Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 4



Template:Brett Kirk Medal

 * 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 relisted on 2014 February 15 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 relist moved to Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 24. —PC-XT+ 02:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:JPL Image

 * 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) 19:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * JPL Image

This template encourages a uniform attribution for images from JPL's web site galleries (the largest being the Photojournal), when in fact the appropriate attribution varies from image to image, e.g. "NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASI/USGS" or, "NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASU", as the case may be. If attribution is needed, Wikipedia users should copy and paste the attribution specified for the image, rather than use a uniform template. However, in general the attribution is given in the "author" field of the Wikimedia Commons image page and does not need to be repeated in Wikipedia. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned to you before, I consider the lack of attribution in the image-caption to be a violation of JPL policy. I would kindly ask to wait until a discussion of the core matter has yielded a result. The core problem for Wikipedia is: Is the usage of JPL images on Wikipedia – as is today – a violation of JPL's copyright terms? (And are those terms even applicable/enforceable?) That is the core matter. Deleting that template now seeks to create facts before the core matter has been discussed.
 * Secondly, after a proper discussion has yielded results, the template can be adjusted to include parameters and further modified to suit all users tastes. If there are cases that need to be included, I take it that this should not pose problems to include those in the template. E.g. . I think a consistent way to handle this copyright issue should be of advantage to all. (I am not very skilled in changes to templates, but started improving the template at question. However I stopped in order to wait until the core matter is clear. Should that matter be resolved, I'm sure we'll find a way to handle that template.)
 * Tony Mach (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One more thing: JPL is managed for NASA by Caltech under a contractual arrangement begun in 1958 and renewed every five years. Thus, JPLers are Caltech employees.. Tony Mach (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind, I don't think we should wait, I think we should keep the template, and then do appropriate actions once the core matter becomes more clear. Tony Mach (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think the template is needed, but I don't object to keeping it as long as it does not lead users to post the wrong attributions for JPL images, as it is likely to in its current form. Basically, I think there has been a big misunderstanding related in part to some legalese in the JPL image use policy statement - legalese that appears designed to shield JPL/Caltech from any possible liability related to copyright issues arising from usage of images in their web sites. Since such legalese is lacking in the straight NASA web sites, it may have been added by the Caltech legal team. However, JPL being part of NASA, it's image use policies must be those of NASA. Many of the same images appear on both straight NASA and NASA/JPL/Caltech galleries. In general, I would say it is ludicrous to think that images beamed back by American-taxpayer-funded spacecraft could be copyrighted. Note that both straight NASA and JPL/NASA/Caltech web galleries include similar requests for proper attribution. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would love to see that any public funded science is automatically in the public domain. However, this is not the case. Especially if the ones producing the work are not government employees. And that is the root of the problem:
 * JPL employees are not government employees. While JPL runs a center with the NASA/JPL name, JPL is not a part of NASA. JPL is a part of Caltech and with regards to copyright law, JPL is a private contractor/company/corporation. As any other such entity, they can assert copyright, which they have done. Unless you can show evidence that NASA has an contract with JPL that says otherwise, JPL has copyright on their works. That includes all tax-funded spacecraft JPL operates.
 * Please forgive me, I have pointed that out to you in the past, and if I have to point it out to you once more, then please understand I will use a template for that in the future. Tony Mach (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the relevant JPL page, once more: "JPL is managed for NASA by Caltech under a contractual arrangement begun in 1958 and renewed every five years. Thus, JPLers are Caltech employees." Tony Mach (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is JPL's image policy which allows use of images for any purpose, but requires the credit line: "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech." MKUV (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it does not require that specific credit line - it "requires" (requests) whatever the appropriate credit is for a given image, as specified for each image in the Photojournal, which is described as "NASA's Image Access Home Page", clearly implying that these are public domain images as per NASA policy. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have written NASA headquarters on this subject by postal mail. I'll let you know what the response is. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * delete per deletion of template:byline and per Captions. if JPL images are not compatible with WP's method of attribution, then we will simply have to stop using JPL images, but I seriously doubt that is the case after reading of their image policy. Frietjes (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Under 17 Gulf Cup of Nations Winners

 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 19:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Under 17 Gulf Cup of Nations Winners

Only included in one article, and adds nothing to the table in Under 17 Gulf Cup of Nations, as well as being years out of date. Not useful for navigation. NSH002 (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC) <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * 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:Canadian Confederation
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Redirect the smaller template to the larger one. If there is some issue that I am overlooking here, then feel free to reverse the redirection. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Canadian Confederation
 * Constitution of Canada

Propose merging Template:Canadian Confederation into Template:Constitution of Canada.

I found this merge proposal incorrectly templated, and decided to fix it. As a matter of fact, this template is part of the merge target, where all six pages that transclude it have their own section. Still, the target is a much larger template, with another color-system, so instead of simply doing the merger myself, I prefer to let the community decide on this. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question ..these to topics are not the same ...so what would be merged here..2 differnt topics? -- Moxy (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that if you have a look at the Constitution template, you will see that it includes a Confederation section, with precisely the same articles. Perhaps I didn't explain that clearly enough. Debresser (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 12:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * redirect, the set of links in the smaller template is already a subset of the set of links in the larger one. Frietjes (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Hum Award Best Actor
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 relisted on WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 11 Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 20:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hum Award Best Actor
 * Hum Award Best Supporting Actor
 * Hum Award Best Actress
 * Hum Award Best Supporting Actress
 * Hum Award Best Soap Actor
 * Hum Award Best Soap Actress
 * Hum Award Best Comic Actor
 * Hum Award Best Comic Sitcom
 * Hum Award Best Soap Series
 * Hum Award Best Host
 * Hum Award Best Television Sensation Male
 * Hum Award Best Television Sensation Female
 * Hum Award Best Onscreen Couple
 * HumAwardBestOriginalSoundtrack footer
 * HumAwardBestOrginalSoundtrack 2012-2020
 * Hum Award Best Original Soundtrack
 * Hum Award Best Solo Artist
 * Hum Award Best Music Video
 * Hum Award Best Model Male
 * Hum Award Best Model Female
 * Hum Award Best Director Drama Serial
 * Hum Award Best Drama Serial
 * Hum Award Best Drama Series
 * Hum Award Best Designer Menswear
 * Hum Award Best Designer Womenswear
 * 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.