit more organised. --Borganised 11:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redirect/merge to Appendix:Place names. This page and its subpages are rather terrible, if truth be told. There seems to be no criteria to be met to be included in this index, and with a handful of places per subpage, nothing so useful will be lost. Alternatively, we could just tag it as . --Jackofclubs 10:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

'''Redirected to Appendix:Place names --Jackofclubs 12:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September 2016–July 2018
This appendix, and all its subpages (which have not been individually tagged, but are included in this RFD) are the result of historical confusion about how CFI should treat place names. We are now in a longstanding stable position of handling place names in the normal entries, just like any other words, and these appendices no longer have a purpose for Wiktionary (as for general informational content, if someone needs such lists, Wikipedia is the place that should supply them). Refer to, which will be archived at Appendix talk:Place names/Greater Manchester, for more. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, but should we create entries for the red links first? Equinox ◑ 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes and which is nominated below as these should be in the main namespace. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete —Enosh (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete current policy and practice supports inclusion of place names as 'normal entries'. John Cross (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as useful. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)