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 debate was keep. John254 03:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free-NASA[edit]

Template:Non-free-NASA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We currently have no precedent for this type of tag. The material that this image is intended for is Public Domain and as such covered by ((PD-USGov-NASA)). The fact that it is also "restricted" per Code of Federal Regulations 14 CFR is a different fact that is covered by ((Insignia)). I see no reason why we need a specific tag for these images. 2nd'ly I definitely do not see why such images require a FUR at the moment. None of our copyright free images that are restricted by trademark law or federal "misrepresentation"-laws currently require FURs as far as I am aware. I'm not saying it would be a bad idea, but this is simply not an issue of Fair Use, so that approach is currently technically incorrect, and if people want to do this, an alternate approach should be taken. I tried to raise this issue on WT:NFC, but there was no response.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: — What about NASA images that are not in the public domain such as, Image:NASA logo.svg, which uses this template. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 00:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  But it is in the public domain. What makes you think a US federal government employee work is NOT in the public domain ? The fact that it incorrectly states so on the ((PD-USGov-NASA)) template? This has been corrected on the commons version of the tag for a while now. The NASA seal and logo simply have additional restrictions by law, which many PD flags, logos, insignia and even PD logos that are trademarked have. That does not make it not also Public Domain. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What are PD logos that are trademarked? Please explain how something can be both.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A common misunderstanding about copyright; a logo can be unoriginal, and as such not satisfy the threshold of originality required for copyright (logo of the New York Times for instance) and still be a registered trademark of a company. See Image:The_New_York_Times.svg. Trademark law, personality rights, and protection against defamation are things that exist and are defined separately from copyright law. The laws "restricting the usage" of the NASA logos (and similar laws that protect all military insignia, federal seals and agency logos) can be roughly compared to these other "restricted usage" laws, but do not claim copyright and as such are also not "copyright licenses". See also for instance the very similar case of the FBI seal. And within wikipedia copyright and copyright licenses are the only things that are really relevant atm. Wikipedia does not have formalized restrictions for images that are not copyrighted, but are restricted per any of these other laws. My understanding is that we intend to follow these restrictions, and name them, but they do not fall under our current Non-free content restrictions (note the gaping hole in our policy :D ), because NFCC defines non-free content as: "... means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license.". Fair use rationales (both within and outside of Wikipedia) are only required for usages of copyrighted materials, and are not intended to satisfy or answer any form of other restriction (criminal law, pornography laws, trademark, defamation, personality rights, privacy or insignia protection laws). As such this tag is misleading, and combined usage of ((PD-USGov-NASA)) and ((Insignia)), should represent the situation more correctly for the time being. These NASA logo's are being marked here as usage restricted per our non-free content rules. They are not, they are PD and usage restricted and we should not be mixing those two situations. I'm sure that at some time this hole in our policies will be "fixed", but then we will have other appropriate tags and categorizations to do so. Until that time ((insignia)) and ((PD-USGov-NASA)) is the only appropriate combination of tags. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Okay, it IS in the Public Domain, but earlier, it was marked as a Non-Free Logo. There are reasons for this, and let me explain. As you know, the 4 criteria for being defined "free" are:
  
  • the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
  • the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
  • the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
  • the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works

As you know, we also do not allow images that restrict or disallow commercial use. Per this, there are restrictions on commercial use. Then, according to this, it has many different restrictions on modification, such as "Never modify the Insignia in any way, whether by adding, elimination or otherwise changing design elements." This, is pretty much "legalese" for no derivative works allowed. Due to the fact that the restrictions cross out 2 of the guidelines for the definition of Free Content, it is unfortunately subjected to the rules and regulations of WP:NFCC, and must conform to its guidelines, such as minimal usage, fair use rationales, and so forth. ViperSnake151 21:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate that I consider mixing the processes for copyrighted materials and not copyrighted materials a bad idea. If you want to introduce a separate tagging system for these kinds of restrictions, then that is fine by me, but we should not replace a PD-USGov-NASA copyright tag with "usage restricted tag that makes vague statements about the copyright status". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll even lay-out the action plan.

1. Propose a policy that requires usage rationales for copyright free images that still have other legal restrictions.
2. Rename all templates in Category:Restriction tags with "non-free"-prefixes (though I personally would prefer "restricted"-prefixes for those.)
3. Make sure none of those templates say a single thing about copyright
4. Create a new template for usage rationales of restricted images. One that categorizes into a different "non-free" sub-category than the fair use images do.
5. Put ((non-free-NASA)) AND ((PD-USGov-NASA)) AND usage rationales on those NASA logos.
6. Fire up BetacommandBot to start tagging all images with restriction templates as needing cleanup within "to be defined arbitrary # of days"

I think that is the only appropriate way to go about this. As a matter of fact, I would even support you, because I too find the current situation quite annoying and stupid. But I just want to see a good separation between non-free images due to copyright and non-free images due to secondary legal limitations. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 February 2008 (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 debate was History merged with Keithville, Louisiana. Happy‑melon 20:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keithville, Louisiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was created in the template namespace, however it is an article. — VerruckteDan (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So move it? скоморохъ 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a (less developed) article at Keithville, Louisiana already, so it's more like WP:SOMERGEIT. In any case, the history (one substantial edit plus TfD) needs to be out of template space. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2008 (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 debate was nomination withdrawn. krimpet✽ 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jimboquote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There seems to be no technical justification for giving this individual their own Quote template. It is unclear how the case of Jimbo Wales quotes is any different from, or demands any structure other than standard ((Templatename|Quote|Author|Source)) quotation templates. Why the special treatment?. скоморохъ 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. I created this template to facilitate stylistic choices of the community in how to present the pronouncements of Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Approximately 30 pages transclude this 4-month-old template for now, most significantly two of our bedrock policies, WP:BLP and WP:B. The reason is to set apart Mr. Wales' pronouncements from the many other quotations and infoboxes that might appear, in order to highlight the sources of various policies and guidelines. As the founder of Wikiepdia, there is no question but that Jimbo's decicions on policy matters new and old have a unique, special quasi-official role in setting our rules. The template is completely neutral as to what exactly that role might be (and even permits the possibility that people will decide some day that there is no special role). If this template were deleted it would have to be substituted (to prevent disruption), which means we can no longer make changes at a central place in how to format these quotes. Wikipedia is full of templates that are similar to or transclude other templates, and our quotation templates are no exception. This one is in active use on some very important pages, and has a legitimate purpose. Deleting it would defeat the purpose. I see no reason to consider that. Wikidemo (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The process of replacing the template is not an issue; 5 minutes and WP:AWB would take care of that. The importance of the pages which transclude the template are thus irrelevant and distracting from the point. Your argument is that Wales' quotes need to be in a different color? Why is it that any formatting idiosyncracies could not be achieved by altering the parameters on a generic template? скоморохъ 05:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same of any template - it could be subst-ed out with no trouble. It is not the specific color or format they have right now, but rather the ongoing ability to keep all of the pertinent Jimbo's quotes in the same format and adjust that format. We do that all the time, I think, using a specific template for a specific category of content, so that all of the formatting stays consistent. Wikidemo (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I'm happy enough with Wikidemo's rationale. It seems a harmless and somewhat convenient template.скоморохъ 13:57, 26 February 2008 (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 debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scripts and Scruples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-notable podcast, a template for every character and participant on a podcast that is likely to be deleted is definitely not necessary. — Corvus cornix_talk 03:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agreed, seems like a bad idea. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Created by a block evading sock account [1] . Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per information found by Hu12. Undeath (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2008 (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.