Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 12

< April 11	April 13 >

April 12

Template:Linked-title

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. JPG-GR (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linked-title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template apparently designed to use lots of nasty code to prevent bots from following the manual of style's recommendation to delink dates. The code caused unnatural line breaks and other oddities. Any way you look at it, this was not a good idea. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure where does its usefulness lie, but I'm fairly sure that it doesn't work. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused template. I am sure this is the wrong way to go about solving this problem, anyway; the bot operators should design their bots not to cause disruption without modification to the wiki. As far as I can tell they have as this template is unused. — Jake Wartenberg 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rich below. No harm is done by leaving it alone, perhaps with a note that it is no longer best practice to use it. — Jake Wartenberg 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's unused and we don't want anyone to ever use it again. Deleting would make sure of that. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete I feel pretty silly changing my vote a second time, but I think you're right. — Jake Wartenberg 03:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The same link to the MOS shows an Temporary injunction on a red background: we are not to be involved in date-rendering programs like this for now. After the injunction: revisit this proposal. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That text reads, "editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise." I don't see how that applies to the deletion of an unused template. — Jake Wartenberg 01:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, The injunction-text says, in bold: "Temporary injunction regarding linking/delinking", and the title for Arbitration says "date delinking". The injunction is placed right in the section on Linking and autoformatting of dates of the MOS. Now the template name, function and effect is using just this injuncted combination: date, link, autoformat(yes/no). So I take the template as being under the the injunction, before and after interpreting its intention. Why not wait for the Arbitration to give a solution? Then we have a policy to work from! Second: indeed not used now in articles (Userpages yes). But 24h ago it was. The proposer here has recently removed all article-links (uses) to this template (I happened to be working on the /doc at the time, guess my suprise). That is not the way we are supposed to start a discussion, is it? Also the same user has notified that the wikipedia-software (e.g. DISPLAYNAME) might change within some time, so the template might come under review from there too, after the change. Three: while documenting its group of 10 templates Category:Wrong title templates, I see a lot of work to be done there. When the two changes are made, we can start a more systematic review of the set. I would not be surprised losing some, surely. Then. Mind, we have to revisit the MoS's too, etc. Concluding: Two reasons why this VFD is ahead of time, a pre-VFD-editrun, a full set can be done in one go: why the rush? Let's :Autoformawait. -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, this discussion is funny, it's like the template actually has something to do with the date linking debate. (It was in fact used in earlier versions of {{day}}, and i believe in some parts of the Current Events structure. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment: linked dates are autoformatted according to logged in user preferences, because of their link. That's the connection, the WP:MOSNUM section is called Linking and autoformatting. Subsequently, the debates are about autoformatting too, like a major returning distraction (just can't get rid of it). The template was used earlier elsewhere? I feel no weight here. -DePiep (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, how do you plan on using this template? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If date pages should allow self-linking, and bots are screwing that up, fix the bots. If this were a useful fix at all, it would be in use, and deleting an unused template isn't controversial. Nor do I see the Arbcom injunction as applying to an administrator's deletion of an unused template as a result of TfD. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~If kept, how do you plan on using this template? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Huh? If that's a question to me, I don't plan on using this template. That's why it says "delete" up there. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that question was intended for the person that commented right above you. My mistake. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course deleting this means every date will have page history that renders wrongly. Rich Farmbrough, 22:00 14 April 2009 (UTC).

That happens every time we delete an image or template. We don't keep obsolete pages around forever. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (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:FLGovernment

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. JPG-GR (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template seems to be based on a misunderstanding that Florida's government works are public domain. According to [1], "MyFlorida.com is owned and operated by THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES (referred to as "DMS" herein). No material from MyFlorida.com or any Web site owned, operated, licensed or controlled by THE STATE OF FLORIDA or DMS may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way. Materials may be downloaded on any single personal computer, for non-commercial use only providing all copyright and other proprietary notices are kept intact. Modification of the materials or use of the materials for any other purpose is a violation of THE STATE OF FLORIDA and DMS's copyright and other proprietary rights." I note, too, that myflorida.com bears a clear notice: Copyright 2008 State of Florida. Likewise, the Florida State Department asserts that it is "Copyright © 2001-2009. State of Florida, Department of State." As Florida's governments works are not automatically public domain, this template could be misleading. It is currently utilized on two articles, both of which are at WP:CP as both are drawn from Florida government sites that clearly assert copyright. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Copyright notices to a website is S.O.P., however, this does not demonstrate that the Copyright claim is accurate or enforceable. In Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Findlaw) (Copy), The Second District, Court of Appeal, State of Florida, the Court appears to rule that the copyright claim is invalid. Gamweb (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Appears to rule" is slim protection for Wikipedia to take an official position that the copyright notice utilized by the State of Florida is not legally defensible. This would be, in my opinion, a matter for our lawyer. I'd be happy to ask his input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. As I'm preparing my letter for said lawyer, I find this: [2]: "...the District Court necessarily decided that the protections afforded by Federal Copyright Act and Property Appraisers’ duties mandated by Florida Public Records law were mutually exclusive, when a review of the actual laws as written demonstrates that they are not....The end result is that a class of constitutional officers is deprived of its federally guaranteed rights by a state court which had no jurisdiction nor necessity under state law to decide a federal issue." This doesn't change my opinion that we need feedback from our lawyer, but the outcome of that case could have obvious bearing. I'll see if I can find a final decision. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've written Mr. Godwin and provided him a link to this discussion. Hopefully, we'll soon learn the Foundation's position on this one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Regardless of whether this template is kept or deleted, it is currently misleading in that neither the notice itself nor its documentation clearly highlights the relevant statutory exemptions, of which there are several (some are listed on Commons:Template:PD-FLGov). Regarding its legality, the current legal status quo [3] supports the position that "The Florida public records law [...] requires State and local agencies to make their records available to the public for the cost of reproduction. This mandate overrides a governmental agency's ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption." However, whereas images are easy to delete in case of a change in law, I'm disconcerted by the prospect of text whose public domain grant can be at any moment revoked, after it may have subtly intermixed with original contributions. In light of this I'm supporting deletion, at least until such time as the interpretation of Florida Law becomes fixed and established. Dcoetzee 20:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Carl Lindberg's rather convincing argument at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-FLGov that this decision is established will not be overturned lightly, I am reversing my !vote to Keep. Dcoetzee 02:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner is authoritative. This is a rehash of an issue I raised and discussed ad nauseum months ago. Not misleading. Revocation of public domain grant concept seems highly speculative; retroactive laws are generally considered unconstitutional. Could be improved to reference Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, etc. --Elvey (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Godwin spoken? This issue has been raised before, and there are conflicting administrative actions. Mike et. al., please look at the STILL UNRESOLVED discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Federicaswilson.jpg as well as the conflicting edits it links to (other images, some deleted, others not, all covered by the Microdecisions decision). --Elvey (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2009 (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:Métropole Télévision

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Métropole Télévision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly unused Template (1 article) consisting mostly of red links (W9 is a disambiguation page). The categories and the title don't match the reality -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. — Jake Wartenberg 21:20, 12 April 2009 (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:2008 Stanley Cup Finals

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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 Stanley Cup Finals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consensus have been to not use these sorts of templates for ice hockey articles. It serves no purpose since a player having played on a team with another player is not relevant to the subject of the article the template is used on. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 08:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These don't serve much purpose and tend to clutter up the already "busy" articles. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This has actually been deleted before under another name. I will find the link. It probably qualifies for speedy deletion. -Djsasso (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet found the one specifically for this team, but here is one where they deleted them for all other teams that won the cup. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_21#Template:1915_Vancouver_Millionaires. It also links to a number of other tfds where the cup teams were deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per previous tfd that Djsasso pointed out. I do not think the 2008 article was created last year as the tfd for the 1915 et al discussion was still kind of fresh. I could be wrong though. -Pparazorback (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2009 (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:Post-disco

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. JPG-GR (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Post-disco (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A zealous editor, User:RockandDiscoFanCZ, created an article, redlinked a category, and created this footer template for the topic of "post-disco" music. Whereas disco has considerable notability, related topics and sheer content to justify having a category and footer template, post-disco doesn't now and will probably never have enough traction to justify having its own category or footer template. In fact, it's not even clear it belongs on Wikipedia at all; post-disco is a music genre apparently fabricated by the editor's only source, Allmusic, which has already been maligned on Wikipedia as an unreliable authority on genres. As of today, I've pruned the post-disco article to a bare minimum. I intend to expand it to include some information on "boogie", for which I have a handful of sources (see Talk:Boogie#Disco boogie) and which is post-disco's only plausible "subgenre". The only other articles tied to the footer are a list of artists and a subsection of an article about one of the Grand Theft Auto video games which has a boogie-themed "radio" station in its soundtrack. mjb (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2009 (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.