Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 10

< November 9	November 11 >

November 10

Template:Wikitravel

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete after replacement. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikitravel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These need search and replace, followed by deletion of the WT versions:

{{wikitravel}} → ~~{{wikivoyage}}~~ {{wikivoyage-inline}}
{{wikitravelpar}} → ~~{{wikivoyage}}~~ {{wikivoyage-inline}}

Total is a little over three thousand affected pages. Wikivoyage (voy:) is now a WMF project, Wikitravel is a fork of the same project owned by a for-profit (Internet Brands) which is currently suing various individual WMF volunteers per [1]. We need to link to our own sibling projects, not commercial rivals. I've also raised this item on project: bot requests due to the number of pages involved. Redirecting anything which mentions WT isn't OK (potential trademark issue), this needs search-and-replace, then deletion of the WT name and mark. K7L (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC) K7L (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change and deletion, and am willing to do the replacements. Hazard-SJ ✈ 02:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikivoyage (foundeded 2006), is the fork, not Wikitravel (founded 2003). -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the original authors have all or almost all left WT for WV, at this point WT is the fork - even if IB staff and spambots are still occasionally editing there. The CC-BY-SA content is the property of the authors, not IB. K7L (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also support, but Template:Wikivoyage should link to wikivoyage-old until the WMF project is released from beta. –sumone10154^(talk) 06:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to link to "old" versions of WV (and I'd include both WV-old and WT in that class) as search engines will find the links and start penalising the site for duplicate content. Best to link just the WMF version, or use rel="nofollow" for any abandoned, archival or forked versions outside Wikimedia. K7L (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Although Template:Wikivoyage should probably be blanked until the beta is over. JamesA ^>talk 07:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. We should link to wikivoyage-old as an interim measure, if necessary. MER-C 09:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we should move {{wikivoyage}} to {{wikivoyage-inline}} and use {{wikivoyage}} for the analogue of {{wikisource}}. MER-C 12:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on {{wikivoyage-inline}} if that's the naming convention that other siblings (like Wikinews) are currently using. I was just looking for a template that would be a drop-in replacement for the WT version, as this is on a few thousand pages and a robot isn't going to be aware that one's a box and the other inline. The name doesn't matter - but does need to be known before the 'bots remove the links to the old template and drop in any new one. K7L (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is preferable that articles use the {{wikivoyage}} right-aligned box format as it is more noticeable and fits in better with other sister project boxes. -inline is for use when the right-aligned box causes layout issues. We'd also need to merge {{wikivoyage}} into the larger {{sister project links}}, on articles like Paris#External links. JamesA ^>talk 07:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is already done, but is currently opt-in until (I presume) Wikivoyage leaves beta. MER-C 10:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! JamesA ^>talk 11:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. Wikipedia should link to its sister project. --Atsirlin (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Support. I think that migrating all current links to Wikivoyage is the right idea, however after that is done, {{wikitravel}} should be reverted back to its original state, so links can still be made to Wikitravel. There shouldn't be any prohibition against links to Wikitravel, just that we should recommend linking to our own project. Legoktm (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we ever want to link to Wikitravel if it has the same content as Wikivoyage, yet simply more out-of-date? (This is what will inevitably happen, I expect.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that the owners of Wikitravel are suing Wikipedia contributors, so it is in poor faith to continue to allow links to their website when they are so antipathetic to our project. JamesA ^>talk 11:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Eloquence said it best on meta (note that he also mentioned legal implications). If a template is called "wikitravel", it should link to wikitravel. You can't have a template called "wikitravel" that links to a project called "wikivoyage" when they're clearly two different things. Legoktm (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, a redirect from {{wikitravel}} to {{wikivoyage}} should be avoided. I don't know how trademark law works, but Internet Brands would probably be very happy to sue the Wikimedia Foundation if the company finds some potential trademark violations, considering that the company already has sued a couple of former Wikitravel contributors. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree. A bot should be used to change the templates so that {{wikitravel}} becomes unused, then it should be deleted. JamesA ^>talk 00:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I mentioned this above, but there was no response to it. The main {{wikivoyage}} template (with the right-aligned box) should always be used wherever possible, unless it negatively affects the page layout. The inline template should only be used in cases where {{wikivoyage}} does not work. I would oppose complete replacement of {{wikitravel}} with {{wikivoyage-inline}} as it is gives much less exposure to the project on articles, as we must maximise this. JamesA ^>talk 11:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although Template:Wikivoyage should possibly be blanked until the beta is over and any migration issues resolved. Definitely no support for WT links, that website is creeping evermore out of date, is poorly patrolled, and WV is a Wikimedia partner project. -- Felix (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strictly speaking, it's Wikivoyage which is the fork. Wikitravel uses the original databases, servers and names, whereas Wikivoyage had to create new user databases. However, it seems that the majority of the users have moved to Wikivoyage, and it also seems unethical to link to a website which forces lawsuits upon its contributors. However, I'm concerned about WP:COI in this nomination: some contributors to the discussion are also Wikivoyage contributors, some of them being administrators. I could maybe also be seen as having a conflict of interest as I'm helping with the Wikivoyage image migration. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a temporary measure. In the long run, most if not all uses of {{wikivoyage-inline}} should be replaced with the {{wikivoyage}} sister-project template. --Carnildo (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think migration would be a good idea Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MedalSum

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Deleted by creator. WOSlinker (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MedalSum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:MedalSplit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the MedalSum template fails wp:accessibility guidelines due to the lack of scope and heading information for the rows and columns. there is an alternative, which has this information, namely {{MedalCount}}. it also does not require the use of {{MedalSplit}}. if there is a problem with the column headings not being appropriate for a particular application, we can always add a feature to modify them. Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Talkin' 'Bout Your Generation Summary

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkin' 'Bout Your Generation Summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template which I merged into List of Talkin' 'Bout Your Generation episodes. Themeparkgc Talk 06:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.