Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2013

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← October 2013 Votes for deletion archives for November 2013 (current) December 2013 →

This has been tagged with a merge tag for over a year, but honestly there is nothing to merge. This is just a another full version of the phrase list with what the creator considered to be a better romanization scheme than our standard way.

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a new article for Kuala Lumpur International Airport, however the article already exists a a redirect with WT attribution (which we don't want). Please can someone delete and I will create a new article with the Airport template. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat opaque and unnecessary shortcut-style redirect. LtPowers (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are you proposed to the whole principle of shortcuts - or just to this one in particular?
I presume the former, since otherwise you would simply have started a discussion on the associated discussion page as to a less "opaque" name. (Previous discussion seemed to accept the proposal that all new shortcuts should be in wv namespace rather than main namespace).
  • Keep. Admittedly this is an unlikely search term, but redirects are cheap and this one seems pretty harmless. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're fairly harmless until they start getting scattered all around our policy pages, as this one was. If we're happy to keep these extant while keeping the shortcut-boxes on policy pages to a minimum, then I'd be okay with that. LtPowers (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the creator of this shortcut, I'm a little surprised that the proposer (Bureaucrat LTPowers) did not have the courtesy to advise me of this discussion since it is already in use at http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Talk:Danakil_Depression - obviously I think shortcuts in general, and this one in particular, serve a purpose, or I would not have created it.
I'm also amazed that the proposer took it upon himself to prematurely delete the shortcut without waiting for the consensus of this discussion and (presumably) without checking "What links here".
The primary purpose of shortcuts is in edit summaries, so that interested editors can have a quick link to the relevant policy - but they can also be useful in discussions as a labour saving device for those that don't type quickly or competently (like me). --118.93.67.66 00:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I had seen it before it was nominated here, I'd have said "speedy". I'd say any shortcuts that lack an obvious name and frequent usage are just irritating clutter.
Where is the previous discussion? If there is a rationale for such things, I suppose I should read it. Pashley (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there is, this still shouldn't be a problem because wv:selfie is not in article main name space, eh? --118.93.67.66 01:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know of a solid deletion basis to stand on, though I'd prefer to see it deleted because "selfie" just sounds like teen girls taking pictures of themselves in the bathroom mirror, whereas the point of the policy is that we don't allow people posing in vacation pictures whether it's you taking your own picture, or someone else, or a whole family posing. The fact that the policy uses "yourself" in its example is completely irrelevant, making this a very counterintuitive choice for a shortcut. At the very least, it isn't appropriate enough to be listed as the "official" shortcut on the section of the policy page it leads to, and should be removed from there. Texugo (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the term is now quite common, in the changing world of language, it is no longer just teenage girls at all.... So it has moved from that domain and has attained broader usage. I do see the issue of shortcut creation from the delete and cautious eds above, and their concerns are indeed valid.

The issue seems to be a need to discuss/establish separately from this specific discussion, usage/creation of shortcuts with colloquial and informal language - I can think of lingo/slang shortcuts for a number of subjects here on wv that might or might not be something that a consensual policy discussion might work around to work towards an accepted standard. sats (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point is that the policy is not actually about self-portraits, even using the broader definition of the term. It's about people, any number of people, posing in front of things in pictures, and "selfie" does nothing to suggest that. Texugo (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might be incorrect, but I think the issue is less about shortcut creation and more about addition of these shortcuts to the policy pages. I don't think it hurts to have lots of shortcuts lying around provided they actually make sense and aren't ambiguous ("Wikivoyage:ST" would be an example of an ambiguous shortcut to be avoided). However, while having a few commonly-used "shortcut" boxes is a helpful usability tool for some policy pages, adding a box for every single term that every editor thinks should be a shortcut makes for crowded and unprofessional pages, and in this case I agree with Texugo that "selfie" is not a particularly good shortcut term for the section it links to and would like to see it removed from the image policy page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. So is the compromise solution to keep the redirect but delete the shortcut's official-looking placement on the policy page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: when I first read LtPowers' original nomination, I somehow missed the part where he mentioned that not only did the redirect exist, but it was used as a shortcut on another policy page. If I had caught that, I would have immediately come to the same conclusion that he did under my keep vote (timestamped 14:25, 5 November 2013). So, yes, I hold that we should keep the redirect and delete its mention on the policy page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan: Sorry to be thick, but why exactly would "Wikivoyage:ST" be an example of an ambiguous shortcut to be avoided, please? --118.93.67.66 01:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've missed something, but to me the whole (and almost exclusive) utility in having a shortcut is that it is known and thus able to be used and understood.

If it's not visible in the appropriate and precise section of the policy page, then it will be neither used, nor become well known and will indeed be just pointless clutter!

Now I do agree that many existing shortcuts are neither memorable or obvious - that's why I have specifically called above for suggestions for something equally short, memorable and (perhaps) more pertinent to the relevant policy section as a whole.

Please try and focus on educating and encouraging new editors. I'm going to be very loathe to use explanatory edit summaries if I can't use a shortcut to pinpoint the relevant policy section that refers to my (perhaps otherwise inexplicable) edit or if that shortcut then gets summarily deleted meaning that my edit summary then becomes completely inexplicable to others in article histories.

Sandy, above, specifically asked "Where is the previous discussion?" I seem to have a (false?) memory about a quite long discussion somewhere about shortcuts such as PO or dt or NA or ip not cluttering up the search results in main space but always being created in wv: namespace instead. Was it Inas, or am I getting confused? --118.93.67.66 01:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage:Internal links --Inas (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Inas!
Good to know I wasn't having a false memory: http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage_talk:Internal_links&oldid=2385358#Shortcuts
--118.93.67.66 01:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The shortcut doesn't match the policy, that is to do with people in photos, rather than necessarily photos of the contributor. If a shortcut is really required (for a policy that we nearly never ever need) a better one should be chosen. --Inas (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be terrific if you (or anyone else) could suggest one, Inas. I just want a short, memorable, appropriate working shortcut that can be used in edit summaries and discussion pages and appear in the relevant ip policy page sub-section (or any shortcut is entirely pointless) and don't have any particular creator's attachment to this one - it was just the most memorable one I could think of at the time that wasn't just a jumble of letters. --118.93.67.66 04:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've spent far more letters discussing the shortcut, then you would save in 10 years of using it. It's truly redundant. However, if someone is going to propose a shortcut, good luck to them. However, it can't be a divergent from the policy itself. --Inas (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get the use of shortcuts. In this particular case, however, Ip in total is a quite concise page, "people in photos" is a heading so even in the TOC and that part of policy is only 2 lines. Wouldn't it make more sense to refer people to the general page anyway? Or at least until we can come up with a better suited shortcut term? JuliasTravels (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about WV:Posing as a shortcut for this? Texugo (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. It covers photos of oneself and also snapshots of other people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When do we ever need to reference this particular subsection in an edit summary? It's extremely rare. We should reserve shortcuts for only the most-frequently used policies, like xl and mos and dt. We don't need every section to have a shortcut, especially not if they're going to be called out on the policy page itself. (I should point out that we used shortcuts like the ones I've linked for years without having them called out on policy pages, thus putting paid to the notion that it's necessary to trumpet their existence from the parapets.) LtPowers (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we need to bring this shortcut thing to a head? Because we're arguing concurrently whether there is a need for a shortcut at all, and at the same time whether this is a good shortcut.
Personally, I don't see the value in policy shortcuts to infrequently used policies. However, I can also see that they do little harm, as long as someone is maintaining them, and they fall outside of the main namespace. I continue to believe that all the main namespace shortcuts should be removed, for the tour/tours reasoning.
So, if someone were to propose that we draw a line under the shortcuts that exist now, I'd offer it my weak support.
However, if we are going to create more policy shortcuts, we just have to make sure they are descriptive both of the policy and where it might go, or they are meaningless acronyms. This stuff should be boring, not out there. --Inas (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "tour/tours reasoning" that you're referring to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
tour is a place, tours is the policy? Did I get it right? 50/50 chance without checking.. We shouldn't have policy documents in the main namespace. The main namespace is for travel guides. But that is a rant for elsewhere :-) --Inas (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. No, you have it reversed. Tours is a city in France - one that I've visited, in fact. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and fairly useless template tagged as experimental since August. All it appears to do is add an @ symbol before a user name, making a Twitter-like tag. User:LtPowers asked for an explanation from the creator on the talk page there at the end of September, but no response has been given.

Very true - but it might be nice to keep it for the Wikipedians who might otherwise wonder why the syntax they're used to isn't working... --118.93nzp (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still, if we accepted that argument without qualification, we would simply import WP templates en masse for the convenience of wikipedians, but here on WV, templates are supposed to gain consensus before or at creation, not months later after they've failed to catch on. Texugo (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not supposed to subst: it. --Rschen7754 18:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Texugo. And please lets not make discussions private and personalised by spreading @ symbol. If you want to reply or talk with a particular user, the best way to do that is to post a message on that user talk page. Frankly speaking, I would hesitate to engage myself in a discussion where @ symbol is being used. --Saqib (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Deleting it will break any previous instances of it being used before. Furthermore, I don't see it doing anybody any harm. Purplebackpack89 18:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only arguments in favour, could equally well be applied to many other templates that could be imported from WP. Although that isn't necessarily a bad idea, and I think we can save ourselves much of the nitty gritty of running a wiki by leaning more heavily no our big sister for templates like these, this is something that our deletion policy requires consensus to do. As I've commented above, vfd is for applying policy, and not determining it. This is quite deliberate, so we don't end up with unnecessary debate, time-wasting etc. --Inas (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is obviously helping some people. There are times when it's good to act in the actual interest of people instead of reflexively deleting things just because that's the usual procedure. This is a website that is designed to serve the traveller, not a bureaucracy. Also, Inas, please give your input in the "Do no harm" thread on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not obvious at all. How is it either easier or more obvious to type {{Ping|LtPowers}} than it is to type [[User:LtPowers]]? LtPowers (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping leaves out the User: prefix. Also, this template is on several other Wikimedia sites, and having it here will help people. --Rschen7754 20:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obviously helping people because they're using it. LtPowers, why would it be so important for them to do it your way (if that's what you're suggesting) that this template should be deleted? It seems to me, that just creates totally unnecessary annoyance for people. I would hope we would actually stop discussing this template as soon as possible and move on to more important things, but the principle of leaving well enough alone is generally important to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Help people do what? The point is to avoid runaway template bloat, and it seems obvious that a good place to draw the line is at templates (like this one and Template:Done) that don't do anything but serve as extremely minor typographical shortcuts. LtPowers (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in your opinion maybe, but not in everyone's. --Rschen7754 02:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a really great case for "let well enough alone." Minor typographical shortcuts that some people like are a great example of something that's doing no harm (unless you can give me a convincing explanation of why I should care about "template bloat," I will continue not to do so), arguably has so little effect as to not be worth discussing at all, and should be left alone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessary templates clutter wikicode and make it harder for editors to contribute without learning what each template does. LtPowers (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you're right in general, with the prevalence of Twitter and the use of Twitter-like code on Facebook and elsewhere, this seems about as obvious as a template is likely to get. I fail to see the problem and don't believe in slippery slope arguments against something as simple as this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the word ping is user on twitter or facebook. @User:Ikan Kekek is far more easily understood, and isn't a significant difference in chars --Inas (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that was what this template did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. I don't see the benefit in terms of simplicity or brevity in using the template. You have to understand what ping means, what the template formatting is, and at the end of the day, you just end up with an '@' sign in front of a username. --Inas (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So that would be a problem if we made this template mandatory, but we're not doing that. Clearly, someone finds this useful, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole. Anyone finds it useful, and Does not do any harm may be entirely reasonable replacements for our current deletion rationales, but they aren't currently what we look to guide our decision making. If they should be, I'm willing to listen to the argument. --Inas (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument is one of reasonableness and user-friendliness. We don't want to be killjoys or to seem bureaucratic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template was correctly nominated since it was created without discussion and a long period of time went by without an argument being made to keep it. However, since the requirement for keeping a template is that it be discussed and that there i some agreement to keep it around, this VFD discussion should serve that purpose. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another experimental template sitting around since March, before the dynamic map template was worked out. It adds geographical coordinates fully written out in-line, which never gained consensus. In-line functionality will need to use an icon to match what appears on the dynamic map, and thus looks to be superceded by Template:Marker or something similar.

Result: Deleted. --Saqib (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental template copied from Wikipedia by an anonymous IP in April. No need has been discussed or established for it, and it has been sitting there ever since.

Before a new Mediawiki Template is put into general use it needs to be discussed and accepted as good or preferably best practice... If new templates fail to gain community support, they will eventually be deleted."
I would think 7 months of waiting is not a "knee-jerk" reaction; it should have been plenty of time to establish a need for and preferred way to use this template, but I think the fact is, we don't do a lot of linking to specific parts of a page. Texugo (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic example of where this site is wedded to the "old way" of doing things, and where things need to change... but yet practical unanimity is required to change anything... so nothing ever changes. --Rschen7754 19:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah come on, not that tired argument again. Lots of stuff has changed already. I don't see what that has to do with letting unused templates we haven't discussed or agreed to implement proliferate and clutter up our space. 7 months with no need, no use and no attention or discussion = clutter. Texugo (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could even be convinced to support it if we get a good bunch of people to discuss how and when it should be used and support and actually use it. But if it's just going to sit there in two whole articles and be virtually unknown and unneeded, I'd rather can it per policy. Texugo (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it's not used is because nobody knew about it. But nobody knows about it, so we should delete it. Why? Because it's not used. It's a bit circular. --Rschen7754 19:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody knows about it because it was imported anonymously and without comment to the community and thus never had a champion. If you're willing to be that champion and start a discussion in the pub explaining the need for it and when and how it should be used, and try to drum up a consensus of people who want to use it, I'd be more than happy to "put a freeze" on this nomination, unless others object. Texugo (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite clear that, according to current policy, you have an arguable case for deletion. The weasel word is, of course, "eventually". That period might be very long indeed if the educational effort is minuscule. As an analogy, I've recently discovered that even something in such widespread use in every article as our MoS preferred date format (mandated more than 8 years ago) has not been well known (or even known at all by some of our most experienced and hard working editors). Just because best practice isn't widely known or understood doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't be used (I'll refrain from mentioning best practice in thumbnail sizing) or the technical capability consigned to the bonfire. I'm afraid that I often find the arguments of "deletionists" technically correct but repugnant in their practical consequences. --118.93nzp (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem with "no one uses it" as a rationale for templates (in general) is that we seem to be in this pattern of tagging every new or proposed template with "This is an experiment. Don't ever use it or WV will cataclysmally implode and the world will end." then using the predictable result that no one used it as evidence it should never have been created. Self-fulfilling prophecy. I'd expect that some of the "experimental" templates might have been useful ({{mapframe}}, for instance) and some utterly useless, but using usage of the proposed template as a metric is useless if we're actively discouraging usage of every new template that's proposed. K7L (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for applying deletion rationales. If you have something to say about deletion policy, then I'd suggest saying it on the deletion policy talk page. Because we all agree we need to delete clutter, and we all agree we'd like to see innovative and new ideas. Making points here are going die and be archived with this particular nom. --Inas (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, send it to yet another talk page that nobody watches, watch it be shot down by the people who do watch it, and the idea dies anyway. --Rschen7754 07:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they should watch it, but there could be a pointer from the Pub and "Requests for Comment" to help out with that, or if you prefer to put every discussion in the Pub, I guess it could be put there. The point Inas was making - if he doesn't mind my interpreting that - is that if the discussion is about a matter of policy and not just this particular vote for deletion or retention, it would be good to put it somewhere else where it won't be archived whenever this discussion has been concluded and a decision has been made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Inas (or anyone else): What is the problem with "clutter"? I see no reason to delete anything just because it exists. It suppose something should be deleted only if it's worse for it to exist than not to exist. But it's not like every file takes up a certain amount of space in a storage room or something, right? So what, really, is "clutter" in this context? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template bloat makes the wiki harder to use. Unused templates don't take up much server space, but they do take up mental space, and they appear in lists of templates, making it harder to remember and/or find a template when one is looking for one. Used but unnecessary templates make wiki code more confusing for users not used to code. LtPowers (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...really? Do we even have any lists of templates? --Rschen7754 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only list is at Wikivoyage:Template index but it doesn't cover every template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, because people have been adding templates willy-nilly without recognition of our need to keep them documented. LtPowers (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Where should experimental/incubator templates be documented, please? --118.93nzp (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template was correctly nominated since it was created without discussion and a long period of time went by without an argument being made to keep it. However, since the requirement for keeping a template is that it be discussed and that there i some agreement to keep it around, this VFD discussion should serve that purpose. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if that's useful, we could keep the template for now. I'm unconvinced it's necessary, but it's not like I have to use any optional templates. I don't use Template:Done, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping it. I wondered whether it existed and specifically looked for it. In very detailed itineraries, like Ad's Path it helps with in-page jumps. I don't see how I would otherwise indicate where an alternative branch continues. Or where in the itinerary one ends up when taking a bus to get a headstart. --Polyglot (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

/var/www/wikivoyage/en

Result: Speedy deleted. --Saqib (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some coord templates

Some title icon templates

Template:Title-icons
Template:Otbp-icon
Template:Ftt-icon
Template:Dotm-icon
Template:Star-icon
Someone close this VfD please. I'm missing the delete button. --Saqib (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. --Texugo (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Printiata and Printicao

Template:Printiata
Template:Printicao
While I have your attention, why do we have {{IATA}} and {{ICAO}} when they seemingly break our current policy about not including in-line links to Wikipedia - especially when they both do an equally poor job of signalling that it is NOT creating an internal link within Wikivoyage? --118.93nzp (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{FAA LID}} also does the same. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News dividers

Template:Newsleftdivider
Template:Newsmiddivider
Template:Newsrightdivider
Template:Newstopdivider
Thanks for keep spotting the stuff that need to be deleted. Keep it up! --Saqib (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Prettytable is only used on one userspace page and Highlight is not used at all. No need for prettytable as table styling can be done by adding class="wikitable" instead. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ed and others

Result: Deleted. -- Texugo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2013&oldid=4924375"