Both are historical regions which now break our geographical hierarchy because they contain not only more than one state of Poland, but also part of the Ukraine (in the case of East Galicia) and Germany/Czech Republic (in the case of Silesia). Unless we want to start having articles or disambiguation pages for things like Prussia and Ottoman Empire and Assyria. My vote is no on that. I can imagine a case where a historical region might provide a useful modern division, sparking two articles like East Galicia (Poland) and East Galicia (Ukraine), but in both these cases we already have more relevant subdivision schemes in place.
I don't know. So they "break our geographical hierarchy"; is that a bad thing? Granted, we need a hierarchy so that the breadcrumbs will work, and in general having the hierarchy helps to organise things. No argument there. But "all grammars leak" , no hierarchy will actually match the world. What is the harm in having articles that fall outside the structure, provided they are about genuine historical regions, and provided they consist mostly of overview material and links to the hierarchically orgainsed articles? Pashley 07:43, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Delete, Silesia doesn't make much sense at least from the Czech point of view. I already changed the Czech region from Silesia to Czech Silesia, however I think it can even be merged with Moravia.--Kyknos 05:10, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
The former was marked for merging into the other back in Dec. 2005, before our archives, so I don't know if any discussion ever took place, but obviously we don't need both of these articles. It is doubtful to me whether we need either, because the extreme length of both articles is highly disproportionate to the amount of useful information there. I think it's a little ambitious personally.
Merge at the very least. Texugo 02:09, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Delete both. This is a bit random in a way and a very large chunk to cover. If it was a heavily trafficked or historically well-known route like Istanbul to New Delhi over land it would make sense... or if it was even halfway well-written like that one, then maybe... but right now they're just long lists of possible cities to visit, I don't see any real reason to keep this as an itinerary. Especially given that Istanbul to New Delhi already exists, if you really want to go further, create New Delhi to Kuala Lumpur overland – cacahuatetalk 03:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Delete. This doesn't need to be a template, it's info that should be in the "sleep" section of the main Spain article, and if it needs to be a box on Barcelona, etc, then just add an infobox to those pages – cacahuatetalk 21:59, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Not in use, of no use – cacahuatetalk 22:08, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Keep: this template is used to create a new real template: to play with template engine before creating a live template. It helped me several times for this purpose. --DenisYurkin 08:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Delete, but might the original intent have been Bellaire (Texas), which is an actual town? If so, a redirect (and creation of a skeleton article) might be preferable. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)