Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 3

< March 2	March 4 >

March 3

Template:Lityear

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. Very similar to Template:Filmyear, which was recently deleted as being contrary to WP:EGG. RL0919 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template creates a piped link to years-in-literature articles, such as [[2010 in literature|2010]]. Such piping is deprecated and not wanted anymore in articles. Any incoming links can easily be removed with AWB. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every instance of this template is currenltly displaying an error due to the deletion template (i.e. in Goodnight Moon. LukeSurl^{t c} 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that removing this template makes a lot of articles less user-friendly.98.225.230.65 (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale for Template:Filmyear. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (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:Ymu

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) 02:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template creates a piped link to years-in-music articles, such as [[2010 in music|2010]]. Such piping is deprecated and not wanted anymore in articles. Had fewer than 10 transclusions, all removed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "year in X" links are undesirable, so a template that makes them is extra undesirable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 7 March 2010 (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:PD-Italy

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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Italy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It was determined at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy that this tag is invalid. It will probably take some effort to sort through the ~1000 files tagged with this, so deletion should probably be accompanied by a maintenance grace period. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the Commons deletion closure:

PD-Italy will be deleted as PD-Italy is imcompatible with the copyright policy of Wikimedia Commons that requires freely licensed images only. A summary of the reasons:
EU copyright: The EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection of 1993 sadly made the quite liberal italian copyright much stricter. That restoration became effective on July 1, 1995 in all EU members, as they all had incorporated this binding EU directive into their local laws.

US copyright: The U.S. URAA became effective on January 1, 1996, i.e. half a year later. That's rather unfortunate for us, because it means that any copyrights restored in the EU under that 1993 directive also became restored in the U.S. under the URAA. Tough luck, but we cannot change that.

Artistic vs. simple images: The copyright restorations of the 1993 EU directive apply to "photographic works" only. Some EU member countries know a second class of photographs for which shorter copyright terms apply. This distinction is subject to different standards and adjudgements by different courts (even within the same nation) and that for in general not a useful criteria in Commons. Furthermore most of the images tagged with PD-Italy are even artistic according to the old italian laws (like covers of magazines and books, which thus never were public domain in Italy). So all images tagged with it need to be reviewed and only a very narrow fraction can be considered not artistic according to current italian laws.

Keep The deletion of the template at Commons was misguided and wrong in the first place. The template should be kept because none of the arguments invoked invalidate the legal provisions on which the template is based:

The EU Directive did not make the Italian law much stricter as far as photographs are concerned. EU directives are not self-executing but need national legislation to be implemented. Italy implemented the 1993 directive through Law No. 52 of February 6, 1996. The official Italian text of the implementing law can be found here on the website of the Ministry of Justice (sorry, I couldn't find an English translation). The law left the rules regarding simple photographs intact. There is nothing peculiar in this since directives normally leave member states with a certain amount of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted. In fact, the directive only applies to "photogrtaphic works" and states that "member States may provide for the protection of other photographs" (Art. 6). The Italian Association for the Defense of Copyright itself states on its website that the more lenient rules for simple photographs are still valid. Some people on Commons have argued that this is a violation of the EU directive. However, I believe that it is certainly not up to us here to decide whether or not a piece of legislation is compliant with an EU directive. If the Italian government (which like any European government, employs numerous legal professionals perfectly acquainted with EU law) decided to leave the rules for simple photographs untouched, then I don't see why we should decide to invalidate these provisions here at Wikipedia. It is up to the Court of Justice of the EU or Italian courts to exercise judicial review, not up to Wikipedians.
The Italian implementing law was adopted on February 6, 1996. The U.S. URAA became effective on January 1, 1996. EU directives are generally not considered to be binding before they are implemented by member states. Therefore, even if we were to support the argument that the rules for simple photographs were invalidated, this occurred after URAA became effective, so all photographs which had entered the public domain in Italy before that date remain out-of-copyright in the United States.
Distinguishing between artistic and simple photographs is viewed as being a highly subjective decision by some, who thus argue that such a distinction is not a useful criterion for Commons. However, Italian law couldn't be more explicit in this regard: simple photographs are defined as "images of persons, or of aspects, elements or events of natural or social life, obtained by photographic or analogous processes, including reproductions of works of figurative art and stills of cinematographic film" (Art. 87). There couldn't be a clearer definition. This obviously doesn't apply to covers of magazines and books, and if some files were uploaded using this tag, then they should obviously be deleted. The definition is so limpid that it is perfectly possible to determine whether or not an image is to be considered a simple photograph without exercising any subjective judgment.

--BomBom (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I agree with BomBom. Nothing but copyright paranoia got it deleted in the commons. The tag is still useful for works which are actually public domain. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 11:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (at least for now) I am not an expert in copyright law but BomBom makes a good case against deletion here. And Wikipedia is not Commons after all. Since this is a question that concerns almost any project handling such files, I think the Foundation should be asked to commission a legal opinion from an expert in this area that clarifies this question - before we decide on whether to delete thousands of files based on what might be an incorrect closing of a discussion from a German volunteer four years ago. Regards So Why 16:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Laws are not retroactive, an even in the case of the US 1996 restoration, all non-artistic photos older than 1976 are effectively in Public Domain. EU copyright doesn't apply here, since WP is a USA-based foundation.--Darius (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2010 (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:PRChina

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. Creation of a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, with no contributions from non-blocked users. See WP:CSD#G5. RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Either useless or pointy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep faster way to write [People's Republic of China|China] ConfuciusInstitute (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are aware of the fact that the People's Republic of China is not the only China? I don't see the purpose of this template other than legitimizing some edit-wars and POV-pushing... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- no every time you read china in the media it refers to the PRC ConfuciusInstitute (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but Wikipedia WP:MOS specifically requires differentiation between the terms PRC, ROC and "China", and for the sake of neutrality, does not regard either side as the sole "China". We do not lean to the PRC or ROC side, we either state the political entity in full, or we refer to the civilisation itself, and not the states. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prematurely close discussion as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Polylepsis/Archive. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:27, 6 March 2010 (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:Global warming controversy

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. Discussion on improving {{Global warming}} by adding items can be done in its talk page. Magioladitis (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Global warming controversy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be a non-neutral template created for pointy reasons in an attempt to circumvent a consensus about excluding certain links. Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_22 at [1] by some reason. Nsaa (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serves no purpose that cannot be better served by a sub-section in Template:Global warming --Nigelj (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you on that iff the articles listed here (Hockey stick controversy Climatic Research Unit hacking incident Criticism of the IPCC AR4) is included in {{Global warming}}. But this has been tried, but has been blocked by some editors, see below. I see a clear case for inclusion of these in the section Opinion and controversy where Global warming controversy already are in the subheader. Nsaa (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because articles on AGW controversies or criticisms are not being allowed in the main AGW template, this template is necessary to list and compile these articles to help guide our readers, much like this template I created a couple of months ago. Cla68 (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support your position here. I see no wrong in having the same article in the {{global warming}} template, but as you I've seen an aggressive removal of it by these tree editors: ChrisO (talk · contribs), William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) and KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs):[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. The second one even called my inclusion of this template on the articles for spamming ("and been spammed into articles"). Nsaa (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided for now. On Cla68's observation, this is apparently based on his recent attempt to get some articles about specific events added to the main template, template:global warming. This has not achieved consensus and the template, although it contains a whole subsection on the controversy, remains at a relatively high level. I don't think Cla68 can reasonably claim that this is only because the events he wants to add are all about controversy. The global warming template doesn't, for instance, have any mention of the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, a very important event indeed. The template is already quite large and because of the controversy section it's quite easy to locate and navigate to the high level articles on the controversy and thence to related articles, in a way that seems natural enough. On whether we could have a controversy template, I'm undecided. At first sight it sounds like a POV fork. --TS 14:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious POV fork. Cla68's reasoning is specious; if relevant and significant aspects of the issue are being kept out of the template, that problem should be solved instead of creating a separate template. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:POVFORK which states "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. ". How can I have done that by creating this sub-navigational template for the Global warming controversy? Many of the removal of the articles listen in this template was by stating that Global warming controversy was the high level and we only include the high level in our {{Global warming}} template. Just see the discussion at Template_talk:Global_warming#Link_to_article_on_the_Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident where ChrisO states "This really shouldn't be difficult to understand. This is a top-level template, listing top-level articles in the topic area. Global warming controversy is the top-level article for the various GW controversies. Hockey stick controversy and Climatic Research Unit hacking incident are low-level articles dealing with specific issues within the GW controversy topic, of which they are subtopics. As low-level articles, they don't belong in a top-level template. That's basic taxonomy. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)" Nsaa (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You created the template with the specific intent of highlighting negative viewpoints advocating a largely fringe position. That's a textbook example of POV forking according to the very section you quoted above. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you in my head know? No I created it to get an overview of the controversies surrounding Global warming and help other readers to find our articles on the subject. I think you should read WP:FRINGE. Nsaa (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep alternative the same article should go into {{Global warming}} under the appropriate section. Why should we not help people find related stuff about global warming controversies? I've not get one reasonable comment on that. Nsaa (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do something consistent. At first blush this appears to be a classic POV fork: editor tries to change an existing page, but other editors object, so the first editor creates a new, redundant page. The argument against putting these links in {{Global warming}} is about inclusion of detail-level articles in the template, but Hockey stick controversy (excluded) seems at least as "high level" as Bali Road Map (included). If there is a legitimate consensus that separate navboxes are needed for the more detailed articles, leaving {{Global warming}} as higher-level, then this should be implemented more consistently, not just for the articles that reflect a particular POV about climate change. That would mean trimming down the lengthy template sections on "Mitigation" and "Potential effects and issues" so they just have higher-level articles, with the detailed links going into separate templates. Under that sort of scheme, this would not be a POV fork, in which case, I would say "keep". But I doubt that is the plan. More likely there is just a POV issue, where some editors are biased in evaluating a link as "low level" or "high level" depending on whether it discusses something they like. In that case, the solution is to bring the issue to a wider audience, such as with an RFC, in hopes of diluting such biases, not to fork the template. In which case, I say "delete". Take your pick; just don't be hypocrites about it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's forget the Global warming-template for a moment. Is it or is it not logical that people easily get to know other detailed articles about the global warming controversy, if they first are on one of these pages? That was the rationale for making this template. Off course it could be in the other ones, but since there's so strict opposing to it, this template is a better solution? Mabe you can draft an neutral RFC on the Template:Global warming template and explain something like you did here? Either include the "low level" articles in this template (and this template gets deleted), or not and this template (and others are created) to take care of the sub articles? Nsaa (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to become engrossed in the political morass by posting an RFC myself, but I would be willing to help you (or whoever) come up with reasonably neutral language to use for an RFC that they would post. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you want to go that route. --RL0919 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete as POV fork William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into the existing Template:Global warming. This template seems like a POV fork; apart from anything else, it implies that the articles it links to are part of one connected 'controversy', when arguably they're three or more separate disputes. If kept, it should be renamed to 'Global warming controversies' at the very least. But I'm not sure it's a good idea at all; these links would be better presented as part of the larger global warming template than by creating a separate 'controversies' template, with all the associated POV and WP:SYN issues. Robofish (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see how this adds value as a "navigation" template when there is already a top level navigation template for {{Global warming}} and an encyclopedic article on the Global warming controversy. If this isn't a POV fork now, which it certainly appears to be, then that is surely what it would become. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Template:Global warming. I agree with Robofish, this is a case of PoV fork.--Darius (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this pointy-but-pointless template has been listed here for almost three weeks. Time to close this discussion and delete it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to {{Global warming}}. Any addition information can be merged there, and no need for forks. (sporks are fine, just no forks). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:15, 13 March 2010 (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:Cougar Town

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) 03:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cougar Town (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates four articles, one of them only secondary at best. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only connects four, really three articles which is not enough to make a useful navigation box. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 15:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN. No need for a template just to navigate among three articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary for just two articles (the third doesn't belong there). Characters/episodes already well linked in the main article through its infobox and in prose links, the two lists can easily be connected with a simple see also. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:27, 3 March 2010 (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:Infobox Frasier season 1 episode list

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. RL0919 (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Frasier season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no apparent use. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason to keep an orphaned template around and can't see any practical use it could have. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:26, 3 March 2010 (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:Anime conventions in the United Kingdom

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) 04:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anime conventions in the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN. Only two whole articles. Wow. That soooooo needs a navbox so people don't get lost. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary. Although I find it odd that Ayacon and Minami con don't have articles seeing as they are much older then Amecon and are covered in print materials from the 90s.Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd also like to see {{Anime conventions in North America}} deleted for exactly the opposite reason (far too many links to be useful). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough notable ones to make it a valuable navigating tool at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (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:Homeward Bound

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) 03:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Homeward Bound (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template for a film and its sequel. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I should make an essay about templates (oh, wait, I did). Not everything needs one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because both film articles already link to each other in a structured manner, through their infoboxes. Erik (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2010 (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:Kappa Mikey

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 as a navbox without enough distinct links. RL0919 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kappa Mikey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All content was redirected or is about to be deleted. This leaves only the character and episode lists, which is not enough for a template. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Navigation no longer does much if they are all redirects to a much smaller collection of lists and articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:18, 12 March 2010 (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.