Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 2 March 4 >

March 3

edit

Template:Lityear

edit
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]

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

edit
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]

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

edit
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 SoWhy 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

edit
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]

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

edit
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]
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]
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

edit
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]

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

edit
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]

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

edit
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]

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

edit
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]

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

edit
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]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_3&oldid=1211536060"