Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 16

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.

Stale

Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

Tell me why we need to have this? The CC-BY-SA license does not have the allowable option of disclaimers as an invariant section (which is one of the reasons why we hated the GFDL anyway) ViperSnake151  Talk  18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA Section 4(a): "... You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform..." Dragons flight (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What the hell? We don't do this "subject to disclaimers" crud because of the previous problems. When and how did we end up with the trouble coming back on ~20,000 media files? — Gavia immer (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were already subject to disclaimers. It wasn't added to the any image that didn't already bear disclaimers under the GFDL. It is doubtful that the licensing transition can remove such a statement placed there by the copyright holder since both GFDL and CC-BY-SA require the preservation of such disclaimers. Dragons flight (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am not a lawyer, but from my reading of Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, we should be able to get rid of this template. Please scroll down and read section 11 of the GFDL before automatically saying, "no we can't". Section 11 says that we "... may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site ...". In other words, we are throwing out the old license (and its disclaimers, anything else) and republishing it under the CC-BY-SA. So the only way it would have disclaimers is if we, as a part of this process, choose to add them. We can simply choose not to and drop the "with disclaimers". --B (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think "this License and to the disclaimer of warranties" is talking about the license text ITSELF. The license itself here has its own disclaimers. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That reading is absolutely wrong. Both licenses envision the possibility of people adding disclaimers (such as for fitness of use, etc.) in addition to the license itself. Dragons flight (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both licenses envision people adding disclaimers, but this is the single unique case of migration. If we were to republish a GFDL image under the GFDL, we would be required to preserve disclaimers. If we were to republish a CC-BY-SA image under CC-BY-SA, we would be required to preserve disclaimers, BUT FOR THE SINGLE UNIQUE CASE of one-time migration from GFDL to CC-BY-SA, there is no provision that requires us to migrate the disclaimers. In this limited, single, one-time, unique case, WE are the original CC-BY-SA publishers and so disclaimers are only included if we want them to be. --B (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disclaimer isn't (legally) part of the license declaration, hence changing the license should neither add nor subtract it. Consider the work as if it has several parts: 1) The image itself, 2) The attribution to SomePerson, 3) GFDL license declaration, 4) The disclaimer statement. We are allowed under the GFDL migration to replace part 3) with a CC-BY-SA declaration, but neither license allows us to remove either the attribution (part 2) or the disclaimers (part 4). In my opinion, the correct reading of republish is a narrow interpretation allowing for a change in the license declaration only. Like the attribution, the disclaimers are separate from that, in which case republishing would carry them through. Incidentally, the preservation of disclaimers question was addressed this same way at Meta many weeks ago with neither Mike nor Erik disputing it. However, I've asked the question of Mike directly for a follow-up opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've referred the question to Mike Godwin. I'd appreciate it if people not take it on themselves to close this until he gets back to me. Dragons flight (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold, waiting for Mike Godwin to comment on this case. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:56, 24 July 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.

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) 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Central Conference (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A defunct NCAA Division II athletic conference, I don't know of any other defunct conferences that have their own templates. Dafoeberezin3494 (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 22:06, 16 July 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.

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) 00:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KTM motorcycles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

(Nearly) all the articles linked from the template have been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KTM_50_SX I42 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Navbox is a red link farm, delete per nom. -Masonpatriot (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, it's always easier to destroy than to create. --UrSuS (talk) 10:06, 17 July 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.

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) 00:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Junior Classical League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The top half of the navbox is a red link farm, with no indication whether any of the red links will meet

• Keep I think that this has gone through a nomination before, but I'm not sure. I think that this needs to be kept, but there is just a lack of people who are interested in it. These pages have survived to this day, under the notability of the national chapter existing. It also is better than multiple categories.
  talk) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Is there a justification for linking to every university that has hosted a JCL conference? Frankly, it seems more like a method to populate the navbox (since there are are barely any other articles the navbox links to), even though it's counter to
    WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Masonpatriot (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment Yes, and only because they hosted the convention. I'll be willing to compromise if you think that it would make the tmeplate better, as basically being the sole editor of the template makes me a bit biased. Honestly, I have considered making the whole university thing smaller, as I think that it is a bit too much, and I would achieve this by axing the "university of" or "university", etc. part.
      talk) 21:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Comment I'm not particularly interested in a reformat of that section, those links simply shouldn't be in the navbox (should it be kept). Hosting a conference does not in any way make those articles connected to the organization as a whole, and those links should be removed per
        WP:CLN#Disadvantages_of_templates #5. Don't get me wrong, I still support deletion of the entire navbox, but the universities section is particularly egregious. - Masonpatriot (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Delete overcoverage. Linking to all the locations where the conventions have been held is simply clutter.A plain list would do. DGG (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can write in the whole convention taking place at X in the article if that would float your boat per se. I was focused on tagging the articles, and didn't really know where to place the information. I also was unsure if some editor would just come along and delete it. That's my concern, but i'll be happy to add the information to the article if you think that it would work.
  talk) 02:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Yes, that information, if relevant, should be on the main JCL article page, not in a navbox, and those university articles should not be tagged with the navbox. Regardless, I concur with DGG's thoughts on deletion. - Masonpatriot (talk) 05:16, 21 July 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.

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) 00:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Media franchises/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The actual template has been merged with Infobox Media Franchises. This documentation page was not deleted in move Oldag07 (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like all of the content is already included in
  Template:Infobox Media franchise/doc, so the page could be speedied under G8. Jafeluv (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• As creator, I say speedy delete it. LA (T) @ 17:45, 16 July 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.