Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2013

Airlines in South Africa
I've been trying to overhaul Wikivoyage's Flying topics recently and came across this article. It originally started life as Air travel in South Africa (now a re-direct), but I extracted all the airport info from it. I then decided to lose the 'Flights' information as it's almost certainly hopelessly out of date (now reinstated so you can see the article in all its glory and decide if any part of that warrants salvaging). Left then with only the Airlines section, I created an article in the image of Airlines in the United States, however it only has very limited, very basic information. From what I understand, the Airlines in the United States page was really only created in order to preserve the large volumes of content that had gone into creating its constituent parts and because the USA is home to a very large number of very large airlines. As South Africa is not, is it worth keeping this particular article? I'm a bit puzzled myself... --Nick (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't see a reason to keep this article, although I suppose theoretically it could be merged into some sort of future Airlines in Africa article (actually, scratch that, any salvageable material should be merged into South Africa). Then again, the info here is so basic it wouldn't be difficult to replicate, unlike what we had with those extensive American and United articles. I suppose I'm leaning towards deletion for the moment. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to country article. --Rschen7754 04:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - my only fear with merging it is that there isn't really all that much useful content to merge. The flights section is out of date and the airlines section is mostly phone numbers - I don't want to overwhelm the South Africa article with these necessarily: I've already copied a lot across! --Nick (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Next steps - I think I'm going to merge the majority of the content across to South Africa and perhaps a little to Low-cost airlines in Africa. I will then move the page itself to Airlines in Africa and see what, if anything, can be salvaged of the little that remains. --Nick (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Result: Redirected to Airlines in Africa. -- Nick (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Outline
Has been replaced by type specific tags. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete see below - JamesA  >talk 13:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * May I ask the justification for a speedy? LtPowers (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. It should be speedy deleted because it is unused (in the mainspace) and has been superseded by a newer template. The speedy deletion policy may need an update, as it currently does not mention templates. As you have proposed a keep (which is surprising), I've explained myself further below. JamesA  >talk 09:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Being unused and superseded may be justification for deletion, but not for speedy deletion. A speedy deletion, per our policy, is one that doesn't need an VfD; are you saying that you would have been comfortable deleting this template without discussion?  LtPowers (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have been OK with that. It's not an explicitly allowed case, but it's practically identical to the reasoning we have for allowing legacy categories to be deleted on sight.Texugo (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My reasoning was the same as Texugo's. Also, there have been several templates lately that have been successfully and uncontroversially VfD'ed due to their replacement by type-specific tags; I am frankly confused as to why this one would be regarded differently. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they underwent VfD; they were not speedily deleted. LtPowers (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep; this template may be useful for categorizing articles that don't have a nice type yet (like airports and islands). LtPowers (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per LtPowers.  Curtaintoad (talk, contribs)  22:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are currently guidelines on what goes where, airports are city and islands region or city. If these need to be changed or expanded (which I think maybe they should) then discussion should be made in the appropriate pages. This does not change that this tag is no longer needed. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The template has been superseded by more specific templates that deal with particular article categories. There needs to be consistency between articles, and having some templates with the destination type and some without will just cause an organisational and categorical mess. As Traveler stated, every destination currently has an overarching "category", and whether that category is irrelevant to this discussion. JamesA  >talk 09:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The suggestion of repurposing this template as a generic tag in addition to the current individual type tag system is not something that has even been under discussion to my knowledge. As it stands, the tag has for all purposes been replaced, and discussion about what to do with islands, etc. seems to be heading in a different direction anyway. In the unlikely event we do end up wanting to use a template with this title, it would probably have different content and could in any case easily be recreated. Texugo (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: one reason I'm reluctant to delete is that it contains the edit history of the changes that led to the current design of the other outline templates. If we delete the template, that history becomes much harder to retrieve, and the names of the various contributors to the current design are no longer readily available.  Perhaps it would have been better to reimplement this template as a helper template for the others, so that one change to this template's formatting would allow the same change to propagate to the others.  LtPowers (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: if you do not want to loose the history redirect to unranked Traveler100 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Re-direct to unranked per Traveler100. --180.190.245.34 05:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Listen, Template:Listen/core and Template:Listen/doc
Result: Deleted in all three cases. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tagged as experimental for several months, and thus far there isn't agreement for including audio files in Wikivoyage articles.  Additionally, if in the future Wikivoyage decides to start using audio files then these templates should be properly imported so that attribution is provided to the original authors. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 16:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Emergency numbers (North Korea)

 * Delete. Flagged as experimental several months ago.  If we want to keep this content then it should be included directly in the North Korea article - there is no point in having a template that is only meant for use in a single article. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 16:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's all a bit Catch 22 isn't it Ryan? Experimental templates can only be used in only one low visibility article in main namespace and then you complain that they are only used in one article! Also, why are you not putting Vfd notices on all these templates you want to remove? You're a great contributor, but wouldn't it be more collegiate to talk over the reasons for having these various templates with their authors before nominating them for deletion - that way the authors' might not regard it as less of a slap around the face... --180.190.245.34 05:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He didn't say it should be deleted because it is currently on one article. The issue is that it will only ever be on one article, and that isn't what templates are for. JamesA  >talk 11:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention that there is one reason to use a template for just one article, and that would be to hide excessive amounts of code, like with this. That's not the case here, though (and I don't know why we'd want such an ugly display anyway). --Peter Talk 16:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:FactCheck
Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Flagged as experimental several months ago. Consensus on Template talk:FactCheck seems to be that a big box claiming factual inaccuracy is not desired as inaccuracies should be corrected rather than flagged, and if there is a question about accuracy then it should be discussed rather than flagged. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 16:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ryan. --180.190.245.34 05:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Interwikimedia inline
Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Flagged as experimental several months ago.  While there is still ongoing discussion about interwiki linking, the current guidance on the subject would make this type of template irrelevant. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 16:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Wide image

 * Delete. Flagged as experimental several months ago, there has been no discussion as to what this does or why this should be kept, so nominating for deletion.  If in the future Wikivoyage decides to start using wide image functionality then this template should be properly imported so that attribution is provided to the original authors. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 17:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We already use some wide images at the top of pages with the new banners; see Banner_Expedition. Does this template include any functionality that would be useful there? Pashley (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because the page banner template scales the image dynamically with the page width. The Wide image template displays a wide image with a scrollbar; it's intended for really really long images, like 10:1 or more.  LtPowers (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Magnify icon
Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Flagged as experimental several months ago, there has been no discussion as to what this does or why this should be kept, so nominating for deletion.  It is used by Template:Wide image which is also nominated for deletion. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 17:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:O
Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Flagged as experimental several months ago, there has been no discussion as to what this does (docs state "can be used to quickly colour a span of text olive") or why this should be kept, so nominating for deletion. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 17:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: We deprecate the use of HTML. This template colours text olive if no parameter is used at all, otherwise the colour that is specified in the parameter. How else do you suggest we colour text? Olive is a useful colour to use in exemplars to contrast with "how not to do it". Are you saying that we can not even have experimental templates now? Is this actively harmful Ryan? --180.190.245.34 05:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid deletion rational has been advanced and there is not a current alternative to using deprecated HTML. -- A l i c e ✉ 07:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am not aware of any non-discussion pages where we have felt the need to use colored text, and if we were to start creating templates for colored text, I would want them to be more intuitively named.Texugo (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think there is legitimate confusion on this matter, but in response to the comment that "no valid deletion rational has been advanced", per Using Mediawiki templates: if new templates fail to gain community support, they will eventually be deleted. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 01:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Pashley (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Trim
Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused template that has been flagged as experimental for several months. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 17:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)