Template talk:WPVG icon

{{WPVG icon direct}}

Isn't there some way to merge {{WPVG icon direct}} within this template? If the brackets are an issue, this template could just use the filename twice instead of relying on a subtemplate. Is there a benefit to keeping it separate and dealing with two different templates? czar 21:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I made it separate because {{WikiProject Video games}} (and a few others) were using the bare image name rather than a "[[File:"-prefixed link; if there's an easy way to combine them I'm cool with it. The only other usage is for a few image links in portals that passing a "|link=" parameter which isn't correctly processed by this template, but that's an issue that's probably easy to fix. My knowledge of template syntax is limited, though. --PresN 21:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 May 2016

Please make the icon link to WP:VG, it is not CC-BY-SA, but CC-0 so you don't need to attribute to the file description page. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 21:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Carl Fredik 💌 📧 21:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Declined, it's not linking to anything- this template is literally just a shorthand for "[[File:WPVG_icon_2016.svg]]", so that if we change the image url it only has to be updated in one spot (it was a big pain tracking down everywhere we used the WPVG icon last time). --PresN 03:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@PresN: That wikitext does link to something, specifically to File:WPVG icon 2016.svg (example: ). The request is to change the template to be shorthand for "[[File:WPVG_icon_2016.svg|link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games]]" (example: ). In practice, you might want to make that link={{{link|Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games}}} in case someone has reason to override the target somewhere.

AFAIK there's no technical or legal reason not to do so since the current icon is CC0, so it's up to WP:VG if they want it that way. Note if in the future you use a CC BY-SA or other non-public-domain image, you'd probably have to remove that linking so as to allow the usual link to the file description page to comply with the terms of the non-PD license. Anomie⚔ 03:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright, well, why not. Added. --PresN 03:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)