Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2021

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
August 2021 Votes for deletion archives for September 2021 October 2021

Template:Itinerary skeleton[edit]

Obsolete according to Traveler100. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This template has been replaced by {{PartOfItinerary}} --Traveler100 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, Template:Itinerary was ostensibly deleted 5 October 2019, yet at some point, it was redirected to Template:Itinerary skeleton. I think it can be deleted without further debate. Does anyone want to contest that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps have a look at the code. The previous code was:
:''This article is an '''[[Itineraries|itinerary]]'''.''
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|[[Category:Itineraries]]|<!-- Don't categorize when not in main (article) space. -->}}{{#ifeq:{{#invoke:wikibase|disambig}}|false||[[Category:Pages linked to a data item for a disambiguation]]}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}[[Category:Hatnote templates]]
The code for {{itinerary skeleton}} is:
'''Itinerary''' is in [[Region_name]]. 
==Get in==
==Stay safe==
==Go next==
In which it is significantly different from what it was in 2019 before it was deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I think that's an argument to keep Template:Itinerary skeleton and (re?)delete Template:Itinerary? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps have a look at {{park}} or {{smallcity}}. I can't exactly remember why I created this template back in April, but it is meant to serve a similar purpose to the two I mentioned, where you just enter {{subst:itinerary}} just like you would for {{subst:smallcity}}. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, are you saying you recreated the deleted template and someone redirected it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the page logs, I created it back in April, but it was so long ago that I can't even remember. Also an FYI, but as a test, create a redlink, don't click publish, but have a look at the header. If this template is deleted, it may mess that header. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, we're talking about Template:Itinerary? If you recreated that as a different template than the one that was voted to be deleted in 2019, it's no longer really the same file. But do we need the redirect? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay, but then if we delete {{itinerary}}, then we'd have to delete {{smallcity}}, {{park}}, {{airport}} and so on. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
That template redirects to Template:Itinerary skeleton. It is not functioning on its own. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Similarly, templates like {{park}} redirect to Template:Park skeleton and so on. None of these shortcuts work on its own. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, I guess I don't understand quite what changed in 2 years, but if these templates are needed, so be it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • {{Itinerary}} was recreated without consensus to undelete, so I have deleted as it had been made a redirect. As for the skeleton template, I’m not fully clear on the rationale for deleting it in 2019, though I realize I ought to know. Is it that itineraries shouldn’t have templates? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 09:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    I am totally confused. Why shouldn't itineraries have skeleton templates, and why wouldn't there be a redirect as for the other skeletons? The reason stated in the nomination was "this template is no longer necessary", as replaced by {{PartOfItinerary}}. But PartOfItinerary does not have the same functionality as the current {{Itinerary skeleton}} to which this was a redirect, and there were two keep votes and no delete vote (the closing admin seemingly leaned on the confused discussion). –LPfi (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    Finally, I have someone who understands what {{itinerary}} was. It just so happened to be that I created a totally different template that just happened to have the name of a template which was deleted some time ago. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I got it above. I'm not sure why it was deleted during this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So @SelfieCity:, mind you consider undeleting {{itinerary}}? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes Done --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 09:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Off the beaten track in Japan[edit]

I feel this article should be deleted as there is no objective criteria for what is off the beaten path, along with that nothing in this article couldn't be presented in each individual article. Tai123.123 (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. This is really an annotated list of links. We don't need objective criteria, but the list has to be plausible enough to be useful. Is it, or could it be edited so as to be useful? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
This has been discussed before -- see Talk:Off the beaten track in Japan. I think it would be a good idea for Tai123.123 to review that discussion and respond to the arguments that led to the article being kept when it was discussed in 2014. (The article has had few edits since then.) Ground Zero (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't realize it was posted before, feel free to delete Tai123.123 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@Tai123.123: it's okay to renominate an article, but you want to be sure to respond to the arguments raised before to convince other editors to change the decision. Ground Zero (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ground Zero Sorry, for bothering you guys Tai123.123 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it can but it seems it has been kept before Tai123.123 (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The details should be in the individual articles, but an article like this let's a reader find which individual article to look at. A subjective list is ok - we don't need an objective criteria like "destination visited by less than 10% of international visitors to Japan". The reasons I gave for "keep" in 2014 also still apply. AlasdairW (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per the arguments presented in the previous RfD nom. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sanskrit phrasebook[edit]

I quote AndreCarrotflower's statement for the RfD for the Esperanto phrasebook:

All the rationales for deleting the Ido phrasebook apply here: Esperanto has no monolingual speakers, is not the official language of any country, is not terribly useful as an international auxiliary language in a world where English has de facto taken over that function, and the chances of a traveller needing to speak it to get along in a certain place are zero. Therefore, this phrasebook is out of scope and should be deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And I think the same applies to this as well (except the official language bit which I'm not sure on). I thought Sanskrit was a dead language until I stumbled across this. According to the first line, it says that it's an ancient language in which many Hindu religious texts were written, but it never says that anyone speaks it. Most people who speak Sanskrit can almost always speak another language as well, and I don't think a traveller would ever have to find themselves needing to know Sanskrit is basically 0%. And I should also mention that Esperanto had at least some speakers, albeit not used. Sanskrit is not. Even Esperanto has its own Wikivoyage. Sanskrit doesn't and will probably never get one, since a) it's a dead language, but b) even Norsk was rejected. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Question: "even Norsk was rejected"? To what does this refer? To the Bokmål/Nynorsk split discussion? The reason not to split was simply that the languages are close enough and partly geographically intermingled, so that there is no use carrying two phrasebooks instead of one.
Comment Sanskrit, on the other hand, is "widely taught today at the secondary school level", according to Wikipedia, across language communities I suppose. I don't know how widespread actual (basic) proficiency in Sanskrit is, and whether it is concentrated to certain communities – which could be good or bad for those carrying a Sanskrit phrasebook – but, given the many languages in India, it could be useful in areas for which you don't carry a phrasebook of the local language. You don't need to meet first language speakers, it's enough that you meet people who understand your phrasebook phrases.
LPfi (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm referring that Norsk is well spoken, but yet the proposal was rejected by the language committee. Now at least Norsk is spoken in some areas. Sanskrit is dead. This was just a comparison to the Esperanto language. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Eh? Norsk is Norwegian for Norwegian, and there is both a w:no: (Norwegian, mostly Bokmål) and a w:nn: (Nynorsk). The issue discussed by the language committee, as I understand it, was whether to change w:no into w:nb, i.e. make the "Norsk" WP version officially and clearly Bokmål, and the discussion was about how to treat other variants of Norwegian (such as Riksmål), which can be seen as independent or as variants of Bokmål. Some articles in w:no are written in those variants and perhaps shouldn't be called Bokmål. It was deemed to be enough of a mess that any change to status quo would be a mess too. –LPfi (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First of all, there was no consensus to delete the Esperanto phrasebook, so by current standards, it would not have been deleted (Ido is another matter, only a couple of hundred speakers, none native). Second, I refer you to w:Sanskrit revival:
Sanskrit revival is the accumulation of attempts at reviving the Sanskrit language that have been undertaken. This revival is happening not only in India but also in Western countries like Australia,[1] Germany, the United Kingdom,[2] the United States and in many European countries.[3]
Sanskrit is one of the 22 official languages in India.[4] In 2010, Uttarakhand became the first state in India to have Sanskrit as its second official language.[1] In 2019, Himachal Pradesh became the second state to have Sanskrit as the second official language.[5] There are 2,360,821 total speakers of Sanskrit in India, as of 2011.[6]
w:Sanskrit could be cited for a counterargument: "There are no known native speakers of Sanskrit." But I can't see deleting a phrasebook for a language with well over 2 million speakers. I could see emphasizing ritual language readers might hear in ceremonies, though; that's a different question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: if there were no consensus to delete the Esperanto phrasebook, then why was it deleted? Second of all, I'd not think about the rituals because the last and only time I went to India, they refused to let me into three temples (before I gave up) because I was irreligious (meaning only 1.35 billion people would ever have a chance of getting into one) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The policy has been amended since, formerly consensus was needed not to delete. –LPfi (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I think number of speakers is the relevant number. Number of native speakers is irrelevant, unless those second language speakers are native speakers of English, which I suppose most aren't. What counts is whether people you want to communicate with understand your phrasebook phrases, and would be inconvenient to communicate with in other ways. –LPfi (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
SHB2000, I'm not a Hindu and have visited many Hindu temples, where no-one asked what my religion or beliefs were. Only in Varanasi was I told that non-Hindus couldn't go into temples. Besides, 1.35 billion people is a hell of a large number! Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I guess that it might only be a thing in the south (all three of my attempts were in Mathura and Chennai where all three of those which I tried said that non-Hindus weren't allowed in). Oh, but with the 1.35 billion (or 1.2 billion according to w:Hinduism by country which says 1.35 in the lead paragraph and 1.2 in the Demographic estimates section), almost all of them are in India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Very few outside those. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you still arguing for deletion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am. If Esperanto was deleted, so should Sanskrit. If Sanskrit was not deleted, I believe that Esperanto should be restored. Plus, we don't have a Latin phrasebook, and Latin is at least spoken a lot more than Sanskrit and is the official language of the Vatican. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you understand that it didn't take a consensus to delete the Esperanto phrasebook (there was ultimately a slight majority in favor of keeping the Esperanto phrasebook, yet it was deleted per then-existing policy), but it would take a consensus to restore it, and that's why it won't happen? As for Latin, are you seriously arguing that it has over 2 million speakers? Your evidence for that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, you're seriously comparing Vatican City, a single neighborhood of Rome, with Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, which have populations of some 200,000,000 and 6,864,602, respectively? I really think you're wasting your time on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
In fact, there was a strong majority (about 80% of discussion participants if I remember correctly) in favor of keeping the Esperanto phrasebook. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. From WP, "Sanskrit has been taught in traditional gurukulas since ancient times; it is widely taught today at the secondary school level. The oldest Sanskrit college is the Benares Sanskrit College founded in 1791 during East India Company rule.[44] Sanskrit continues to be widely used as a ceremonial and ritual language in Hindu and Buddhist hymns and chants." These seem to be good reasons to keep this phrasebook. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - The focus of this phrasebook is clearly wrong, as evidenced by the fact that it remains virtually devoid of content 14 years after its creation; "Stop, thief!", "I plan on staying X nights", and "Do you accept credit cards?" are not sentences a traveller in India will ever need to express in Sanskrit. For those, they'll use English, Hindi or one of the many local languages. Therefore, if the Sanskrit language is widely used in ceremonies, rites and academia, but not at all in everyday life, then a totally different approach needs to be taken compared to all our other phrasebooks in order for it to serve the traveller.
So I guess my question is what would that look like? How do you write a travel phrasebook for a language like Sanskrit that isn't used by travellers to communicate their basic needs or to understand everyday interactions, but nonetheless may be culturally useful or interesting to learn? What types of words and phrases should it cover? If somebody can answer that in a convincing way, then this phrasebook would be worth keeping. But the existing empty shell that, without a change in focus, will probably continue to be an empty shell for the next 14 years doesn't serve the traveller and would be better put out of its misery.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
What do Indians learn when they study Sanskrit in secondary school? Do they read old ritual texts or do they get proficiency also in everyday language? If the latter, it may be more practical for a traveller to use the Sanskrit phrasebook to ask those everyday questions than to figure out how to ask them in the right one of "the many local languages". Given of course there sometimes is a significant chance a person you need to communicate with (or somebody around) knows Sanskrit better than English.
For a different focus of the phrasebook, we should have somebody to identify key phrases that make it easier for travellers to follow those rituals. Something like "Let us pray", "Hallelujah", "Amen" etc. if it were for Christian services.
LPfi (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Rangan Datta Wiki: who might know a bit more. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
If some people object to deleting this, how about instead of deleting this, making it a travel topic similar to Australian slang (which as Ikan Kekek mentioned, travellers may hear in rituals, ceremonies etc.). Since saying "Stop! Thief!" or "I'm calling the police" isn't exactly in scope, and have little use, and something like what LPfi mentioned except for Hindu services. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
People can hear Australian slang in rituals? ;-) But seriously, that's worth discussing at Talk:Sanskrit phrasebook after the article is kept. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Of course not ;). I was just using that because that's the only language based travel topic based on a phrasebook (and maybe the Lazymans phrasebook ;)). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
My favourite phrase from a printed phrasebook was in a section called "On the slopes". The expression was "Look out! I've lost control!" Imagine the situation arises, so you pull out your handy phrasebook, flip to page 79, practise the pronunciation a couple of times, and you're all set. A language topic may make more sense than a phrasebook. Ground Zero (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Spotted in a Welsh phrasebook, written pre-Internet: "The word I need is not here; this book is bloody awful!"
Replying to user:LPfi, if it really were "more practical for a traveller to use the Sanskrit phrasebook to ask those everyday questions", wouldn't we see other practical Sanskrit phrasebooks out there? Wouldn't the Lonely Planets and the Rough Guides etc dedicate a few pages of their India books to 'colloquial Sanskrit' if such a thing existed? A language-based travel topic, with some words and sentences that the traveller will encounter in the right places, makes infinitely more sense to me than a phrasebook.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Phrasebooks for languages like Sanskritt help travellers understand the culture of places they visit. When more complete these will help a traveller understand a service in a temple, and possibly other cultural events. Similarly you don't need the Māori phrasebook when visiting New Zealand, but it enhances the visit. We don't have a policy requiring phrase books to be complete (or a certain % of phrase complete) within a time limit. (Possibly the list of phrases should be changed for this type of phrasebook, but hat is a separate discussion.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    @AlasdairW:, although Maori is a special case. It doesn't have any mention on "stop, thief!" or any of that. Sanskrit is written like an ordinary phrasebook. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    I think Sanskrit uses the standard list of phrases in the template. I would support having a different shorter standard list for "cultural phrasebooks". Nobody is going to say "Do you accept British pounds?" in Navajo. AlasdairW (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    That point needs a separate discussion. There is no procedure that I know of to remove unnecessary phrases and add new phrases to individual phrasebooks after they have been added to the template. I think this is a special case of that problem (unless the article is transformed into travel topic); there is no procedure to reinsert a phrase lost because somebody thought it was unnecessary. It is not clear what phrases of the standard list are useful or not useful for "cultural phrasebook". I also assume that varies by language. –LPfi (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The edit would be manual. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, and I don't think a "cultural phrasebook" template would work, for the reasons given above. Each phrasebook for a language that isn't strictly practical or necessary is going to need its own set of words and sentences.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep It is of huge cultural significance to India (and even in many Southeast Asian countries), and you are very likely to encounter Sanskrit in religious ceremony. Also, Sanskrit speakers certainly do exist, and I have personally met someone who is a fluent speaker of Sanskrit, albeit not a native speaker. And also, knowing Sanskrit helps a lot when you want to learn the languages of South Asia and Southeast Asia, since many of them contain many Sanskrit-derived terms. And as a side note, if somebody wants to write a Latin phrasebook, I have no objection to that either. The dog2 (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Iditarod Trail waypoints[edit]

Bald Head[edit]

One of a series of skeleton articles that falsely claim that waypoints along the Iditarod Trail are villages. These were created by an unregistered editor who also falsely claimed that the Iditarod Trail is a road that can be driven in a vehicle. It is only navigable by dogsked, snowmobile, and maybe trail bike. Ground Zero (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Moses Point[edit]

Another waypoint, as above. I can find no evidence of an actual village here, i.e., one with a place to sleep or eat or buy anything, and no point of interest. Ground Zero (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


Another waypoint, as above. I can find no evidence of an actual village here, i.e., one with a place to sleep or eat or buy anything, and no point of interest. Ground Zero (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete all, per WIAA.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all three SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. I suppose these waypoints are very relevant for those doing the Iditarod Trail, especially Moses Point, which has an airfield. If nearly all the waypoints fail to be relevant on their own, then they might be better as listings in the trail article, but if most are kept (only three are nominated for deletion) then having listings for these while keeping the rest makes the itinerary odd, or doubling the information. The waypoints are now not mentioned in the itinerary, but have Go next couplings (à la routeboxes). The articles do little harm as is, so if there is a chance to have them expanded at some point, I'd leave them alone. Otherwise they need to be merged to the itinerary in a sensible manner, not only these but all waypoints (those kept just need a summary in the itinerary). –LPfi (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
    Ungalik may also be important as a Get in for the trail, as you can get there from Koyuk, which according to Wikipedia is a city of 332 inhabitants. The "city" redlinks, though. –LPfi (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, these are uninhabited places with nowhere to sleep or eat, and no points of interest. The articles provide no information about these places, and they don't have Wikipedia articles. These articles were part of a misguided or deceptive attempt to create a driving itinerary, which doesn't exist.
    • The private airstrip at Moses Point for which you have to get approval for using is 10 miles from the public airport at the actual town of Elim. Ground Zero (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Outcome: Deleted per failing to meet wiaa. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


This is almost an exact copy of {{mapframe}}, except only with less features, nor is it used in any articles and should be used in any articles. The main contributor of this template only has 10 edits on Wikivoyage, and I don't think this is even worth considering to be moved into anyone's userspace. An unapproved template, as well as a duplicate. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. It doesn't seem to be the template created by that user any more. The current version is by Andyrom75 ("main contributor" sounds silly, as each has made one edit, not based on the others' work). –LPfi (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    @LPfi: I consider main contributor in terms of how many bytes they've added, and not how many edits to the page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    @SHB2000: The point is that few of those bytes are left in the version now discussed. –LPfi (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a special variant of Mapframe, adapted for use on Destinations. This used to have a map of the world, with all the destination articles marked. Then mapframe was altered to disable the layer= parameter, and some time later Mapframe2 was introduced to overcome this, and restore the map of destinations. In June 2021, the map again wasn't working and the template was removed from the article. See Talk:Destinations for a several discussions on this. Ideally this would be fixed and the template restored to Destinations. If the result is to delete this template, please move it to my user space, and update Talk:Destinations#Destinations_works_again. AlasdairW (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
We could undelete it if necessary, but the aforementioned page is reasonably effective at the current time. I still support deletion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep. It is clear that there is a reason for this template, and it is not making it difficult for walk-by contributors, as those don't need to edit Destinations, and there mapframe and mapframe2 are equally hard to grasp for non-regulars. If there is consensus on Talk:Destinations that we don't want this template, then it is probably unnecessary, but keep until then. –LPfi (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept, as LPfi and Alasdair have made good arguments on this template. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)