Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Modernista!/Notice

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. It's unlikely we'll be getting any more clueful and fresh opinions, and it's clear how the discussion will end anyway. east.718 at 23:42, April 5, 2008

Modernista!/Notice

This seems unneeded and unsupported by policy. It appears that any page that links to this company's site will show the linking page. For example, click on this link: http://www.modernista.com/ or use the one I put at

• Nominator request Please, any closing admin -- do not speedy close this one. This has happened twice now, so it might be helpful to get at least several days' consensus clearly established of whether this practice is acceptable.
  t/e 15:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• delete What on earth is going on here when creating the page, AlisonW notes that Move notice from talkpage to its own page for ease of inclusion and for ease of protection measures should that prove necessary - protection? what? This is not normal process but I suggest this is crossposted to AN/I because this looks damn serious to me. --87.113.52.175 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a note on
  t/e 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete This should not take place in article space. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — this has nothing to do with the article. Modernista appears to have a novel concept for a website, wherein they overlay a menu with their logo and a disclaimer over the site which links to them. In their words, this allows us to see them "through the eyes of the web". They clearly state the menu on the left is our homepage. Everything behind it is beyond our control, which in no sense would imply that, as the big red warning symbol says "Wikipedia serves as their homepage provider". The statement that this novel website concept uses Wikipedia "as a promotional mechanism in this manner for any third party" attacks the company in question, despite no demonstrated intention that this is the case. I don't see any legitimate purpose for this disclaimer. --Haemo (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Haemo sums it up well. Also, subpages don't work in mainspace, so this is technically an article. A company uses one of our articles as a webpage so we put up a disclaimer? That doesn't sound right. Mr.Z-man 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also note that I've seen similar things in 2 other cases. In one case, a politician uses our article (in a frame) without all the extra stuff that this company has as his website. I believe there is also an anti-George W. Bush site that does the same thing (though for the opposite reason). Shall we put templates on those pages too? Wikipedia has so many non-GFDL and non-trademark compliant mirrors, why not put something like {{
    Userpage}} on every article just in case? Mr.Z-man 02:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete Apparently they have stopped hotlinking to us, and now link to the last website the user visited. I think this notice no longer serves any purpose. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Point of information The default modernista page is, in fact, their wikipedia page overlayed with their overlay. If you open up a blank page and then go to www.modernista.com, you will wind up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernista!, overlayed with their advert, contrary to the factual assertions of Lucasbfr, Haemo and the nominator. Archfailure (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We have no control over outside websites, and this still doesn't give anyone authority to supercede
  t/e 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• My hair is brown.

• I'm just clarifying that if I got the technical facts wrong, it doesn't matter as far as NPOV goes. If this is a legal matter for the WMF for protection of their trademark, then that's a job for Mike Godwin. Unless the WMF board, who we elected, says that NPOV is in force except for when it annoys the WMF, Article space is sacrosanct against intrusions like this. We have to eat our own dogfood.
  t/e 19:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You do not present an argument that the pastel box is a violation of NPOV (aside from your bald assertion, unsupported by fact.) Whose POV is being expressed as fact? If this is correctable by editing, why has such not been attempted? I mean, I know why - we all do. It's because your dear friend Greg thinks this would be fun for him to dramaz, and you're just playing along. Archfailure (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The NPOV violation is that the WMF's POV is secondary to our own
  t/e 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I would just like to point out that what I said was accurate — it appears they also do this if you just go to their website's main url. I still don't think they are in any way trying to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool — if you'll notice, their logo only obscures about a third of the WMF logo, and their logo scrolls with the page. That's not to mention the disclaimers I pointed out. --Haemo (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there's absolutely no call for this. Corvus cornix_talk 19:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the same reason the Wikia template Lawrence refers to above was deleted a while ago. Article space is not the place for the WMF to fight its battles. --
  barneca (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Note: Since this template was specifically requested by Jimbo, I've notified him of this discussion. I think he got it wrong on this one, tho. --
    barneca (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete, redundant, a disclaimer in an article, and really uncalled for to mention the opinion of several random Wikipedia administrators inside article space.
  Discombobulator (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Wikipedia should not be at the mercy of websites which display Wikipedia content. Should we start templating all our articles with a notice for every fork we are not? Nonsense. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: how many people would visit their website from a blank page anyway? --
  talk) 20:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've never really understood the point of creating a new template that would only be used in a single article. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete:
  WP:NDT. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I don't really see a need for this disclaimer. Given Modernista!'s disclaimer, it's a bit redundant... and is this seriously a template used for one article? Kind of a waste. Dookama (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No disclaimers in articles. The article should not have a notice, full stop.
  H₂O) 01:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete given that we don't have disclaimers to push a POV in article space. Even if that is the WMF POV. (Well, aside from the fundraising links I suppose, which aren't disclaimers). --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete really just silly. No disclaimers and whatnot. From looking at my traffic it wouldn't even qualify as a live mirror, im pulling up wikipedia on my own machine according to ethereal (or wireshark, if you must use the new name) -
  M^ask? 01:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. We need to do something, but this is not the thing that we need to do. I'm not opposed to having some sort of talk page notice, but article space is for articles, not disclaimers. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that we should not put disclaimers in articles based upon what third parties (even the subject of the article) do with them.
  ^Sing 15:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete - How embarrassing. This problem was trumped up by anonymous users on the talkpage, then somehow the Foundation heard about it. Wikipedia Admins shouldn't be promoting copyright fascism, even for the sake of Wikipedia. "Modernista!" doesn't violate Wikipedia's copyright and clearly isn't intentionally using Wikipedia as an advertising mechanism, because the website displays every page it came from, indiscriminately.