Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2019

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← March 2019 Votes for deletion archives for April 2019 (current) May 2019 →

Template:Orphan and Category:Orphaned articles

Unused template that still has the experiment tag on the top of the template page. It had the vfd tag at the top for about 6 years with, apparently, no clear results accomplished (see Template talk:Orphan) and the tag was finally removed in early March. But let's get this sorted out, once and for all. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we should be making use of this. It was mentioned in the previous discussion that this just replicates Special:LonelyPages. I saw a page recently which does not appear in Special:LonelyPages because it was linked on the talk page of the anonymous editor who made it, but was otherwise unlinked from any mainspace page. This template would be a good use case for that. If there exists a truly equivalent special page, or at least a third-party tool, then I would see a case for deletion. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 23:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The concern I have is that, during the nomination there may be some interest in the template, but within a month or two of being kept (if it is kept in the end), it will again return to disuse. If this template has been hardly ever used, if at all, since Wikivoyage was set up, I don't see why the template will become popular in the future. On top of this, the template is still currently in the "experimental" category, and as long as it remains experimental, the Orphan template can only be used on one page, more-or-less making it useless. If we move Template:Orphan out of the experimental category and we use it commonly, I don't mind keeping it, but otherwise, it's just more to take up space that never gets used. That is my concern. But thanks for your input. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A little longer. If you look at the history I restored this at the beginning of March. Did some experiments to identify articles with no main page links to them. Method I tried did not work but still working on the subject on and off. AutoWikiBrowser should do this but could not get it to work. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maintenance templates are often not be used - somebody identifies the problem and puts the template in the article, then the next day another editor fixes the problem and removes the template. Unless the problem can no longer occur, or there is a replacement way of identifying the problem, the template should be kept. AlasdairW (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added this template to Parks and monuments in New England and to Records, which I found in the current COTM push for banners on travel topics. I think that this shows that the template is useful. AlasdairW (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the first of those two for deletion, but trust me, that's in no way anything to do with Template:Orphan. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that the Maintenance Panel links to Special:LonelyPages as Orphaned pages. However I think that the template will highlight the issue to anybody else editing the page, which would normally mean that links would be added to other articles than nominating it here. AlasdairW (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment undeleted the category created by the template and added it to this discussion. No sense in keeping one without the other. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, when was the category undeleted? I don't see that in the page history. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just now - see Special:Log for that page ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage:Tourism Bureau Expedition

Seems to have had no activity since 2014. Alternatively, it could be labeled as historical, but is there really much reason to do that? Apparently, the page has been moved in the past, so this may be worth considering during a deletion nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though there is no activity since 2014, this expedition was once active and should be kept and labeled as historical. Out of date discussions are still kept as archive, so that it is still able to be seen. SmileKat40 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SmileKat40. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images


Seems to fail EDP, as it is a non-free image that isn't a photograph of copyrighted artwork or architecture. (I also don't think it "materially contributes to the quality of one or more travel guide articles" as required by the policy—IMO the Tel Aviv article would be better without the Eurovision logo.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say common sense says "delete" – we have EDP for a reason, and that's to discourage non-free content when not essential. In any case, policy clearly says "delete". Feel free to start a discussion to change EDP if you want. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so this image was uploaded less than two days ago and its intended eventual use is obvious, yet you're saying that it absolutely, positively has to be deleted now - even though it's only going to be re-uploaded again in a few weeks' time - solely because it was uploaded too far in advance? I'd say that goes well beyond being scrupulous with regard to policy and into the realm of tedious hair-splitting. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm saying. Sorry, my statement above must have been unclear. The problem is that EDP prohibits us from using this image at all, on the main page, in articles, or anywhere else, because it's a non-free image that isn't a photograph of copyrighted artwork or architecture. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the question is whether its intended use makes WV so much better that an exception is warranted. Do we want to use non-free content to highlight featured events? I think we should rather send a signal that restricting use of the logo means we are not going to use it. Let them keep their logo to themselves. There is no reason to use copyright law to restrict use of trademarks, which have their own protection – and the author should get their pay from the organisation, not from other users. --LPfi (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using a logo briefly to illustrate an upcoming event I think is a reasonable use, and I think it is the most effective way of conveying information to readers. If a logo doesn't qualify as an "artwork", then I think we should loosen EDP to permit this. I don't feel strongly about keeping it in the Tel Aviv article, but I think it is useful on the Main Page, and it should be deleted after the Featured Event period is over. Ground Zero (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be the most effective way, and I don't think there is any legal trouble with doing so, but I think such use should be allowed without reading the organisation's terms and conditions. If they try to dictate how we are allowed to use the logo (they could demand we do not give bad reviews – I haven't read their material), then I think the logical thing to do is to not use their logo. By using it we accept them dictating conditions, and I do not think it is very important for our readers to see that logo; in the case of Icelandic architecture there may be a real conflict between wanting open content and serving travellers, but not here. Our readers should be able to find our featured events regardless of us using and them recognising a logo. --LPfi (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be worth discussing the pros and cons of allowing non-free logos at Wikivoyage talk:Non-free content or the pub. But I think it's clear that under current policy the image isn't allowed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no trouble using logos like this, and they have much more experience with copyright issues than we do. This is a tempest in a teapot, I think. Ground Zero (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing it would be illegal for us to use the logo. But there are good reasons why our EDP doesn't say "Use any image that qualifies as fair use"; LPfi has mentioned some of them. Again, if you want to change the policy, we should have a discussion about that elsewhere. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, "photographs of artwork and architecture" (as stated in policy as an exception to the general rule of not allowing these kinds of images) means paintings and architectural designs that would be useful for a city's travel guide or information about a particular culture — that section of policy is not about logos as mentioned above. My stance is weak delete. My stronger vote is that we adjust the policy text to more clearly state what's allowed and what's not allowed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're nearing 14 days, but I suggest that we hold off on closing this nomination so that (a) we can give the policy discussion time to be settled first and (b) we can close this nomination together with the ones below, since they're about the same issue and some of the comments below apply to this nomination as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted (see below). —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-free image that fails EDP, as it isn't a photograph of copyrighted artwork or architecture and isn't used in any articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted (see below). —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-free file that fails EDP, by virtue of not being used in any articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted (see below). —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More files that fail EDP

These are the only other ones I can find: more non-free files that fail EDP, because they're not photos of copyrighted artwork or architecture.

—Granger (talk · contribs) 01:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Delete and support any and all enforcement of EDP (e.g. all of these noms). Although I think these files are harmless on their own, it seems that most of the files we host fall under categories that are not specifically exempted. While I normally have no problem with informal departures from the text of a policy, EDP is an exception for legal reasons and our behavior with regards to this content should be as legible as possible to the WMF/Commons community. If we want these files, we should modify EDP to match. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you must, but the fact that this issue is being pressed IMO only underscores the urgency of the need to update our EDP. Wikipedia's apparently uncontroversial usage of similar nonfree logos, as Ground Zero has pointed out, is ample evidence that there's no realistic legal danger in using these files for their intended purpose. And needless to say, restrictiveness for its own sake is fairly pointless. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andre. This is enforcing a policy for the sake of enforcing a policy, not for the purported legal reasons. Events and organizations use logos for the purpose of quick and easy visual identification, the same reason that we would want to include logos on our main page. Those that are for past events can be deleted right away, but deleting those for coming events puts policy enforcement ahead of connecting readers to information. Ground Zero (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @AndreCarrotflower: As far as I know Wikipedia does not use nonfree files on their main page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger: can you cite the policy, please? I can only find reference to the Picture of the Day having to be a free use image, for reasons not related to the use we are discussing. Ground Zero (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
w:Wikipedia:FAQ/Main_Page#Why_is_a_Main_Page_section_missing_an_illustrative_image? —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To Ground Zero's points, I don't think the logos provide very much value to readers. I don't think the visual identification they provide is enough to outweigh the importance of keeping our content free to aid reuse (not all reusers can take advantage of generous US fair use provisions as they apply to a non-profit educational website). But again, discussions about whether to change the policy should take place elsewhere. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AndreCarrotflower, LPfi, SelfieCity: and anyone else who is interested, a discussion has been started at Wikivoyage talk:Non-free content#Allowing temporary use of logos in EDP. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted. Taking these discussions together, it's clear there's consensus to delete all of these files in light of policy, and a proposal to change the policy failed to gain consensus. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/April_2019&oldid=4924209"