Talk:Art. 23 1/15, Art. 23 2/15 and Art. 23 1/16
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Edcolins in topic "G2301/15"
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Infoboxes edit
The two infoboxes are entitled "Art 23 1/15 and Art 23 2/15". I think the first one should be "Art 23 1/15" and the second "Art 23 2/15". Can somebody correct this? I am not sure which parameter should be changed... --Edcolins (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm, they take the page name by default. I'll see what I can do... L.tak (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks... There is actually another issue: the link "Court composition" leads to the article European Court of Justice. --Edcolins (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- wow, that was wrong for all other uses except the CJEU cases. Solved it now with a black link. If there is a suitable article (section) to link to, that's easily implementable... L.tak (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- And also the naming should be solved now... (I am starting to get the hang of those templates ;-)) L.tak (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks... There is actually another issue: the link "Court composition" leads to the article European Court of Justice. --Edcolins (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
"G2301/15" edit
Where does the reference "G2301/15" actually come from? --Edcolins (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- From EPO-->Google Cash-->Techrights.... So that is a bit shaky... But as we only have to conclude that it exist(ed), I think it is ok to refer tot that... It is a pity noone immediately had it archived at a formal archiving service... L.tak (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! Fascinating. Thus, the decision did make it to the EPO website, but apparently only for a short time. There is actually a trace here: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g950006ex1.html , under "Citing decisions". The link is dead, unsurprisingly. --Edcolins (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- No longer a dead link. The decisions are now available on the EPO web site. --Edcolins (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Third template edit
In the third template on "Art. 23 1/16", the blue link D. Rogers is misleading. Using the full name (David Rogers) does not help either, since this also creates a misleading blue link. How could this be solved? Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)