Talk:Montage (image software)

Promotional
This article in its current for seems to violate WP:PROMOTION namely "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.". Internal ELs need to be cleaned up per WP:EL and general notability needs to be established. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion tag removed
I removed the proposed deletion tag because the "concern = Advertisement for a commercial product" is invalid. This is not a commercial product, it is public software provided free of charge re:

''Montage, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Earth Science Technology Office, Computation Technologies Project, under Cooperative Agreement Number NCC5-626 between NASA and the California Institute of Technology. Montage is maintained by the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive.''

WP:PROMOTION problems still remain but a valid reason to PROD this article has to be given. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Although this software was developed by a government laboratory it is not "public software", free software or open source software, at least as these terms are commonly defined. Please review the license agreement for this product. This license agreement must be accepted before access to the product is provided and it restricts the license fee free use to certain "noncommercial" uses which the agreement narrowly defines. Furthermore the agreement requires that the user register with the license holder by filling out an online form before access to the source code is provided. Users of the source code are explicitly forbidden from extending, redistributing or using the software source code in any derivative product development. Please also note that the terms of this software license agreement are not consistent with the licensing and permitted use claims made in this article. Aldebaran66 (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

External link as source
Re: this edit, http://www.astropy.org/montage-wrapper is not a source per WP:SOURCES per "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is User:Astrofrog linking (and promoting) his/her own website. As such it is WP:CITESPAM. It could be moved off to EL's section where it belongs (ELs do not belong in the article text no matter how they are formated). Please note http://montage.ipac.caltech.edu/ already contains this link---> on its home page so there seems to be no need to include it as a separate link, Wikipedia is not about everything and is not a LINKFARM. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? The source is used to support a factual statement ("A Python wrapper to Montage has been developed as part of the Astropy project.") about which there's no debate. The link is used to support this factual statement about itself, which is explicitly allowed by WP:SELFSOURCE; it meets every one of the listed criteria at WP:SELFSOURCE (except "especially in articles about themselves", but that's not a requirement). I think that including the statement is relevant in this article, as it's a community-wide method of distributing the Montage software.
 * I agree that astrofrog's posting of the link was somewhat questionable due to a conflict of interest, but that doesn't prevent other editors (like me) from judging that the link is appropriate, so that reasoning is irrelevant. I don't care whether the link is included; I simply think the statement improves the context in the article and this is the best reference to support the statement. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 22:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The source and "factual statement" shows existence. Existence is not a criteria to be in Wikipedia. If it was I would post my own drawings of Lincoln tomorrow and put the links up at Abraham Lincoln as a reference saying "I did it and it exist". Again, that's not a source, and you skipped the negative criteria at WP:SELFSOURCE "unduly self-serving". An editor linking his/her own website is unduly self-serving. The Montage Web site has 3 links to software developed by the Montage user community: Python-Montage, DSS Pleiades Mosaic Bash Script, and C-shell Scripts. We are not linking all 3 plus all the other downloads, documentation, publications, community info etc because? There is an official site and per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL we should probably stick to just linking the main site and let readers find what they want and not unduly promote any one aspect of it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still completely confused by your argument. You seem to be talking about notability, but that's irrelevant here -- this link isn't being used to establish the notability of either montage or astropy. Though I recognise that astrofrog was deliberately adding links around Wikipedia to astropy in an (inappropriate) attempt to establish notability of astropy, that's water under the bridge. I'm suggesting that the sentence I mentioned above helps with context for montage, and the best reference for that statement is the link you think is spam. Since your objection seems to be to the link, should I just add the sentence without a reference? It's not like the statement is controversial.
 * Aside: what establishes the notability of montage? I was drawn here by the discussion regarding astropy. The notability of montage appears to be established in exactly the same way as that of astropy: by one published article by the tools' team. (Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 04:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I never challenged the notability of Astropy and never removed it. I simply moved it down to See Also and removed the obvious linkfarm style cite spam. Astropy needs no citation, its a Wikipedia article (probably still is, I haven't checked). Lacking anything else to say about the subject, its better as a See Also. The existence of ELs/refs are subject to Policy and guidelines, those supersede talk page discussions and they do prevent other editors (like you and me) from making our own judgment as to whether a link is appropriate, its already stated in a consensus guideline or policy and should be followed per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
 * Per your suggestion I have expanded the article re:user scripts and software. I don't think it needs a citation, our only source is the Montage website.
 * The notability of Montage (with only one third party ref) is even worse than Astropy, so yes, it could be challenged. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me; thanks. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 21:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * DSS pleiades mosaic.jpg