CINXE.COM

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en" dir="ltr"> <head><script type="text/javascript" src="/_static/js/bundle-playback.js?v=HxkREWBo" charset="utf-8"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/_static/js/wombat.js?v=txqj7nKC" charset="utf-8"></script> <script>window.RufflePlayer=window.RufflePlayer||{};window.RufflePlayer.config={"autoplay":"on","unmuteOverlay":"hidden"};</script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/_static/js/ruffle/ruffle.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> __wm.init("https://web.archive.org/web"); __wm.wombat("http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content","20090109053355","https://web.archive.org/","web","/_static/", "1231479235"); </script> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/_static/css/banner-styles.css?v=S1zqJCYt" /> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/_static/css/iconochive.css?v=3PDvdIFv" />  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css"/> <meta name="generator" content="MediaWiki 1.14alpha"/> <meta name="keywords" content="Wikipedia talk:Non-free content,Non-free content/archive toc,Criteria for speedy deletion,Logos/Archive 2,Non-free content/Archive 34,Non-free content/Archive 35,Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos,Non-free content,Non-free content/Archive 31,Ohio State buckeyes logo.png,LSUTigers.png"/> <link rel="alternate" type="application/x-wiki" title="Edit this page" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit"/> <link rel="edit" title="Edit this page" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit"/> <link rel="apple-touch-icon" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355im_/http://en.wikipedia.org/apple-touch-icon.png"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/web/20090109053355im_/http://en.wikipedia.org/favicon.ico"/> <link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/opensearch_desc.php" title="Wikipedia (en)"/> <link rel="copyright" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html"/> <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Wikipedia RSS Feed" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=rss"/> <link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" title="Wikipedia Atom Feed" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"/> <title>Wikipedia talk:Non-free content - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355cs_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/skins/common/shared.css?195xx" type="text/css" media="screen"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355cs_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/skins/common/commonPrint.css?195xx" type="text/css" media="print"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355cs_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/skins/monobook/main.css?195xx" type="text/css" media="screen"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355cs_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/skins/chick/main.css?195xx" type="text/css" media="handheld"/>     <link rel="stylesheet" href="/web/20090109053355cs_/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&usemsgcache=yes&ctype=text%2Fcss&smaxage=2678400&action=raw&maxage=2678400" type="text/css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/web/20090109053355cs_/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Print.css&usemsgcache=yes&ctype=text%2Fcss&smaxage=2678400&action=raw&maxage=2678400" type="text/css" media="print"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/web/20090109053355cs_/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Handheld.css&usemsgcache=yes&ctype=text%2Fcss&smaxage=2678400&action=raw&maxage=2678400" type="text/css" media="handheld"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/web/20090109053355cs_/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Monobook.css&usemsgcache=yes&ctype=text%2Fcss&smaxage=2678400&action=raw&maxage=2678400" type="text/css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/web/20090109053355cs_/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=-&action=raw&maxage=2678400&gen=css" type="text/css"/>  <script type="text/javascript">/*<![CDATA[*/ var skin = "monobook"; var stylepath = "https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://upload.wikimedia.org/skins"; var wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1"; var wgScriptPath = "/w"; var wgScript = "/w/index.php"; var wgVariantArticlePath = false; var wgActionPaths = {}; var wgServer = "https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org"; var wgCanonicalNamespace = "Project_talk"; var wgCanonicalSpecialPageName = false; var wgNamespaceNumber = 5; var wgPageName = "Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content"; var wgTitle = "Non-free content"; var wgAction = "view"; var wgArticleId = "2584369"; var wgIsArticle = true; var wgUserName = null; var wgUserGroups = null; var wgUserLanguage = "en"; var wgContentLanguage = "en"; var wgBreakFrames = false; var wgCurRevisionId = "262871640"; var wgVersion = "1.14alpha"; var wgEnableAPI = true; var wgEnableWriteAPI = true; var wgSeparatorTransformTable = ["", ""]; var wgDigitTransformTable = ["", ""]; var wgMWSuggestTemplate = "https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=opensearch\x26search={searchTerms}\x26namespace={namespaces}"; var wgDBname = "enwiki"; var wgSearchNamespaces = [0]; var wgMWSuggestMessages = ["with suggestions", "no suggestions"]; var wgRestrictionEdit = []; var wgRestrictionMove = []; /*]]>*/</script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355js_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/skins/common/wikibits.js?195xx"></script>  <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355js_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/skins/common/ajax.js?195xx"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355js_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/skins/common/mwsuggest.js?195xx"></script> <script type="text/javascript">/*<![CDATA[*/ var wgNotice='';var wgNoticeLocal=''; /*]]>*/</script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355js_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/centralnotice/wikipedia/en/centralnotice.js?195xx"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/web/20090109053355js_/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=-&action=raw&gen=js&useskin=monobook"></script> </head> <body class="mediawiki ltr ns-5 ns-talk page-Wikipedia_talk_Non-free_content skin-monobook"> <div id="globalWrapper"> <div id="column-content"> <div id="content"> <a name="top" id="top"></a> <div id="siteNotice"><script type="text/javascript">if (wgNotice != '') document.writeln(wgNotice);</script></div> <h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading">Wikipedia talk:Non-free content</h1> <div id="bodyContent"> <h3 id="siteSub">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</h3> <div id="contentSub"></div> <div id="jump-to-nav">Jump to: <a href="#column-one">navigation</a>, <a href="#searchInput">search</a></div>  <table class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align: center;"> <tr> <td>This project page is part of <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fair_use" title="Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use">Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use</a>, a project that aims to monitor and reduce <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content" title="Wikipedia:Non-free content">non-free content</a> on Wikipedia, prevent <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement" title="Copyright infringement">copyright infringement</a>, and further our <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content" title="Free content">free content</a> mission. If you would like to help, please see the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fair_use" title="Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use">project page</a> for more information.</td> </tr> </table> <table class="plainlinks tmbox tmbox-notice" style=""> <tr> <td class="mbox-image"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peace_dove.svg" class="image" title="Peace dove.svg"><img alt="" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355im_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Peace_dove.svg/40px-Peace_dove.svg.png" width="40" height="40" border="0"/></a></td> <td class="mbox-text" style="">Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot" title="Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot">keep a cool head</a> when commenting here. See also: <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette" title="Wikipedia:Etiquette">Wikipedia:Etiquette</a>.</td> </tr> </table> <table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5"> <tr> <td align="center"> <div><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/archive_toc" title="Archives"><img alt="" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355im_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/File.svg/100px-File.svg.png" width="100" height="100" border="0"/></a></div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/archive_toc" title="Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/archive toc">Archives</a></td> <td></td> </tr> </table> <table id="toc" class="toc" summary="Contents"> <tr> <td> <div id="toctitle"> <h2>Contents</h2> </div> <ul> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Severe_overuse_problem">1 Severe overuse problem</a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Section_break_the_First">1.1 Section break the First</a></li> <li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Section_break_the_Second">1.2 Section break the Second</a></li> <li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#3rd_Break_-_Deconstructing_the_problem">1.3 3rd Break - Deconstructing the problem</a></li> <li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Going_in_circles.2C_solving_nothing">1.4 Going in circles, solving nothing</a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#Fair_use_in_The_Game_.28Harvard-Yale.29">1.4.1 Fair use in The Game (Harvard-Yale)</a></li> <li class="toclevel-3"><a href="#The_real_reason_is_forcing_people_to_find_non-free_content">1.4.2 The real reason is forcing people to find non-free content</a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Proposed_compromise">1.5 Proposed compromise</a></li> <li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Consensus_must_exist_to_retain_content">1.6 Consensus must exist to retain content</a></li> <li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Actually.2C_Consensus_must_exist_to_REMOVE_content">1.7 Actually, Consensus must exist to REMOVE content</a></li> <li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#.22Compromise.22_already_exists">1.8 "Compromise" already exists</a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Check_the_record">2 Check the record</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#More_NFCC.238">3 More NFCC#8</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Rumble_Roses">4 Rumble Roses</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#May_it_infringe.3F">5 May it infringe?</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#.22But_it.27s_a_featured_article.21.22">6 "But it's a featured article!"</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Another_character_article">7 Another character article</a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Explanation_as_to_how_the_images_pass_the_criteria">7.1 Explanation as to how the images pass the criteria</a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Postage_stamps">8 Postage stamps</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Slow_moving_editwar">9 Slow moving editwar</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Images_at_Britney_Spears">10 Images at Britney Spears</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Image_gallery_at_Burger_King_products">11 Image gallery at Burger King products</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#With_all_the_changing_concensus...">12 With all the changing concensus...</a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2"><a href="#Arb_break_-_Logo_use_as_acceptable.2Funacceptable_examples">12.1 Arb break - Logo use as acceptable/unacceptable examples</a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#SVG_logos.2C_again">13 SVG logos, again</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Bots_are_evil...">14 Bots are evil...</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#RfC_re-opened">15 RfC re-opened</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Keep_up_the_good_work.2C_everyone.21">16 Keep up the good work, everyone!</a></li> </ul> </td> </tr> </table> <script type="text/javascript"> //<![CDATA[ if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); } //]]> </script> <a name="Severe_overuse_problem" id="Severe_overuse_problem"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=1" title="Edit section: Severe overuse problem">edit</a>] Severe overuse problem</h2> I've become increasingly aware of a growing fair use overuse problem and would like some input on how to proceed. The problem is college sports logos are being distributed across a huge number of articles. For an example, I cite one of the most egregious cases: <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ohio_State_buckeyes_logo.png" title="File:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png">Image:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png</a>. This fair use image is used in 102 articles. 102. There's only rationales for 6 articles, but that's not the real problem here. The problem is the immensity of use, and the rationales for such use. The typical purpose of use in these cases is "Identification and critical commentary in the NNN article, a subject of public interest. The logo confirms to readers they have reached the correct article, and illustrates the intended branding message." Now, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a> says regarding acceptable use of team logos, that they can be used for identification. So, an argument could be made this is acceptable use. Yet, there is contradicting evidence. Looking at some major league sports, we don't see the proliferation of team logos on things like <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_World_Series" title="2004 World Series">2004 World Series</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_Los_Angeles_Lakers_season" title="2007–08 Los Angeles Lakers season">2007–08 Los Angeles Lakers season</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%9307_Boston_Celtics_season" title="2006–07 Boston Celtics season">2006–07 Boston Celtics season</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%9306_Detroit_Red_Wings_season" title="2005–06 Detroit Red Wings season">2005–06 Detroit Red Wings season</a> and many other similar articles. In fact, I haven't found one where the logos are being used on such articles like <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ohio_State_buckeyes_logo.png" title="File:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png">Image:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png</a> and many other college sports logos are being used. I did a test case of addressing this. On 12 November 2008, I removed the sports team logos from <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Texas_vs._Ohio_State_football_game" title="2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game">2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game</a> (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_Texas_vs._Ohio_State_football_game&diff=251429765&oldid=248209983" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_Texas_vs._Ohio_State_football_game&diff=251429765&oldid=248209983" rel="nofollow">[1]</a>). Yesterday, they were <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_Texas_vs._Ohio_State_football_game&diff=256575704&oldid=253643183" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_Texas_vs._Ohio_State_football_game&diff=256575704&oldid=253643183" rel="nofollow">restored</a>. There's nothing codified, but the general practice on major league teams seems to be this: "Sport team logos are used only on the article specifically about that team, and on an article regarding that team's logos, if such an article exists. The use of the logos on every page regarding that team, such as season or game articles, is not supported" Am I wrong? If not wrong, I'd like to see this added to the guideline to help clarify the use of team logos. Comments? --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>To "brand" a page as belonging to a team to make it easier to the reader to know they hit the right page is definitely out of line. We don't use company logos on specific product pages (beyond any branding already on product's logo or picture), we don't reprint the title card of a television show on every episode page it may have. The only time a logo may go "free" on a page with a "for identification" rationale is on the company the logo represents, any other time it must be for criticism and commentary about that logo ("Company X said Company's Y logo was too similar to theirs and started a lawsuit..." would be acceptable to use the Y logo on page X for example). Unless the sports logo is already part of another non-free image for that page, the addition of a separate logo image needs to be removed. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Agreed, but the guideline doesn't indicate that. It says purposes of identification are sufficient. The common practice is as you say, but the guideline doesn't reflect that. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 15:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#3a" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#3a</a> covers that. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand" title="User talk:Betacommand">βcommand</a> 15:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Not really. There's nothing there regarding not using images unless really necessary. #8 might apply, but #8 is frequently controversial and subjective. I'd prefer seeing something in the guideline regarding the general case of team and corporate logos not being used liberally everywhere the entity is mentioned. Right now, the only thing to point to is the guideline and it says that identification alone is sufficient, and that's exactly what the team logos are doing all over the college sports pages. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 15:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>That is blatant overuse. I personally think that we should just say, "Logos can only be used on the page of their subject, or if they are critically discussed in an article that is not directly about its subject" (which would clear articles on their subjects, and the few cases where <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Arches" title="Golden Arches">a logo is famous enough for its own page</a>, and maybe on season articles where we can say "the team also debuted this new logo for the 2009 season".). I do not think that these images are critically discussed inside the article, so unfortunately they must go. I have done this swiftly for every page they are still used on (well, within the scope of college sports) by removing the Image parameter from the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NCAATeamFootballSeason" title="Template:NCAATeamFootballSeason" class="mw-redirect">offending template</a>. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ViperSnake151" title="User:ViperSnake151">ViperSnake151</a> 15:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I am seeing this as an overall issue, and it extends from logos to basic images. As it relates to logos I have been seeing some editors replace <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_logo" title="Template:Non-free logo">Template:Non-free logo</a> with <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-font" title="Template:PD-font">Template:PD-font</a> claiming that fonts can not be copyrighted therefor any "logo" that uses fonts is PD. The greater issue is how to address any image that could be considered "fair use". The problem is that all images could be considered for that use. And that is, as I am seeing it, the core issue. Wikipedia has one set of editors that say anything and everything is fine, there are no limits. There is another section that says only images of news items are for use, other images, such as logos or images or artwork, are not. Other will narrow it down more and say logos the use text don't fall under fair use, they fall under <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-font" title="Template:PD-font">Template:PD-font</a>. I am not sure how to fully address the largest issue because we have policies and guidelines that already explain the issue fairly well. When it comes down to actually removing something that is a violation, that is where the real issues come up. I tend to feel, as does, User:ViperSnake151|ViperSnake151]], that explicit is better in this case. I do not think being vague is better, nor being worried about a user feeling we are not adhering to the "assume good faith" concept or the criteria are having too much "instruction creep". For articles we have <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG" title="Wikipedia:GNG" class="mw-redirect">WP:GNG</a> and we break that down into subject specific guidlines, and some of those are pretty specific. I see nothing wrong with being that specific for images of certain types. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soundvisions1" title="User:Soundvisions1">Soundvisions1</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soundvisions1" title="User talk:Soundvisions1">talk</a>) 16:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>To be better stated, I would add two lines, one affirming the use of the current logo(*) of a company, product, or organization as allowable on the associated topic's page, and then a second negative use disallowing the logo on other pages for purposes of identification and/or without criticism and commentary. (*) This doesn't allow or disallow historical logos which I would still say is unresolved from the discussion last month. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> This is not enough discussion to warrant wanton changes across the spectrum. While I see where people are coming from, fearing that universities will start suing Wikipedia for including their logo in a game article (I know, I know, doesn't pass the "laugh test"), I respectfully disagree that they are being overused when an article is about the team involved and the proper Fair Use rationale is provided. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobak" title="User:Bobak">Bobak</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobak" title="User talk:Bobak">talk</a>) 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>The argument "they'd never sue" is seen very, very often around these parts. It doesn't work. The fair use policies here are a superset of the law. These aren't wanton changes. See my original post in this section and note the articles on major league sports do not use logos in the way you want to use them. There's strong, strong precedent for deprecating this use.</li> <li>To others: I <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeweled_Shillelagh&diff=257142221&oldid=255750103" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeweled_Shillelagh&diff=257142221&oldid=255750103" rel="nofollow">removed the logos</a> from <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeweled_Shillelagh" title="Jeweled Shillelagh">Jeweled Shillelagh</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobak" title="User:Bobak">Bobak</a> saw it and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeweled_Shillelagh&diff=next&oldid=257142221" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeweled_Shillelagh&diff=next&oldid=257142221" rel="nofollow">restored them</a>. Sigh. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <ul> <li>And now, after I <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:LSUTigers.png&diff=prev&oldid=257141065" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:LSUTigers.png&diff=prev&oldid=257141065" rel="nofollow">removed the inappropriate rationale</a> from <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LSUTigers.png" title="File:LSUTigers.png">Image:LSUTigers.png</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mastrchf91" title="User:Mastrchf91">Mastrchf91</a> has <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ALSUTigers.png&diff=257145158&oldid=257141065" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ALSUTigers.png&diff=257145158&oldid=257141065" rel="nofollow">reinstated it</a>. Weeeeee! --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 22:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</li> <li>And the undoing of my efforts continues apace <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arkansas%E2%80%93LSU_rivalry&diff=257144109&oldid=257140100" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arkansas%E2%80%93LSU_rivalry&diff=257144109&oldid=257140100" rel="nofollow">[2]</a>. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 22:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC) <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_Saturday_in_October&diff=257157761&oldid=257141262" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_Saturday_in_October&diff=257157761&oldid=257141262" rel="nofollow">[3]</a> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Egg_Bowl&diff=257157676&oldid=257141150" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Egg_Bowl&diff=257157676&oldid=257141150" rel="nofollow">[4]</a> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AAuburnTigers.png&diff=257158951&oldid=257140808" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AAuburnTigers.png&diff=257158951&oldid=257140808" rel="nofollow">[5]</a> --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</li> <li>And on and on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florida%E2%80%93Florida_State_rivalry&diff=257154565&oldid=257141487" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florida%E2%80%93Florida_State_rivalry&diff=257154565&oldid=257141487" rel="nofollow">[6]</a> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AFloridaGators.png&diff=257154371&oldid=257141898" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AFloridaGators.png&diff=257154371&oldid=257141898" rel="nofollow">[7]</a> --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 23:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> Everyone realizes this is being done in good faith and you all mean to do the right thing. However, you really shouldn't be surprised that you've brought our attention. This subject has been discussed heavily before, and the result was the current system. Older pages had logos for every team a school played in the season, now that was overuse. You're not going to find people receptive to this current system. Moving forward without discussing it with <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CFB" title="Wikipedia:CFB" class="mw-redirect">WP:CFB</a> or other pertinent projects? That's not the right way to go about it. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobak" title="User:Bobak">Bobak</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobak" title="User talk:Bobak">talk</a>) 22:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Frankly, I think this argument is trying to create a problem where there is no problem. These logos are used in articles about the organization that uses said logo. Period. None of the arguments presented here justifies changing the current situation, imo. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 23:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Actually you do have to consider this isn't just a legal issue, but one of the few things that the Foundation says "this is the way it has to be". While I for one agree that it's probably fair use under US law, it does to me seem to skirt WP's policy right on the line and in light of what the rule is (note I say rule here, and not consensus), Hammersoft is probably right. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melodia" title="User:Melodia">♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melodia" title="User talk:Melodia">talk</a>) 23:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <ul> <li>Our fair use policies are not written with the intent of finding ways to use fair use content as much as possible. Rather, it's the opposite. Using fair use imagery, even if already on the project, on dozens of articles does not support our <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/mission" class="extiw" title="m:mission">m:mission</a> of creating a free content encyclopedia. The more we make use of fair use, the less close to our mission we become. It becomes increasingly harder and harder for downstream users to make use of our work, and yes that is a consideration in what we do. It's one of the chief reasons we exist. If the use of logos to merely identify something were sufficient fair use claim, then we could scatter logos all over the project. But, this is not a transformative use, and if you want to get into fair use law, you do have to address that. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</li> <li>I'd respectfully disagree that this use of collegiate logos interferes with the Foundation's mission. Until a university objects about the use of its logo in an article, there's no reason to remove it. We're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet, and there's no simple alternative for the use of these logos. Nothing is as identifiable with the subjects of the articles, and a free use alternative simply doesn't exist. Until the consequences of using these logos outweigh the benefits to readers -- understandability, cohesiveness, etc. -- I can't agree that they need to be removed. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JKBrooks85" title="User:JKBrooks85">JKBrooks85</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JKBrooks85" title="User talk:JKBrooks85">talk</a>) 23:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Our mission isn't to remove content when contacted by universities. The problem already exists; fair use content being used in an excessive manner, contrary to our policies and mission. The simple alternative is naming the respective teams. That also makes them replaceable. The consequences of using them are severe; a free content encyclopedia that is considerably less free. That's our mission here; not trying to not annoy universities. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 23:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>I disagree first that there is a problem, and second that a university would be "annoyed" by such a use. Furthermore, a textual representation is far less effective than a pictoral one. It doesn't make as striking an impression, and to not use an image of the one single item that the vast majority of individuals associate with the subject is absurd. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JKBrooks85" title="User:JKBrooks85">JKBrooks85</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JKBrooks85" title="User talk:JKBrooks85">talk</a>) 00:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Yes they very likely wouldn't mind. Lots of people wouldn't mind WP linking to their YouTube videos of themselves playing PD music (perfectly legal on all counts) but we don't do that either. That's not the point (and shouldn't be brought up). The point is that -- annoying as it is to lose the aesthetic value the logos have (and I'm one who's BIG on aesthetics) -- WP rules simply do not allow them there. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melodia" title="User:Melodia">♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melodia" title="User talk:Melodia">talk</a>) 01:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>An established policy that 1) makes wikipedia better, 2) does not violate any copyright laws, and 3) is supported by a whole lot of users (judging by the near-instant reverts of a premature "cleanup" process already begun by <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a>) is a perfect candidate for <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules" title="Wikipedia:Ignore all rules">Wikipedia:Ignore all rules</a>, imo, especially since I'm not even sure any rules are being violated. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 01:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>No, no rules are being violated. Except that small little thing of our <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/mission" class="extiw" title="m:mission">m:mission</a>. No mind, who cares if we're a free content encyclopedia? Who cares that <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a> devolve from the mission statement? Who cares that the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy" class="extiw" title="foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy">Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy</a> strictly limits fair use image use? It's not a concern. Afterall, it improves the articles and I'm sure the universities won't complain. Perhaps we should start Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fair Use Distribution. What say you? --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Respectfully, if you wish to repeal <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a>, then please do a request for comment, but in any case, consensus appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of those who disagree with you. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BQZip01" title="User:BQZip01">— BQZip01 —</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BQZip01" title="User talk:BQZip01">talk</a> 06:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>This is about enforcing our policies, not repealing them. I'm not sure where I gave you the impression that I was advocating getting rid of our fair use policy. That would cause all manner of fair use to used all over the project. My position is the polar opposite of what you suggest. Also, be aware, fair use policy is not a consensus issue. Please note the very first line of <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy" class="extiw" title="foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy">Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy</a> where it says "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." I.e., even if consensus was unanimous to overrule that policy, it would still stand and would have to be followed. In particular from that policy, "Such EDPs must be minimal". Using any logo dozens of times across many articles is a clear breach of that policy. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 14:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> "I disagree first that there is a problem, and second that a university would be "annoyed" by such a use." This hits the nail on the head. Universities do everything possible to get their brand and their image out there for recruiting purposes. There is no logical reason why they'd be annoyed by the use of an official university logo on an article about the university. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 01:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I totally agree with <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">User:Zeng8r</a> that this is really not an issue. While I don't doubt <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">User:Hammersoft</a> is bringing this up with good intentions, I simply don't see what the problem is with using a fair use image in a few articles specifically relating to the team. I don't see that as overuse in any way. I think if College Football pages are being targeted specifically here, this should be discussed on the College Football project page where all of our editors can give their opinions on this. I really don't care either way (would support keeping the system the way we have it now) but if we are going to make a standard or policy on this, it definitely needs to go through the College Football project first. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rtr10" title="User:Rtr10">Rtr10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtr10" title="User talk:Rtr10">talk</a>) 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Totally agree with both <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rtr10" title="User:Rtr10">Rtr10</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a>. There is no issue at all on this, and even if there were, then it should go through the proper channels. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cardsplayer4life" title="User:Cardsplayer4life">Cardsplayer4life</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cardsplayer4life" title="User talk:Cardsplayer4life">talk</a>) 03:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Let's make something clear here. Proper channels is not and never has been a given project. The proper channel for discussing this is right here, on this page. Another potential channel is the Village Pump policy page. But, projects are not the arbiters or what should or should not be allowed within their area of coverage. Stamping an article as falling within a particular project doesn't protect that article from editing by any interested party. Similarly, it does not prevent it from be subservient to our policies. This is the proper place to discuss that.</li> <li>Compare; Let's say someone decides to put <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_Can_(college_football)" title="Milk Can (college football)">Milk Can (college football)</a> up for deletion. The article is watched by Wikiprojects Idaho, Sports, and College Football. Should we then have three discussing regarding that article's deletions among the project members in those projects? No. We bring the article to <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD" title="Wikipedia:AFD" class="mw-redirect">WP:AFD</a>. Similarly, we don't make policy decisions or conduct enforcement with the approval of a particular project. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>You are making a flawed comparison here Hammersoft. At AfD, it is considered good form to notify major contributors to the article proposed for deletion. The deletion process also states, "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate." By this logic you absolutely should have notified the Wikiprojects that work on these articles. The debate could be centralized, but the noticing should have been broad and inclusive. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 03:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>The issue is the same as it always is with non-free content; debating whether the university would mind or not is completely missing the point. When you use non-free content in an article you limit the re-usability of the content. Thus, using non-free content is always and indisputably bad; it's just that occasionally it's even worse not to use it. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland" title="User:CIreland">CIreland</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland" title="User talk:CIreland">talk</a>) 02:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>That is an incorrect conclusion. If fair use images were always bad then they would be completely prohibited. They are not prohibited because they are sometimes desirable to have. So your statement is false. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 21:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="Section_break_the_First" id="Section_break_the_First"></a> <h3>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=2" title="Edit section: Section break the First">edit</a>] Section break the First</h3> One of the key factors of fair use is "minimal use". You are supposed to use as little as you can, as little as possible. This is why we nuked the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Broadcasting_Network" title="Trinity Broadcasting Network">Trinity Broadcasting Network</a> logos from all the articles of their "translators", because it was used too much, and it didn't increase the understanding as technically the stations all take a network feed and do not have their own logo. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ViperSnake151" title="User:ViperSnake151">ViperSnake151</a> 01:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Frankly, I can't see why Hammersoft should be appalled at our "undoing of [his] efforts". It's much better to garner a wide consensus than to go on an incredible removing spree. Either way, the current system works now, and it's a bit ridiculous to start removing these images due to a very imprecise policy that could be interpreted many ways. I am a firm believer in policy, but common sense of IAR should apply here. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mastrchf91" title="User:Mastrchf91">Mastrchf</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mastrchf91" title="User talk:Mastrchf91">t</a>/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91" title="Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91">c</a>) 03:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>It's a bit ridiculous to include fair use images as far and wide as possible every time a particular team is mentioned. The common sense around here is that we are a free content encyclopedia. Those of you advocating for liberal usage of fair use images need to understand this basic, fundamental point. We do not use fair use images within the bounds of law. The law is really quite irrelevant. Whether someone would sue is irrelevant. If you believe those are the most important issues at hand, some education is in order.</li> <li>Let me give you an example. If the only concerns were whether something was legal use and whether copyright holders would complain, then we'd have album covers on every discrography of every group. It is legal, and the vast, vast majority of music groups would be most happy to have increased coverage of their works here, on a top ten website of the world. Yet, the reality is we do not have ANY album covers on discographies. Why is that?</li> <li>Here's another example: Why do we not have per character images of every character on every list of characters on the project?</li> <li>Here's another example: Why do we not permit the use of fair use images of people when we can reasonably expect to find free licenses images? It's legal to use the fair use images, and in most cases the people being depicted would probably enjoy the additional coverage. So why don't we permit it?</li> <li>Here's another example: Why do we not permit the use of fair use images in userspace, or on templates, or on portals? In a significant majority of those cases, the usage is legal and certainly holders wouldn't complain. So why isn't that permitted?</li> <li>Understand; the DEFAULT case on this project is NOT to include fair use material. A very strong argument must be made in each use of each image as to why that image is critical to user's understanding of a particular subject. That's just square one. There's plenty of additional constraints that, even if apparently legitimate uses can be found, prevent their use. Fair use content has to jump over massive barriers here to be included. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 03:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>Agree with Hammersoft. These are (in totality - a few uses will be ok) a clear breach of policy. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnbod" title="User:Johnbod">Johnbod</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnbod" title="User talk:Johnbod">talk</a>) 03:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> <dd>I also agree with Hammersoft; these images are largely being used with complete disregard for the (non-negotiable, non-consensus) issue of minimizing non-free content. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland" title="User:CIreland">CIreland</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland" title="User talk:CIreland">talk</a>) 03:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>I'll have to disagree with Hammersoft, and others pushing for this. Yes, in the case offered by Hammersmith where there are 102 uses of the Ohio State logo but only 6 Fair Use Rationales on the image's page, then 96 articles need to have the image removed because there is no FUR in place explaining why the image/logo is being used. But just today Hammersmith came and removed the logos of LSU and Ole Miss from <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnolia_Bowl" title="Magnolia Bowl">Magnolia Bowl</a>, an article that is extensively about both universities. Those are acceptable use, both images have a FUR in place for use in the Magnolia Bowl article, and both should not have been removed - especially in the midst of an ongoing conversation here about the very subject. - ✰<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Allstarecho" title="User:Allstarecho" class="mw-redirect">ALLST☆R</a>✰ <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Allstarecho" title="User talk:Allstarecho">echo</a> 04:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnolia_Bowl" title="Magnolia Bowl">Magnolia Bowl</a> is not about either college, only the bowl game. Their logos are completely inappropriate for the page - this is further unnessitated by the actual game logo (which is appropriate) that repeats parts of both college's logos. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 04:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>You can't have a bowl game without the colleges.. they are indeed appropriate to the article as a means of identifying the bowl game participants. - ✰<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Allstarecho" title="User:Allstarecho" class="mw-redirect">ALLST☆R</a>✰ <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Allstarecho" title="User talk:Allstarecho">echo</a> 05:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The colleges aren't playing, it is their representative teams. And logos for the purposes of identifying anything outside of the article about that topic is inappropriate. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>We are not using the logos of the colleges we are using the logos of the representative teams/athletic departments which ARE participating in these games. Just something you might want to think about. They are very appropriate in the article. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rtr10" title="User:Rtr10">Rtr10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtr10" title="User talk:Rtr10">talk</a>) 07:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Ok, true, at least, the LSU one is the team logo, however, the logo serves no purpose beyond identification of the team on a page that is not about the team directly, and is duplicated by the official logo that should be on that page. There is no valid reason for those logos to be used here. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 07:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Please enlighten me, if these pages are not about the teams what are they about? They are specifically about the teams and nothing else. If two teams are not relevant to a rivalry, I don't know what else is. Your logic is totally flawed. The page directly involves the teams and there is easily a valid reason for those logos to be there. I don't know how I could make that more clear to you, but it is right there. You are simply refusing to acknowledge it. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rtr10" title="User:Rtr10">Rtr10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtr10" title="User talk:Rtr10">talk</a>) 07:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The article is about a rivalry between two college football teams that has earned a specific nickname. It is not about the teams themselves. As with the general use of logos, the individual teams' logos on this page cannot be used just for identification, but must be accompanied by commentary and criticism with respect for the logo's images to be included, otherwise it is simply decorative, since those logos, for a reader who has no idea about college sports but needs to research this particular team, will not be helpful in anyway, at least given that one can clickthru either team to get the full logo or can look at the game's logo to see parts of the teams' logo. Again, logos are historicly only used on the single page of the company or organization the logo represents. -<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 12:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>If you don't think rivalry articles are about specific college football teams, than you have no clue about college football and really shouldn't be chiming in on the matter. About 95% of these articles do not have "nicknames" they are simply "Team A-Team B Rivalry" so the team logos are definitely warranted. You may want to look a little more into this, rahter than just looking at one article. Lord forbid you collect an informed opinion. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rtr10" title="User:Rtr10">Rtr10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtr10" title="User talk:Rtr10">talk</a>) 18:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>If you can't keep your comments civil, then please do not post them. There's an answer to your query, but I certainly do not see, and I hope Masem equally does not see, a reason to respond when confronted with behavior like this. Thank you, --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 20:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>Alas, this is something that I find so incredibly mind-blowing - People get too caught up in the bureaucratic ways of the project to actually aid the project. As to your posed questions, (the "Why is that?" sort), I'm afraid that I'm not the one who can answer that. Undoubtedly consensus discussions, a bit of chance here and there. Ok, so non-free images aren't tops on our list of wanted things. Some things are going to undoubtedly be non-free. But, you know what? I don't think anyone, save non-free image crusaders, are going to complain about an extra image or two on a page. People come here to get information on something. They don't come here to look if the article has an incredibly ill-defined "limit" of non-free images. I can promise you that, even if only one person looks at that article and says, "Look, that image is there, that helps me gain a better understanding of this article" (of course that's not what would be said, but you get what I'm meaning), that will be one more person than persons coming on here, save for those who are trying to remove these on here, that say the opposite.</dd> <dd>I have no doubt that this will be shot down in any number of ways, and in retrospect will probably mean little to nothing in this discussion. But is deleting possibly helpful images really aiding the construction of an encyclopedia? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mastrchf91" title="User:Mastrchf91">Mastrchf</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mastrchf91" title="User talk:Mastrchf91">t</a>/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91" title="Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91">c</a>) 04:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>There are probably a large fraction of pages on WP that would be better served with more non-free images to help improve the demonstration of content. However, first and foremost, WP's goal is a "free content" encyclopedia, and every piece of non-free media deters from that goal. People aren't coming here to "look" at articles, they are here to research, per the mission. Images are secondary to that goal save when it is impossible to discuss that content without visual or media aid. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>And yet again, this is what I'm talking about. Bureaucracy attempts to trump common sense. Trust me, without people who "look" at articles, I bet our daily page view count would be hovering at a nice even eight. How many of us legitimately came to Wikipedia to "research", not "learn"? We have a fundamental disagreement over the purpose and natures of Wikipedia, it's quite apparent, and I respect your view and realize that it's probably just about as true as mine. True, the goal of Wikipedia is being a "free content" encyclopedia, but completely removing a majority of these images dramatically hurts Wikipedia's goal of simply being an encyclopedia. We need to find a happy medium, and rashly removing dozens if not hundreds of images from pages (I haven't checked to see how many Hammersoft removed) is possibly the worst way to go about this. Well meaning, no doubt, but a horrible way of going about it. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mastrchf91" title="User:Mastrchf91">Mastrchf</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mastrchf91" title="User talk:Mastrchf91">t</a>/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91" title="Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91">c</a>) 05:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>The happy medium is permitting fair use in very limited circumstances, for example a sport logo on the page regarding that team, rather than it's rivalries, seasons, etc. If you think that's draconian, try spending time at the German language Wikipedia. They do not permit fair use there at all. The happy medium isn't permitting fair use wherever and however people want to use it. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 17:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Comparisons to the German Wikipedia are inherently flawed because their copyright laws are different. It is legal concerns that dictate much of their approach. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 04:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>If WP was worried about its page count, then yes, the end user experience would be placed at a higher level. But we're not here for page counts, we're here to build a free content encyclopedia that will grow and last the ages, and we have also been tasked by the Foundation to keep non-free use to a minimum. Remember, there are some versions of wikipedia (de.wiki notably) that disallow any non-free content, yet they continue to build and expand. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>So, just making sure, we're here to make an encyclopedia that's going to be here theoretically forever, but, we don't care if anyone reads it or gets anything from it. Right? That's not what you meant to say, true, but that's pretty much what it sounds like. And the "page view count" wasn't meant to be taken literally, by the way. I'm assuming you realized that.... <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mastrchf91" title="User:Mastrchf91">Mastrchf</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mastrchf91" title="User talk:Mastrchf91">t</a>/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91" title="Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91">c</a>) 05:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>We want people to read it, but we're not in any competition or for any profit; things that would normally be done on commercial or competitive websites to draw in viewers, such as more visually appealing pages, that otherwise interfere with the mission goals should not be done. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 06:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Agreed with Masem and Hammersoft. We've for some time allowed logos en masse in articles about the subject the logo represents. I don't think that's a great idea, but it's current practice. On the other hand, use of those logos outside those articles is unnecessary and excessive. When we can name a team rather than using its logo (i.e., in all cases), the logo is replaceable. We can just as easily say "Somewhere Foos vs. Elsewhere Bars" rather than putting logos, and that's perfectly clear. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>It's obviously a matter of degree. 100 uses of a logo are too much. But the other extreme, for example the removal of images from <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NCAATeamSeason" title="Template:NCAATeamSeason">Template:NCAATeamSeason</a> is equally wrong (so, for example, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Pittsburgh_Panthers_football_team" title="2008 Pittsburgh Panthers football team">2008 Pittsburgh Panthers football team</a> could not display a logo). In those cases, that logo is the logo of the subject and is thus perfectly appropriate. A rivalry page? Sure, include the logos. But more perplexing to me is this notion that fair use images and a viable free encyclopedia are mutually exclusive. Why is that so? If images allow us to convey information more strongly, that makes Wikipedia a better source of information, which is why it's here after all. That in turn brings more readers, some percentage of whom will become editors, which leads to the creation of more content. I think the notion that non-free images (which I believe we all agree enhance the reader's experience) detract from Wikipedia's mission is misguided. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 08:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>That is an excellent point, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a>. 100 instances is definitely excessive, but if it is only a few instances and there are Fur's in place for all of the uses, there should not be a problem with their use. Taking the absolute worst example (the Ohio State logo with over 100 uses) and trying to extrapolate policy from that is ridiculous to the extreme. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cardsplayer4life" title="User:Cardsplayer4life">Cardsplayer4life</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cardsplayer4life" title="User talk:Cardsplayer4life">talk</a>) 10:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>It isn't the point at all. The number of uses isn't the issue. The type of use is. Taken from that perspective (which it should be), the use of a fair use image just once beyond the bounds of where it should be used is just as much a problem as 100 uses. I'm not interested in the number. I used the Ohio State logo because that is what brought this problem to my attention. I fully expected and still expect to find other sports logos used rampantly like the Ohio State logo was. It's just one case of many. I highlighted a serious overuse problem. It isn't ridiculous to do so. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 17:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> <dd>Every non-free media inclusion on WP harms the free content mission, though for en.wiki we recognize that some non-free media is needed for some subjects to make articles more comprehensive. That's why we need to strive for as minimal use as possible. As soon as you relax the requirements for certain classes of images, you will find people will use that to have the same for other classes, and maintaining minimal use will be impossible. We have to limit extraneous uses where the images may look nice and make pages more visually appealing because these cases serve no improvement for helping readers to comprehend the text. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 12:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>(outdent) Let me just repeat something Masem said above me -- we have also been tasked by the Foundation to keep non-free use to a minimum. That's all the matters in the grand scheme. I absolutely agree that WP 'should' be able to have all these images. As I said, I'm a very aesthetic person, and I think the lack of images (or the horrid quality of some) is a bad thing. But this is a case of the fact that even if you don't agree with the rules, you still must agree to the rules. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melodia" title="User:Melodia">♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melodia" title="User talk:Melodia">talk</a>) 12:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I'm curious where this "task" comes from. Are you referring to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy" class="extiw" title="foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy">Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy</a>? It states: "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." Logos are specifically called out as when non-free content is appropriate. My reading of that document is that it says that non-free content is allowable for those three cases, plus limited other cases. I don't see anywhere in that document (though there may be something in another meta page), nor do I see anything in <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a>, that limits the use of logos provided a rationale and that the logos identify their subjects. This is why I don't buy Masem's "<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_You_Give_a_Mouse_a_Cookie" title="If You Give a Mouse a Cookie">If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk</a>" argument. We're not the ones who say that logos are OK, meta is. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 18:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>It's the "limited exception" part that is important. Without it, the Resolution suggests that anytime a logo would make sense to include because the subject has been identified on an article, we should include it (such as the cases in point here). Limited exception means that we (through consensus) need to determine the exceptional cases when logos should be used to maintain minimal use. Now, it is true that there is nothing explicit that says "logos on the organization article's page only", but that's been an unwritten approach that has been used, and seems to be consistent with all other non-free use. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 18:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I believe we are at a grammatical impasse. The way that sentence reads to me is: "Non-free content can be used for these three things (including logos) or used in other ways as a limited exception". The "limited exception" doesn't apply to logos or the other two appropriate uses as written IMO. I don't believe that I'm wikilawyering here, as it seems that the intent is to allow NFC for these three cases (with no indication that that type of use should be limited) and in a limited manner for other cases (such as when a non-free replacement is unavailable and the pic is low-res, per en-wiki policies). <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 18:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> <dd>(ec) That's an odd reading of the phrase. A more natural one would be that, apart from limited exceptions, an EDP should limit the use to illustrating historically significant events, including identifying protected works such as logos, or complementing (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 18:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>For example, a Google search for "with limited exception" brings up hits like <ul> <li>"With limited exception, at least 10 facilities completed the survey in all regions" <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://www.genworth.com/content/genworth/www_genworth_com/web/us/en/products_we_offer/long_term_care_insurance/long_term_care_overview/what_is_the_cost_of_long_term_care/Survey_Methodology.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.genworth.com/content/genworth/www_genworth_com/web/us/en/products_we_offer/long_term_care_insurance/long_term_care_overview/what_is_the_cost_of_long_term_care/Survey_Methodology.html" rel="nofollow">[8]</a> -- ie apart from a very few exceptions, in every region at least ten survey forms were returned</li> <li>"A provider of consumer loans (each limited to up to $25000) must, with limited exception, be licensed under Alaska law as a small loan company to make such loans" <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://www.akatty.com/article7.shtml" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.akatty.com/article7.shtml" rel="nofollow">[9]</a> - ie except in certain exceptional circumstances, a loan company has to be licensed. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>On the other hand, it doesn't give carte blanche to use logos absolutely anywhere. While the logo may be identifying of the team, I find it hard to see as identifying of the competition. EDPs are supposed to tightly control usage even in allowed categories. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a> is our EDP, and has to be respected. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 18:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Ok, I can see the "limited exception" could be read a couple different ways, but even the basis of "to include identifying protected works such as logos" seems to me to state that we include logos when it is necessary to identify them - that is, on the pages of the company, organization, or product it represents, and in rare cases on pages about the logo itself. No one has yet demonstrated the need to identify the logo of a college team on a page that is otherwise not the main article of that college team save for "it helps readers to identify the team", which is not a necessity (a good question to ask is would the article be impacted by de.wiki-type no non-free use requirements? Clearly here, the answer is no, there is no impact).</dd> <dd>Again, while it is possibly being concerned about something that will never happen, I've seen enough arguments on this page that evoke <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" title="Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" class="mw-redirect">WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS</a> to try to justify excess use of non-free images. NFC needs to be as normalized as much as possible to prevent carving exceptions that others will see as special treatment and demand more for their articles of preferred interest. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>"No one has yet demonstrated the need to identify the logo of a college team on a page that is otherwise not the main article of that college team..." See, there's the issue. I agree that non-free logos should not be used on articles that are not directly related to the owner of that logo. But that's not the case here. For example, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Gators_football" title="Florida Gators football">Florida Gators football</a> is the main article about the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Florida" title="University of Florida">University of Florida's</a> football team. But then <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Florida_Gators_football_team" title="2008 Florida Gators football team">2008 Florida Gators football team</a> is also about an edition of the team, as is every other season article about Gator teams in different seasons, as is every article about traditional rivalries of the Gators. And that's just the football team. All the other UF sport teams use the same logo, so it belongs on all those articles plus their corresponding season articles, as well.</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Obviously, that leads to a lot of use of the Gator head logo, but it's all justified and well within wikipedia guidelines. The logo shouldn't be used on non-athletics related UF articles, of course. I see absolutely no problem with using it on multiple pages as long as it's useful, lawful, and applicable. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 21:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>It don't see why the logo is necessary for <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Florida_Gators_football_team" title="2008 Florida Gators football team">2008 Florida Gators football team</a> article. Specifically, how does it significantly increase my understanding of the 2008 team? I understand the argument for using it in the main team article, but even there I think it is at the very edge of acceptable use. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland" title="User:CIreland">CIreland</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland" title="User talk:CIreland">talk</a>) 21:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Using the logo of a sports team on articles about that sports team is "on the very edge of acceptable use"??? Sorry, but that seems like a ludicrous statement to me. By that standard, "fair-use" = "no use". <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 21:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="Section_break_the_Second" id="Section_break_the_Second"></a> <h3>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=3" title="Edit section: Section break the Second">edit</a>] Section break the Second</h3> <ul> <li>Generally speaking, there are several potential reasons to remove an image from an article:</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ol> <li>It is a copyright violation</li> <li>A replacement exists or may exist in the future</li> <li>The image detracts from a mission to promote free content</li> </ol> </dd> <dd>The use of a logo in an article about a sports team does not violate any of the above: <ol> <li>Fair use allows use of the logo to identify the brand/product/company being discussed, exactly as being done here.</li> <li>By definition, a logo is unique and their is no replacement. Any user-created drawing that was similar enough to the logo to be recognizable would still be covered by the trademark or copyright of the owner of the logo.</li> <li>Since no replacement can be created, there is no advantage to us in avoiding the use of the logo.</li> </ol> </dd> <dd>Therefore, there is no reason to remove these logos from articles. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 21:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Simply because no free content replacement exists or could be created doesn't mean that the image should be used. No free replacement exists of album covers either. Do we coat the discography articles with album covers? No. No free replacement exists of screenshots of episodes. Do we saturate episode lists with screenshots of each episode? No. Your conclusion is false. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 21:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Your example is false. A screenshot is not a logo. Logos are specifically created to serve as an identifying element of the product / brand. That is not the case for screenshots. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Even if it is false, you don't seem to dispute album covers. They uniquely identify the albums, like no other visual element can. Yet, we do not use them liberally. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 21:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>This discussion is about logos, not screenshots. I have shown why your comparison to screenshots is not relevant to this discussion. Therefore, I am not commenting on screenshots further. If you want to discuss screenshots, I suggest you start another thread. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>You still haven't answered the question about album covers. Are you attempting to make a case that logos are a unique case, an exception to all the fair use rules? --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 22:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>Agreed. You're missing one key point on replaceability. On the rivalry articles, for instance, the LSU logo can be replaced by the text "The LSU Tigers" and no meaning is lost. So I would disagree with you, and state that the overuse of these images emphatically does detract from our mission to provide free content. (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ESkog" title="User:ESkog">ESkog</a>)(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ESkog" title="User talk:ESkog">Talk</a>) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Text is not a substitute for a logo, and vice versa. Some people will be more familiar with one or the other. Including both serves to educate the reader. Our primary mission, after-all, is to build the most informative encyclopedia possible. That mission is harmed by removing the logos. Our secondary mission, of promoting free-content, is not harmed by these logos at all. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>The mission is enhanced by removing the logos to make the content as free as possible. Our PRIMARY mission is to provide a free content encyclopedia. Attempting to call it a secondary mission is false. Please carefully read our <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/mission" class="extiw" title="m:mission">m:mission</a> statement. Where in there does it state that free content is a secondary mission? It doesn't. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 21:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> <li>Since when have we had "primary" and "secondary" missions? Do we have "tertiary" missions too? Anyway, on the subject of damaging the free-content goal: Supposing I wish to re-use the article; if it contains non-free content re-use is made more difficult because I need to accommodate the fact that I cannot re-use part of the article. That is obviously a negative effect of the inclusion of non-free content. Now suppose that it's not just me wanting to re-use a single article, but that someone wishes to re-use thousands of articles and it's apparent that the barriers to re-use will be similarly magnified. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland" title="User:CIreland">CIreland</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland" title="User talk:CIreland">talk</a>) 21:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> (outdent) There's really been no clear argument from the supporters why the logo is needed in the 'rivalry' articles, beyond <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ILIKEIT" title="Wikipedia:ILIKEIT" class="mw-redirect">WP:ILIKEIT</a>. Look at it this way. In team articles (I'll hold off on the season ones), the article is about 'the team'. So the use of the logo illustrates the team, as it is a part of the team as a whole, just as much as an album cover is a part of an album as a whole or a station ID is a part of a TV station. Conversly, the rivalry articles are about 'the rivalry' itself -- if there's a logo for that (someone mentioned above they exist for some), then THAT is fine. But since the articles aren't about 'the teams' in and of themselves, the use of the logos isn't allowed. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melodia" title="User:Melodia">♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melodia" title="User talk:Melodia">talk</a>) 22:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Some people here seem to think that having a logo on an article somehow discourages free content. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. For instance, take a look at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Texas_Longhorns_football_team" title="2005 Texas Longhorns football team">2005 Texas Longhorns football team</a>, which is a <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_Articles" title="Wikipedia:Featured Articles" class="mw-redirect">Featured Article</a>. That means it has been through the highest standards of review for content, format, etc. It has the team logo at the top. It also has a dozen free-use images and a link to Commons where even more free images are found. The use of the logo enhances the article and does not detract at all from encouraging free content. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 22:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>It's not about "encouraging" or "discouraging" free content. It's about the fact that including non-free content makes the article harder to re-use ("to disseminate it effectively and globally" in the words of the Foundation). Thus the benefit of the non-free content has to be great in order to outweigh the inherent cost of such content. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland" title="User:CIreland">CIreland</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland" title="User talk:CIreland">talk</a>) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>"re-use" is not a legitimate concern. If it was a determining factor, then we would allow no free-use whatsoever. The people that want to scrape Wikipedia content to re-use can and should be responsible for their own verification of what images they take and re-use. Do you want to argue that the fair-use logo at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM" title="IBM">IBM</a> should be removed to facilitate re-use?</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Sigh. Please look at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/mission" class="extiw" title="m:mission">m:mission</a>. Please? Please? "disseminate it effectively and globally" You can't spread things that aren't free. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>(/Sigh) Your condescending tone does not make your fallacious argument any more correct. Anyone who wants to reuse content from Wikipedia needs to determine if it is the right content for them. That includes determining if it is sufficiently well-written, whether the facts are correct, whether the images are appropriate, etc. Depending on their purpose in re-use, they may have all sorts of criteria with respect to images. For instance, they may want only images that are CC and not GNU. They may want only images that are CC3 and not CC2. They may be legally able to use fair use images, for their purposes, they may not. All that is up to the re-user to determine. Therefore, yes, re-use is not a concern in this discussion. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 23:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Oh, you mean like free content being our secondary mission? Like that? By the way; one of the re-users you decry is the Wikimedia Foundation itself. It can't hope to achieve its mission if we dramatically encumber our content with fair use materials. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 14:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>Re-usability of content is a non-negotiable goal of Wikipedia so, I suppose, in the sense that it is not up for debate, it could be seen as "not a legitimate concern" but I suspect that was not your meaning. To answer re: the IBM logo. No, I don't want it removed but it's still the case that its inclusion makes effective re-use more difficult. The IBM example is good demonstration of the benefit outweighing the cost; it doesn't, however, follow that there is no cost. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland" title="User:CIreland">CIreland</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland" title="User talk:CIreland">talk</a>) 22:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Re-use is a legitimate goal; but it's not clear that a reuser would be any less able to reuse these images than we are. A rough yardstick for <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a> is that the criteria are pretty much drawn to reflect what is needed to be confident that a commercial U.S. reuser could reuse an article verbatim without worry. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>I see. It counts are re-usable if you can re-use it in the US. Thanks for an enlightening comment. I'll get my passport. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland" title="User:CIreland">CIreland</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland" title="User talk:CIreland">talk</a>) 22:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>I'm merely stating the criteria <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a> reflects. It isn't patterned on the EU Infosoc Directive, nor the UK 1956 Copyright Act, which is the basis for law in most Commonwealth countries; instead its concepts and balances are patterned very closely on the U.S. criterion above. But I think you would probably get away with these logos in an educational article in most Commonwealth countries too. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>It follows US fair use doctrine because the hardware is in the US; that doesn't change the fact that the content ought to be global in approach. The point about "effective dissemination" is that you shouldn't need to be an expert in copyright law for country X (or, more importantly, shouldn't need to have the resources to hire someone who is such an expert) to re-use the content. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland" title="User:CIreland">CIreland</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland" title="User talk:CIreland">talk</a>) 22:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>That's a point of view, but the reality is that our copyright policy doesn't start to do that. Almost all of our art images are based on <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_vs_Corel" title="Bridgeman vs Corel" class="mw-redirect">Bridgeman vs Corel</a>, which wouldn't last 5 seconds in the UK; we're quite happy to call anything public domain if it was published before 1923, even if Life + 70 may give its copyright decades to run in Europe; our standards for text-based works, like the IBM logo (free in the U.S.), are based wholly on U.S. law and don't start to apply in the UK. The fact is, if you're not in the U.S. you're going to have to review all the copyrights anyway. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>Responding to jheald; note that a commercial use of fair use goes through significantly different hoops than educational use. Wikipedia's usage is educational. Commercial interests have different requirements. But again, fair use law is really irrelevant to the discussion. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 22:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Yes Hammer, but the point is <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a> is deliberately patterned very closely on the commercial criteria needed for commercial re-use, not the educational criteria. If we used the educational criteria, we'd have more freedom. But we don't. In setting the line, it is the commercial criteria WP:NFC is designed to satisfy. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> <li>I don't understand either how having non-free content limits re-use. If there's an issue for the reuser, they can take out the picture without violating the GDFL, as I understand it. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melodia" title="User:Melodia">♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melodia" title="User talk:Melodia">talk</a>) 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>And there you've hit it on the head. If an image can be removed without resulting damage to the article, then why have the image? If an image is discussed in an article, then it's not enough to just remove the image. You have to reconstruct the content of the article in addition to removing the image in order for the article to make sense again, post image-removal. If you don't need to reconstruct an article, then why is the image on the article in the first place??? It's obviously not needed. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 14:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>That is a completely nonsensical argument. Melodia did not mention damage, and removing a discussed image will damage an article without normally requiring a rewrite - other than removing "see left" or whatever. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnbod" title="User:Johnbod">Johnbod</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnbod" title="User talk:Johnbod">talk</a>) 14:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>The argument makes perfect sense. There's lots of fair use images that are used in ways directly linked to the article's text. Let's take an example; <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_and_uniforms_of_the_New_York_Giants" title="Logos and uniforms of the New York Giants">Logos and uniforms of the New York Giants</a>. If you removed the logos from the article, you'd need to restructure the text of the article in order for it to make sense. Specific logos are referred to in the text. A downstream use would have to do more than simply strip fair use images from the content. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 15:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>The <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Texas_Longhorn_logo.svg" title="File:Texas Longhorn logo.svg">Texas Longhorns logo</a> now exists on 18 articles. It even exists on the UT marching band article, which isn't even a sports team, nor is the logo incorporated in the uniforms of the band, or on hallmark items such as <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UT_Big_Bertha.JPG" title="File:UT Big Bertha.JPG">big bertha</a>. Pray tell, why is the logo in use on that article? --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>You did not do your research very well. It absolutely is the logo for the UT marching band.<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://www.music.utexas.edu/LonghornBand/" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.music.utexas.edu/LonghornBand/" rel="nofollow">[10]</a> As such, it is perfectly reasonable for it to be on the article about the group it represents. In this case, the UT band. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Does the logo exist on their uniforms? No. Does the logo exist on their equipment? No. If you want to use a logo to help the user understand that they reached the right article, then use something that people visually identify as being that band. For example, the big "TEXAS" emblazoned on the back shoulders of every uniform. For example, the icon on Big Bertha. THOSE are recognizable as being associated with this band. Why the reluctance to fix this glaring problem? Why the absolute insistence that you must use the Longhorns logo on this page, where it's clearly inappropriate? --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 14:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>In what way does the existence of that logo, on that article, increase the reader's understanding of that subject? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#8" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#8</a>? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite" title="User talk:Black Kite">Black Kite</a> 02:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>From <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGO" title="Wikipedia:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">WP:LOGO</a>: "The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative." - <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 02:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> I think it's fairly obvious here that <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> took a completely wrong approach in trying to correct this "problem." Assuming for a minute that he is correct, how do you go about suddenly changing the content of hundreds of articles edited by hundreds of editors? Certainly not by making a post on this talk page and changing dozens of articles and a infobox template willy nilly on the same day. And this isn't an issue on whether or not you are correct--you quite possibly are. But by changing a common practice exercised by hundreds of editors on your own after no discussion will make people feel like you're stepping on their toes. And guess what? Most people don't like that, and will oppose you regardless of whether or not your point is valid. Next time, have some patience and allow enough time for your argument to spread before you decide to make a major change in policy for a particular project. Thanks <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CH52584" title="User:CH52584">CH52584</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CH52584" title="User talk:CH52584">talk</a>) 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Agreed. Hammer shouldn't be surprised with the reaction he has garnered. Does he have a point? Sure. Non-free usage has gotten to be a bit excessive. But, rashly removing these images without consensus was a terrible plan. I shudder to think if all affairs were conducted in this manner. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mastrchf91" title="User:Mastrchf91">Mastrchf</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mastrchf91" title="User talk:Mastrchf91">t</a>/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91" title="Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91">c</a>) 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>His methods were bad, but so was his premise.</dd> <dd>The usual argument for excluding non-free materials is that it might deter someone from making a free version. For instance, celebrities have offered to give us great "head shots" and permission to use them. We have refused because we feel that the professional looking headshot would deter someone from uploading their own picture of that person. We generally take the postion we would rather have the free photo, even though it is probably of lesser quality.</dd> <dd>That argument does not apply to logos, however. A user cannot make a free alternative to a logo. Therefore, the logo is not in anyway detering someone from uploading free content. Case-in-point: The very "test case" mentioned originally by Hammersmith is <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Texas_vs._Ohio_State_football_game" title="2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game">2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game</a>. The logos have not detered people from adding relevant free-use photos to that article.</dd> <dd>Simply put, Hammersmith is wrong both in methods and in idealogy on this one. There are occasisons of improper fair use in Wikipedia surely. This is not such an example. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Force10" title="User:Force10">Force10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Force10" title="User talk:Force10">talk</a>) 03:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>Oh good grief. People WAKE UP. You're accusing me of things I never did. I never touched the INFOBOX!!! Neither did I edit hundreds of articles. If you're going to accuse me of something, at least get your bare, basic facts right.</li> <li>Not to mention this isn't about my actions. It's about POLICY. Stop attempting to derail the issue by accusing me of wrongdoing and address the issues at hand. If you think I did something so grossly wrong, then by all means block the living *(#)$()#$ out of me. Otherwise, kindly keep your comments reserved to the policy discussion we are having. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 14:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Someone changed the infobox. Maybe it wasn't you. And I didn't accuse you of changing hundreds of articles, but changing dozens of articles with the ultimate goal of changing all college football articles without the agreement of the hundreds of editors that edit those articles without discussing it with those individuals first. Even if it is about policy and not consensus, it's still nice to allow people to understand and accept said policy before you try to enforce it. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CH52584" title="User:CH52584">CH52584</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CH52584" title="User talk:CH52584">talk</a>) 20:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>We could keep going in circles here, but I don't think this has been answered -- why do you need the logo in the first place? Of course noone can make a free alternative to a logo, but that's not even the issue here. How does having the logo in these articles enhance them beyond looking good? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melodia" title="User:Melodia">♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melodia" title="User talk:Melodia">talk</a>) 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>As I posted above: <ul> <li>From <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGO" title="Wikipedia:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">WP:LOGO</a>: "The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative."</li> </ul> </dd> <dd>The logo at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_University_of_Texas_Longhorn_Band" title="The University of Texas Longhorn Band">The University of Texas Longhorn Band</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_USC_Trojans_football_team" title="2007 USC Trojans football team">2007 USC Trojans football team</a> is just as valid as the logo at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi" title="Pepsi">Pepsi</a> or <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party" title="Black Panther Party">Black Panther Party</a> or <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)" title="Republican Party (United States)">Republic Party</a>. The clear consensus on the Wikipedia project is to allow fair-use images when no free alternative is possible. That applies to logos 100%. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>No, non-free images are used when images are necessary and no free alternative is possible. That is not yet shown (the marching band may be a more difficult case). From what you quote "Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity", but "2007 USC Trojans" is not an entity, it is one season of a college football program - it is thus not an entity and has no logo. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 03:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>You are mistaken. The 2007 Trojans is certainly an "entity" since a definition of "entity" is "an organization (as a business or governmental unit) that has an identity separate from those of its members".<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entity" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entity" rel="nofollow">[11]</a> The article is about the team. The team has a logo. The logo is used in the article and represents the team.</dd> <dd>The logos are 100% allowable by policy, and no one has given a good reason what they hurt or why they should be removed. As I showed above, they are not detering anyone from adding free content. Arguing for the removal of these logos is just taking away time we could be using to build the encyclopedia. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Non-free content must be shown to have a reason to be included, not why its removal must be demonstrated. That's what the resolution and the NFC policy is all about; we need to keep use to a minimum. As for the specific year of a team, that is not a separate entity from the team itself, it is only a snapshot of the entity. The logo is perfectly fine in <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USC_Trojans_football" title="USC Trojans football">USC Trojans football</a> (and likely the other main USC teams), but not on a specific year of that team. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 04:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I can assure you that the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team" title="2008 Michigan Wolverines football team">2008 Michigan Wolverines football team</a> is a very different entity than the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team" title="2004 Michigan Wolverines football team">2004 Michigan Wolverines football team</a>. Each team is its own entity.</dd> <dd>Regarding "minimum use" of fair content: Everyone's idea of "minimun" fair-use content is going to be different. If we truly want the minimum, we could have zero. That would truly be a minimum. We don't want that, clearly.</dd> <dd>Having agreed that we will have fair use, it is now proper to look at individual cases and see whether they interfere with the mission. Since this content does not interfere with the mission, there is no reason to remove it.</dd> <dd>On the other hand, the reason to keep it remains - the serve to "identify the object or entity in question".<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 04:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Masem, your premise is faulty. The <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USC_Trojans" title="USC Trojans">USC Trojans</a> have a logo. The <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_USC_Trojans_football_team" title="2008 USC Trojans football team">2008 USC Trojans football team</a> also has a logo, which happens to be the same. If we had an article for the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950_USC_Trojans_football_team&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="1950 USC Trojans football team (page does not exist)">1950 USC Trojans football team</a> and the logo for that team was different, it'd be reasonable to expect that logo to be there. The fact that ten incarnations of a team have the same logo is immaterial; each of them has the given logo as the way they're represented and therefore each is allowed to display it per <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGO" title="Wikipedia:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">WP:LOGO</a>. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 04:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Excellent point, Oren0. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Force10" title="User:Force10">Force10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Force10" title="User talk:Force10">talk</a>) 04:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Please note that <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGO" title="Wikipedia:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">WP:LOGO</a> is not policy. please also review the non-free content criteria, that all non-free content must meet. A logo is used for identifying the primary subject only, it should not be used in any article relating to the subject. one item that needs review by you a little closer is <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#8" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#8</a>. how is the removal hurting the understanding of a particular teams single year performance? other than visual identification which is achieved on the primary article? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand" title="User talk:Betacommand">βcommand</a> 04:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>A single year of a sports team is its own entity. It is made up of its own individuals and has its own history. It also has its own logo. If each year's team had a different logo, likely each logo would be its own file and included in only one article. The fact that teams use the same logo for several seasons is incidental. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usc_football_logo.gif" title="File:Usc football logo.gif">File:Usc_football_logo.gif</a> is the logo of the 2008 USC football team. It was also the logo of the 2007 team. If USC changes the logo next season, the 2008 team will still have this as its logo whereas the 2009 team would have a new logo. That's the misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that USC's logo belongs on every USC-related page. I'm saying that each team should be identified by its logo. The "how does removal hurt?" argument could be made about any logo except for those where the logo itself is notable (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola" title="Coca-Cola">Coca-Cola</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonalds" title="McDonalds" class="mw-redirect">McDonalds</a>, etc.). How would removing <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google" title="Google">Google</a> or <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America" title="Bank of America">Bank of America</a>'s logos detract from the understanding of those pages? Unless you're advocating a wholesale removal of thousands of logos, that argument doesn't hold much weight. Also, "it's a guideline not a policy" is a weak argument as well. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGO" title="Wikipedia:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">WP:LOGO</a> is a community consensus document whatever you call it and represents common practice. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 08:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I will make a technical argument against "is a community consensus": It was a community consensus at the time it was ratified. Has that <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CCC" title="Wikipedia:CCC" class="mw-redirect">consensus changed</a>? Are the people arguing over it different? I would say the answer to both is yes; your opinion may differ. In other words, it does not represent common practice, but represented common practice as documented at the time of ratification. Which <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Logos&direction=next&oldid=11928247" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Logos&direction=next&oldid=11928247" rel="nofollow">was in 2005</a>. That's 3.5 years ago. Further. The first section states in italics that it is supplemental but does not in any way shape or form override WP:NFC. It goes on to state that each logo needs a detailed non-free use rationale which requires that "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale." Every time. For every article. Quite plainly, these logos fail that requirement. I have no opinion as to how that part is fixed, but that is the necessary part to fix: Either every image page will need to say "This is our fair use rationale for this image for this article" 18 times, or it will be necessary to remove the image from the pages in general. I would daresay that removal of the image is both easier and more prudent in light of the mission of Wikimedia, and would thus advocate that as the way to proceed. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Izno" title="User:Izno">Izno</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Izno" title="User talk:Izno">talk</a>) 08:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I think that most people would not mind having (or editing in) a "This is our fair use rationale for this image for this article" (aka FUR) on the image page for each instance the image is used. If that is the requirement, I am not sure why there is even a conversation taking place on this since that was (in my understanding) already what was required. Either have a rationale for an article or remove it from that article; Seems like there isn't much disagreement here between the two sides if I understand the argument correctly. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cardsplayer4life" title="User:Cardsplayer4life">Cardsplayer4life</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cardsplayer4life" title="User talk:Cardsplayer4life">talk</a>) 11:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <--To Cardsplayer4life, we don't accept all fair use imagery based solely on the criteria of whether there is a fair use rationale added to the image's description page. That is but one small part of the criteria for inclusion shown at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a> (specifically in this case, #10c). The argument isn't about rationales. That's not even a debate. There *must* be a rationale, else it can't be on the article, and if there is no rationale at all for seven days, it gets deleted. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>To Izno - please remember that <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGO" title="Wikipedia:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">WP:LOGO</a> is not a static document from 3.5 years ago. It is easy to see it still represents the consensus of the community today. We have hundreds (maybe thousands?) of editors correctly adding logos into appropriate articles. We only have a few people arguing for their removal. If you canvass Wikipedia as a whole, you will definitely find broad support for this usage. This fact is borne out by every day operation. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 15:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Somewhere, there's an essay on here on misapplication of supposed majority. You claim this majority supports. I claim a majority supports my position. Barring presentation of evidence, neither you nor I is correct. You claim since the use is as is, your position is supported by the majority. I claim since fair use usage has been deprecated across a broad range of similar uses, my position is supported by the majority. But let me remind you; fair use policy isn't a consensus issue. If a thousand people liberally spread fair use images all over the place, they are not right by way of brute force. Else, we'd have a huge number of templates and userpages with fair use images on them. And trust me, a vast majority of people would prefer there be fair use images on templates and userpages. A majority doesn't make you right, even if the majority does support you (which, again barring evidence, has not been proven). --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 16:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> <li>It still represents the consensus of the community which edits it. Today. But as mentioned below, the consensus in this case is not the true consensus. Consider the soccer, basketball, and other sports projects, as well as the random business project. Do they seem to allow logos in more than one position? No. Which means the consensus you see is but a <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)" title="Sampling (statistics)">sample</a> which suffers from a lack of <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution" title="Probability distribution">samples</a> across the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_population" title="Statistical population">entirety</a> of Wikipedia. Which means that if we canvassed Wikipedia as a whole, I am fairly certain you would find yourself in the wrong, especially when considering what NFC says with the points which do not support your arguments. All the requirements of NFC must be met, not any selected 3 or 4. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Izno" title="User:Izno">Izno</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Izno" title="User talk:Izno">talk</a>) 17:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="3rd_Break_-_Deconstructing_the_problem" id="3rd_Break_-_Deconstructing_the_problem"></a> <h3>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: 3rd Break - Deconstructing the problem">edit</a>] 3rd Break - Deconstructing the problem</h3> Ok, there seem to be three major points here that have to be considered: <ol> <li>Repeated college logo images lack FURs for each use - This is a non-negotiable aspect of <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a> policy, but it is also fixable (outside the question of whether the rationale is acceptable to all). This is more a red herring, though those wishing to keep images must be aware that if an image is used on an article for more than 7 days without a rationale, its removal from that page is completely in line with policy. Thus, I think there's no further argument here.</li> <li>Is the sports team of a single year an entity of its own? - This is a significant point of debate. I myself have a hard time justifying this because the "ownership" of the team does not change significant year to year despite the fact that the roster may, and that in general the performance of a team in one year will factor into how the press believe the team will perform the next year - if it was a separate entity, this would not be the case. There "is" one college football team per school that plays year after year, and will have its logo (including possibly historical logos, but that's a previous debate shown with TV stations before). There's only one "New York Yankees" organization which lasts through the years, but we do snapshot their roster and performance for a given year.</li> <li>Is the rationale "to help the reader identify the team" appropriate on pages where the team is not the main topic? - Even if the above question is vague, this is point of contention - in an article in which the team is not the main topic but is covered in large detail (the team rivalry pages, the various bowl games), can this be a valid rationale to use an individual team logo? I don't see this as being the case, because we've already got (at least) one page with the team's logo that will be linked into from that page either in the infobox or the lead. Furthermore, WP is not set up to allow browsing of pages visually - it's a text-based search, so if one were to want to make sure the reader knew they were at the right page by checking on which team they were looking for, a well-written lead or a infobox will do just the same. If WP was page where you can flip the pages, I could understand the logo because that would be eye-catching there, but not in the case of an eletronic and mostly text based medium. Since we don't allow images for purely decorative purposes, team logos on these pages would not be appropriate.</li> </ol> I think its worthwhile to go back to the start of all this and as Hammersoft pointed out, none of the professional sports pages use team logos on pages outside of the team's page itself. I think from all this that the last two points I outline above are taken in the negative in regards to NFC use by the professional sports, and thus there's strong existing consensus this extends to all sports at all levels (and I just checked, and also seems to extend to international football (soccer) as well). Those that are insisting the college teams are to be treated different are going against that consensus. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 15:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Au contraire, Masem. See the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_NFL_Expansion_Draft" title="2002 NFL Expansion Draft">2002 NFL Expansion Draft</a>, a Featured List, for an example of the use of a professional team's logo outside of the team page.--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2008Olympian" title="User:2008Olympian">2008Olympian</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2008Olympian" title="User talk:2008Olympian">chitchat</a> 15:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Masem, you look at the wrong points so it is not surprising that you draw the wrong conclusions. These facts are:</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ol> <li>There is no free-use alternative to a logo.</li> <li>The logo is used to identify the entity which is the subject of the article.</li> <li>No one is advocating putting in the logo where-ever Team A is discussed briefly. For instance, if an article about Team B says that they finished their previous season against, we don't include Team A's logo. All of the usages are in logos substantially about the team they represent.</li> <li>The use of the logos on these pages does not deter anyone from adding other free-use images into the articles.</li> <li>The use of the logos is consistent with <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGO" title="Wikipedia:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">WP:LOGO</a></li> <li>There is strong consensus for the use of the logos in this fashion, as evidenced by the many editors using them in this fashion. What pro-sports seem to be doing is not our concern. Different levels of sport have different levels of coverage on Wikipedia. Just because someone else is not adding content they could be using, that does not imply any limitation on other articles. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists" title="Wikipedia:Other stuff exists">The fact that other stuff does not exist is not a reason why something else should not exist</a>.</li> </ol> <dl> <dd>In conclusion - the logos are not replaceable. They are on on articles substantially about the topics the logos represent. Hence, they are acceptable by policy. No one can explain any harm that they cause. They make the encyclopedia better, so they should clearly be used in this fashion. Thanks, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 15:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>@Olympian - that is not the same as a team logo's use that's in question here. In that specific case, it is an example of a logo created specifically for the purposes of the expansion draft, and thus appropriate. <s>That said, it is lacking a FUR for that page, which is a non-negotiable issue.</s> I see what happened: the effective same image was being used at both the draft page and the team page but were two different images, so it looked like the one FUR wasn't there. Because we don't need both images, I've gone ahead, combined the FURs and licensing and used the better image (the one that doesn't crop the banners) and fixed the Draft page to use that image, deleting the duplicate. So the image is all good in terms of meeting FUR. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 16:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> <dd>@Johntex - The only consensus that these uses of logos is ok is among the college football editors - taking all of sports which are arranged in very similar fashions and to the same level of detail and coverage across the entire span of WP, this use is a minority. Plus, you're starting from a false assumption: that the page needs an image, which leads to "there are no non-free equivalents" and the like. Not every page needs an image (free or non-free), but we encourage the use of free images when they are relevant, and non-free images only when they are necessary. There has yet to be any evidence that most of these articles need the team logo to increase the reader's understanding. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 16:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Sure they do! See, if someone comes to the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%E2%80%93Tennessee_rivalry" title="Florida–Tennessee rivalry">Florida–Tennessee rivalry</a>, and doesn't see that Florida Gators logo, they're going to be utterly lost and confused about whether they've landed at the right article or not. Reading that one of the teams involved in the rivalry is "the University of Florida (the Gators)" isn't sufficient. You have to have the logo there, else our readers will be utterly confused and lost. We don't want them thinking they landed on the Harvard Yale rivalry page, now do we? Odd. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Harvard-Yale)" title="The Game (Harvard-Yale)">The Game (Harvard-Yale)</a> doesn't have any logos on it. Those Ivy Leaguers must be getting awfully confused when they come to that page. I wonder how long they spend searching around trying to make sure they landed on the right page? --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 16:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>The sarcasm really does not help make a case. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Izno" title="User:Izno">Izno</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Izno" title="User talk:Izno">talk</a>) 16:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>It highlights two things; one, the absurdity of the position being demonstrated, and the intractability of those holding the position. I stand by it. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>Coming fresh to the debate, non-free logos should definitely not be used in lists of results, articles about leagues, etc., as it's a blatant violation of NFCC1 and 3a. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stifle" title="User:Stifle">Stifle</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stifle/wizard" title="User talk:Stifle/wizard">talk</a>) 16:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>This is mainly about specific seasons (such as <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Florida_Gators_football_team" title="2003 Florida Gators football team">2003 Florida Gators football team</a>), specific games (such as <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Texas_vs._Ohio_State_football_game" title="2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game">2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game</a>) and specific rivalries (such as <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedlam_Series" title="Bedlam Series">Bedlam Series</a>). Though, I think your points are valid still. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 16:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li> <ul> <li>For another example of how the pros do it, see <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys-Redskins_rivalry" title="Cowboys-Redskins rivalry">Cowboys-Redskins rivalry</a>. There just aren't as many of these type games in the pros as there are in colleges, but I think that they are proper use of the logos.--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2008Olympian" title="User:2008Olympian">2008Olympian</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2008Olympian" title="User talk:2008Olympian">chitchat</a> 16:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> <li>Or the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_NFL_Expansion_Draft" title="1960 NFL Expansion Draft">1960 NFL Expansion Draft</a>, or <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_NFL_Expansion_Draft" title="1961 NFL Expansion Draft">1961</a>, et al...--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2008Olympian" title="User:2008Olympian">2008Olympian</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2008Olympian" title="User talk:2008Olympian">chitchat</a> 16:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Another <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" title="Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" class="mw-redirect">WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS</a> argument. That something exists doesn't mean it should exist. Please come up with another argument. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 17:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Hammerssoft, your statement here is very hypocritical. Your very first post tries to find other similar articles that don't have logos. You can't have it both ways. Either comparisons to other articles are useful to the discussion, or they are not. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 00:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li> <ul> <li> <ul> <li>(ec)But of course not on every NFL draft - only those that have the introduction of new teams; those exceptional cases I can reasonably argue as an appropriate use of the logo (since it is about the first creation of that team's roster); this is a very different case from having the logo on any average season of any team. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 17:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Masem, what about the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys-Redskins_rivalry" title="Cowboys-Redskins rivalry">Cowboys-Redskins rivalry</a>? And Hammer, I was just addressing the statement above that, as "Hammersoft pointed out, none of the professional sports pages use team logos on pages outside of the team's page itself." I was just showing that was not a true representation of the consensus in the pro football area.--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2008Olympian" title="User:2008Olympian">2008Olympian</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2008Olympian" title="User talk:2008Olympian">chitchat</a> 17:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Also, see the articles at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49ers-Rams_rivalry" title="49ers-Rams rivalry">49ers-Rams rivalry</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ohio_(NFL)" title="Battle of Ohio (NFL)">Battle of Ohio (NFL)</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears-Packers_rivalry" title="Bears-Packers rivalry">Bears-Packers rivalry</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengals-Steelers_rivalry" title="Bengals-Steelers rivalry">Bengals-Steelers rivalry</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browns-Steelers_rivalry" title="Browns-Steelers rivalry">Browns-Steelers rivalry</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiefs%E2%80%93Colts_rivalry" title="Chiefs–Colts rivalry">Chiefs–Colts rivalry</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiefs%E2%80%93Raiders_rivalry" title="Chiefs–Raiders rivalry">Chiefs–Raiders rivalry</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colts%E2%80%93Patriots_rivalry" title="Colts–Patriots rivalry">Colts–Patriots rivalry</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys-Redskins_rivalry" title="Cowboys-Redskins rivalry">Cowboys-Redskins rivalry</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagles-Giants_rivalry" title="Eagles-Giants rivalry">Eagles-Giants rivalry</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jets-Patriots_rivalry" title="Jets-Patriots rivalry">Jets-Patriots rivalry</a>.--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2008Olympian" title="User:2008Olympian">2008Olympian</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2008Olympian" title="User talk:2008Olympian">chitchat</a> 17:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>First, there is the problem of no FURs for those articles (using spot checks). Technically all those images should be removed from the pages, but that is a fixable issue. However, on the issue of whether the logo helps or not, I can't argue this case here. Team rivalries happen all the time, and thus there's nothing special, unlike the creation of an expansion team, that needs an image. The logos are only being used for decoration to identify the teams despite that information being there at least twice (maybe three times) before the meat of the article: lead, infobox, and article name.</dd> <dd>Another point to consider in all this. Those logos are only recognizable by a small fraction of the readers of WP, those that follow those sports, live in those cities, etc. The rationale "to help the reader identify the team" is not valid here since it only applies to a small group and not to the general reader. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 17:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>What does the fact that only a small fraction of readers recognizes a logo (or any other image) have to do with anything? I come here to learn, not to have stuff that I already know regurgitated at me. The b.s. that anti-image (or anti-anything) people will with come up with to support their narrow view of the rules just repeatedly astounds me. Whether you have seen a logo or not before in your life doesn't invalidate its presence. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiggy!" title="User:Wiggy!">Wiggy!</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiggy!" title="User talk:Wiggy!">talk</a>) 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>You guys made <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" title="Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" class="mw-redirect">WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS</a> relevant when you said "none of the professional sports pages use team logos on pages outside of the team's page itself...Those that are insisting the college teams are to be treated different are going against that consensus." We've shown via the NFL that this point isn't true. Not to mention that <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST" title="Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST" class="mw-redirect">WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST</a> links to the same place. As for the "small percentage" argument, it's both inaccurate (these logos are recognized by millions of people; likely more than the vast majority of corporate logos on WP) and irrelevant. The crux of this seems to go back to the "is each year its own entity" argument. I think an interesting example is the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl" title="Super Bowl">Super Bowl</a>. Each one (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_42" title="Super Bowl 42" class="mw-redirect">Super Bowl 42</a>) has its own logo, but again that seems incidental. Each year's incarnation includes a logo. If the logos were the same each year, would that itself make them be excluded based on <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGO" title="Wikipedia:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">WP:LOGO</a>, or other considerations? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 18:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> (not entirely sure where to put this comment, so near the bottom will have to do) Coming as this from the perspective of being an editor of articles about a <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football" title="Association football">different football</a> there seem to be elements of a different editing culture to what I am used to. Part of this is the mild balkanisation of different sports on Wikipedia, but thats by the by. For example I'm highly surprised that team logos are routinely being used in articles about specific matches. The logos do not identify that match, and do not help understanding of it. To me this is like putting the logo on the article about their home stadium, or an article about a player well known for playing for that team. Seasons I'm also surprised by, it sails very close to the wind in terms of <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:LOGO" title="MOS:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">MOS:LOGO</a>, with some parallels to the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:FLAG" title="MOS:FLAG" class="mw-redirect">issues surrounding flags</a> too. Were such an article to come up at FAC, I'd certainly raise it as an issue when reviewing. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oldelpaso" title="User:Oldelpaso">Oldelpaso</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oldelpaso" title="User talk:Oldelpaso">talk</a>) 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>I'm glad you mention FAC. You are actually mistaken about the logos being a problem there. Please see <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Texas_Longhorns_football_team" title="2005 Texas Longhorns football team">2005 Texas Longhorns football team</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_USC_Trojans_football_team" title="2007 USC Trojans football team">2007 USC Trojans football team</a>. Both of these are Featured Articles and both use the logo. They achieved FA status more than a year apart, so there is a long running consensus at FAC that this use of the logo is perfectly acceptable. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 16:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>FAC generally only looks at the one use of that image in that article. In a vacuum, the use of a logo seems appropriate on both pages (and I note that the person that reviewed images on the 2007 USC article does know what he's doing). The issue is that the image is duplicated across numerous pages - that is the concern here, and the acceptance at FAC/FLC is not a strong point of indication of wide-spread use. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 16:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>I don't mean to imply that FAC is fool-proof. Certainly even Featured Articles are not perfect. However, I disagree with you that they tend to look only at usage on that page in a narrow sense. My experience in getting 2 FAs approved and through general contributions to the FAC process is that the process is typically far-reaching. If the experienced editors there think that *any* image was in *any* way inappropriate, they tend to make their concerns known. Therefore, I do think this is strong evidence of the community feeling about these logos. The FAC editors have said these articles are examplars of the best work on Wikipedia. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 23:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>I guess the point I'm trying to say is a FAC reviewer only considers the image use on that page and on no other pages on WP - as long as it has an appropriate FUR and is necessary for the understanding of the article, it is usually passed. In the void of any other per-season team articles, the logo seems fine from the FAC stance. But, besides minimal use per page of NFC content, NFC content should be used minimally on WP, and this is not addressed at FAC. This is the bulk of the argument: an non-free image being used more than a couple of times in a very repetitive nature raises a lot of warning flags and, when encountered in the past (the Trinity Network logo, for example) its use is quelled down. In other words, while this affects articles, we're looking at a large grouping of articles and how they are affected by the NFC use. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 04:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <a name="Going_in_circles.2C_solving_nothing" id="Going_in_circles.2C_solving_nothing"></a> <h3>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=5" title="Edit section: Going in circles, solving nothing">edit</a>] Going in circles, solving nothing</h3> It's obvious from all the discussion above that we are going in circles. I don't have a particular solution in mind to halt this situation. But, the status quo obviously can't remain for two reasons: <ol> <li>Fair use imagery has to surpass a number of hurdles to get on to Wikipedia. There's no consensus that this use is permissible. The opposite opinion is there's no consensus to deprecate the use. But the DEFAULT case here with respect to fair use is that lacking consensus to use means we don't use.</li> <li>Fair use policy isn't a consensus issue. The <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy" class="extiw" title="foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy">Foundation's resolution</a> makes that clear.</li> </ol> I suggest that those that want to include these types of uses being discussed come up with a well reasoned approach as to why this use is acceptable under guideline, policy and resolution. So far the arguments have been <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ILIKEIT" title="Wikipedia:ILIKEIT" class="mw-redirect">WP:ILIKEIT</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" title="Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" class="mw-redirect">WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOHARM" title="Wikipedia:NOHARM" class="mw-redirect">WP:NOHARM</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRETTY" title="Wikipedia:PRETTY" class="mw-redirect">WP:PRETTY</a> and it passes <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a> because it does. If this isn't done, you should expect to find this use deprecated soon. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 18:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Please see <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_overuse_shortcuts_to_policy_and_guidelines_to_win_your_argument" title="Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument">Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument</a>. Both sides can post plenty of blue links. For instance, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGO" title="Wikipedia:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">WP:LOGO</a>, which spells out exactly why using a fair use logo is not the same as other cases, such as a fair-use image a celebrity. A Wikipedian can make a replacement for the photo of a celebrity. There is no replacement for a logo. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>As long as were enumerating our points: <ol> <li>Please don't make threats. "If you guys don't satisfy me, I'm going to remove these images" is inappropriate.</li> <li>Please don't use <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument" title="Straw man argument" class="mw-redirect">strawmen</a>. The arguments you list above are completely unrepresentative of what the pro-inclusion camp is arguing, to the point where maintaining <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF" title="Wikipedia:AGF" class="mw-redirect">WP:AGF</a> is difficult with you (maybe your reading comprehension is just bad?).</li> <li>The arguments of the pro-inclusion camp are based on guideline and policy, specifically <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGO" title="Wikipedia:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">WP:LOGO</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a>, and even the same <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy" class="extiw" title="foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy">Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy</a> you link above (which specifically allows logos and gives no indication their use should be curtailed). We argue, for example, that the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Florida_Gators_football_team" title="2004 Florida Gators football team">2004 Florida Gators football team</a> has the same logo as <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Gators" title="Florida Gators">Florida Gators</a> and therefore can permissibly display that logo per policy. Some have also argued that other instances, such as rivalry games, apply the same logic. These are legitimate questions where good-faith editors can disagree. But to say that this argument is clearly against policy or is just <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ILIKEIT" title="Wikipedia:ILIKEIT" class="mw-redirect">WP:ILIKEIT</a>, etc. is disingenuous.</li> </ol> </dd> <dd>I do believe that most of the other anti-inclusionists are addressing the merits of these points, but it's clear from your summary Hammersoft that you do not wish to address our points. Please do so rather than offering distractions. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 18:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <ul> <li><beavis>I didn't threaten you. Please don't attempt to interpret things as threats</beavis>. It is better if you <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_bad_faith" title="Wikipedia:Assume bad faith">just assume bad faith</a>. You'll find processing of my posts considerably easier. If that fails, read <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">my homepage</a>. Now, with the personal attacks out of the way and allowing us to return to actual discussion....</li> <li>What I was attempting to highlight was something that has happened before. Huge (and I mean huge) numbers of people have opposed removals of fair use images before, and were trumped by a small cadre of administrators operating in support of Foundation policy. THAT is what I meant by my comments on the point of breaking the circle of discussion, or having it done for you. That's why I'm suggesting the pro-inclusionist come up with well reasoned arguments why these images should be included as desired by them. Else, disappointment will result. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 19:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FUEXPLAIN" title="Wikipedia:FUEXPLAIN" class="mw-redirect">WP:FUEXPLAIN</a> was written after the last major sweep of removals, reading it may help those who think they can abuse non-free content. also wikilinks can serve the same purpose as an image if it links to the article with the logo. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand" title="User talk:Betacommand">βcommand</a> 20:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Please note that the link Betacommand posts is simply a link to an essay in his own userspace. Linking to his opinion doesn't make his opinion any more correct. Please see <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_overuse_shortcuts_to_policy_and_guidelines_to_win_your_argument" title="Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument">Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument</a>. In this case, he is not even linking to a policy or a guideline, just an essay. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 00:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>I strongly disagree with the opening statement of this section: "the status quo obviously can't remain". On the contrary, most editors seem to regard the status quo regarding team logos on team pages as just fine. That is: not violating any copyright laws, not violating either the letter or the spirit of any wikipedia guideline or rule or mission or anything else, and useful for readers of the articles in question.</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Frankly, this is exactly the kind of argument over nothing that causes many an editor to give up on this project. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 20:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> God, this is so incredibly tedious. Nobody is ever going to get anywhere, because there's a basic difference in world view. On the one side, you have normal people, who think "gee, it's nice to have the logo [or whatever other fair use image], and there's absolutely no chance we'll ever possibly get in any kind of legal trouble for using it, so why not? What harm does it do?" On the other side, you have people who are obsessed with "free content" and who thus want to remove any kind of copyrighted context under any pretext that can be devised under the rules. The basic issue is that one side things the images are a good thing, and that we should use them if we can, and the other side thinks they are a bad thing, and that we should only use them if we absolutely have to. The second position has for some time seemed completely insane to me, but it appears to be the one supported by the Foundation, and I have no doubt that, soon enough, virtually all instances of team logos will be removed from Wikipedia. It's best not to get too worked up about it. On this issue the crazies have already won, and it's just a matter of time as they slowly force the removal of all copyrighted images. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney" title="User:John Kenney">john k</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Kenney" title="User talk:John Kenney">talk</a>) 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Actually I think you'll find that is not the case. The Foundation resolution is comparatively liberal - it's closely based on the norms of US fair use law, and (apart from the important point that we certainly must not use non-free media when alternative free media could reasonably be available) basically reflects no more than the constraints needed for US commercial reuse. The most misrepresented word is probably "minimal", which actually comes straight from U.S. law, where it means "no more than needed to achieve the purpose identified". Importantly, the motivation for the resolution was not that we need to drive down existing levels of fair use - Kat Walsh, who was on the board at the time when the resolution was created, has been very clear on this point. This was not an issue. Instead en-wiki, with a codified <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a>, interpreted as it was being interpreted at the time, was seen as exemplifying best practice, and the intention was to encourage other projects to adopt similar formal policies. It is noticeable that since that time people who misunderstand the Foundation position have often begged the Foundation to lay down the law and more drastically restrict fair use. The Foundation has systematically refused to do so, leaving it as a matter for the projects to work out for themselves. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 22:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>HAhahahahaahahahah! Ok, so the pro-inclusionists are "normal" people. Thanks for the insult! I'm abnormal now, and obsessed with free content. Actually, I'll take that as a compliment, since this is A FREE CONTENT ENCYCLOPEDIA it is hardly surprising that there would be people here who are (gosh gee willikers) interested in free content. I mean, the horror! Someone on a free content project interested in free content??? Say it ain't so!!!! We can't let those abnormal pervy types in here! BAN! I SAY! BAN THE FREE CONTENT LOVERS NOW!</li> <li>I simply can't believe this. We've got people claiming that free content is a SECONDARY mission of the project, and that people who are interested in free content are "obsessed" and (by inference) "abnormal". Unreal, surreal. Truth stranger than fiction. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 20:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>The fundamental goal of this project is <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/vision" class="extiw" title="m:vision">m:vision</a>. The document <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/mission" class="extiw" title="m:mission">m:mission</a> is secondary - it describes our priorities in how to get there. The recent <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches" title="Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches">Signpost article</a> describes how the two can conflict, and how <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a> represents a balance between them. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 22:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> <dd>Furthermore, there are two distinct viewpoints in how NFC affects <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/mission" class="extiw" title="m:mission">m:mission</a>. One, which I think is yours, is that any NFC on a page poisons it and makes it non-free. The other, for example expressed by ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC) above, is that the page still contains an enormous amount of free content, plus a non-free image; and that judicious and appropriate use of NFC may well encourage editors, so that they contribute even more free content.</dd> <dd>Policy, I believe, takes a balanced position and considers practical reusability. We don't use NFC that could not be used by a verbatim US commercial reuser - so they can use automated methods to redistribute our content. But where re-use would inevitably be manual, we best empower our readers and our reusers by including legally permissible content if it helps inform the article, and letting them decide. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 23:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Jheald, just to clarify; someone earlier claimed that our secondary mission is free content. The vision and mission might at times be at odds, but our primary (and only) mission is to provide a free content encyclopedia. There is no secondary mission. That's what my post was referring to. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 02:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>hammersoft one thing that those images cannot meet is <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#8" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#8</a> ... its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. the usage does not meet the requirements, they have no option but to follow policy. policy requires minimal usage and importance. mass usage of NFC will be reverted every single time I see it. its a clear violation. they can wine and complain and spout <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ILIKEIT" title="Wikipedia:ILIKEIT" class="mw-redirect">WP:ILIKEIT</a> and NOT FAIR. please note that this is not the fair use policy, this is the non-free content policy. there must be a unique reason for including each usage. if a rationale (both on the image and its usage) does not pass muster it will be removed. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand" title="User talk:Betacommand">βcommand</a> 21:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Unique reason? But the images DO have 'unique' reasons; "Identification and critical commentary in the NNNNN article, a subject of public interest. The logo confirms to readers they have reached the correct article, and illustrates the intended branding message." That's the unique reason, repeated 18 times over on images like <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Texas_Longhorn_logo.svg" title="File:Texas Longhorn logo.svg">File:Texas Longhorn logo.svg</a>. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>I don't really know what the issue is here, but since people are mentioning the Foundation's name, I thought I'd throw in Mike Godwin's most recent comment at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Non-free_media&diff=prev&oldid=251844547" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Non-free_media&diff=prev&oldid=251844547" rel="nofollow">[12]</a> if it would help in anyway. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MBisanz" title="User:MBisanz">MBisanz</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBisanz" title="User talk:MBisanz">talk</a> 22:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>This issue is basically a debate on how to judge "significance", <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FUC" title="Wikipedia:FUC" class="mw-redirect">WP:FUC</a> rule #8, regarding the inclusion of sports logos on various sports articles — something <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Logos/Archive_2#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos" title="Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 2">that has not been fully resolved in more than two years</a>, unfortunately. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11" title="User:Zzyzx11">Zzyzx11</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zzyzx11" title="User talk:Zzyzx11">(Talk)</a> 05:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <a name="Fair_use_in_The_Game_.28Harvard-Yale.29" id="Fair_use_in_The_Game_.28Harvard-Yale.29"></a> <h4>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=6" title="Edit section: Fair use in The Game (Harvard-Yale)">edit</a>] Fair use in <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Harvard-Yale)" title="The Game (Harvard-Yale)">The Game (Harvard-Yale)</a></h4> After mentioning <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Harvard-Yale)" title="The Game (Harvard-Yale)">The Game (Harvard-Yale)</a> here earlier today, fair use inclusionists are now striving to push Harvard and Yale sports logos onto this article, despite there being a perfectly good free license image previously present on the article, despite this article existing for four years without the fair use sports logos. See <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Game_(Harvard-Yale)&action=history" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Game_(Harvard-Yale)&action=history" rel="nofollow">article history</a>. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Please see <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army-Navy_Game" title="Army-Navy Game" class="mw-redirect">Army-Navy</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Bowl" title="Iron Bowl">Alabama-Auburn</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNC-Duke_rivalry" title="UNC-Duke rivalry" class="mw-redirect">Duke-North Carolina</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCLA-USC_rivalry" title="UCLA-USC rivalry" class="mw-redirect">UCLA-USC</a>, and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Game_(football)" title="Big Game (football)">Cal-Stanford</a> fir examples of existing consensus. No one is trying to tell you not to change consensus, but you do that with a RfC, not by just taking matters into your own hands.--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2008Olympian" title="User:2008Olympian">2008Olympian</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2008Olympian" title="User talk:2008Olympian">chitchat</a> 02:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>I haven't taken matters into my own hands. Upon hearing of the logos not being on that article, YOU took matters into your own hands to push the logos onto an article where no logos had existed for four years, breaking the status quo on that article. Now, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geologik" title="User:Geologik">User:Geologik</a> is ignoring <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BRD" title="Wikipedia:BRD" class="mw-redirect">WP:BRD</a> and edit warring to push his preferred version. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 02:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>Yes, I made it conform to current consensus as illustrated in the above-mentioned articles. I wasn't going to permit one outlier to be used, as you did above, as a reason to remove the logos from all the other rivalry pages.--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2008Olympian" title="User:2008Olympian">2008Olympian</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2008Olympian" title="User talk:2008Olympian">chitchat</a> 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>So you <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN" title="Wikipedia:OWN" class="mw-redirect">own</a> the article then? You're not going to permit it? You're going to force fair use content onto an article that for four years did not have fair use content? Note that this particular rivalry page is far from being the only rivalry page absent logos. You're on thin ice here 2008Olympian. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 03:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>Until the issue is decided differently than what the current standard is (preferably through a vote or something since this conversation seems to be bogging down heavily), the logos in the article seem to be in place, as with any rivalry game. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cardsplayer4life" title="User:Cardsplayer4life">Cardsplayer4life</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cardsplayer4life" title="User talk:Cardsplayer4life">talk</a>) 05:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Unless I missed something, it was highly inappropriate for any editors to add the image in question to the page in question, specifically for the reason "well, it was an outlier, and now it's not". That was a completely uncalled for decision. I think an RfC for LOGOS may be in order (whether here or at that talk page matters not to me), as it seems to me that the Logos guideline is being misused. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Izno" title="User:Izno">Izno</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Izno" title="User talk:Izno">talk</a>) 05:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>So, basically no team logo images can be either added or removed from articles? It seems like that is a bit of an unsustainable stalemate. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cardsplayer4life" title="User:Cardsplayer4life">Cardsplayer4life</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cardsplayer4life" title="User talk:Cardsplayer4life">talk</a>) 05:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>For the moment, I think that would be preferable either way. I personally lie on the side of "those images should be removed per the mission and NFCC", but I think it silly that people are trying to force their side, so a 'cease-fire' in such a manner seems suitable until people have come to a conclusion here. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Izno" title="User:Izno">Izno</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Izno" title="User talk:Izno">talk</a>) 06:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Perfectly acceptable for me personally. Unfortunately <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Game_(football)&diff=257644188&oldid=257640424" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Game_(football)&diff=257644188&oldid=257640424" rel="nofollow">some</a> are not convinced of the need for a temporary stalemate. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cardsplayer4life" title="User:Cardsplayer4life">Cardsplayer4life</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cardsplayer4life" title="User talk:Cardsplayer4life">talk</a>) 06:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Quite correct. Nonfree images are always presumed unacceptable unless clearly shown to pass these policies, the WMF resolution, and clear consensus. All three are required. Here, we may say at the very least there is the absence of consensus, in itself rendering reinsertion unacceptable. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 07:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>So you go about it by doing what Hammersoft did to start this whole mess by taking matters into your own hands before it is even decided? That isn't very constructive. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cardsplayer4life" title="User:Cardsplayer4life">Cardsplayer4life</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cardsplayer4life" title="User talk:Cardsplayer4life">talk</a>) 08:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>It already is decided. We don't use nonfree images when free ones are available or when text alone is sufficient. That was decided by the Foundation and by this policy. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 09:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Obviously there are a lot of people in the above conversations that disagree. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cardsplayer4life" title="User:Cardsplayer4life">Cardsplayer4life</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cardsplayer4life" title="User talk:Cardsplayer4life">talk</a>) 10:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>That doesn't matter. We don't use nonfree content when we have free. That is not negotiable or subject to discussion, we don't do it. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>By all means, as the removal of unique logos, which was discussed above and agreed would be in compliance, is also being pushed onto <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_NFL_Expansion_Draft" title="2002 NFL Expansion Draft">2002 NFL Expansion Draft</a>, see :<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_NFL_Expansion_Draft&diff=257618556&oldid=257515713" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_NFL_Expansion_Draft&diff=257618556&oldid=257515713" rel="nofollow">[13]</a>. <dl> <dd>That is not by any means unique, it is also used in a gallery at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Texans" title="Houston Texans">Houston Texans</a>. Though, that article suffers seriously from nonfree overuse, so it indeed might be better in that case to have the draft logo in the draft article alone, and then trim out the massive numbers of nonfree images there. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 06:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>"...YOU took matters into your own hands to push the logos onto an article where no logos had existed for four years, breaking the status quo on that article." Hammer, you have no room to even mention "breaking the status quo". Let's at least own up to our own actions. -- <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mastrchf91" title="User:Mastrchf91">Mastrchf</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mastrchf91" title="User talk:Mastrchf91">t</a>/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91" title="Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91">c</a>) 06:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> Such articles don't even have the potential to talk about the logos thus there is no reason to include them.<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geni" title="User:Geni">Geni</a> 13:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Clearly any article has the potential to discuss anything in the article, including images. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 16:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Not really. When you are writeing about a team it is not that unusal to talk about the logo. When you are writeing about a game it is very unusal to talk about the logos. Of course if the article does include a discusion on the logos we can consider includeing them but that would be uncommon.<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geni" title="User:Geni">Geni</a> 17:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Geni is right here, that article has no potential right now to include discussion of the logos. When someone finds a source discussing the logos on the context of "The Game", it will be then when you can add the logos, together with the discussion. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enric_Naval" title="User:Enric Naval">Enric Naval</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Enric_Naval" title="User talk:Enric Naval">talk</a>) 17:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="The_real_reason_is_forcing_people_to_find_non-free_content" id="The_real_reason_is_forcing_people_to_find_non-free_content"></a> <h4>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=7" title="Edit section: The real reason is forcing people to find non-free content">edit</a>] The real reason is forcing people to find non-free content</h4> WP:NFCC keeps fair-use images out of articles. People want the articles to have pretty photos, so, since they can't rip off prophesional quality photographies out of the internet, they are forced to go out to make their own photos or find people who has photos with free licenses, and so wikipedia gains free-use content. See? It's easy. If there are already logos on the infobox, then nobody will bother finding a representative free photo of a match that can go on the infobox so it will look pretty with an image. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enric_Naval" title="User:Enric Naval">Enric Naval</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Enric_Naval" title="User talk:Enric Naval">talk</a>) 17:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Thats only part of it. Another element is that we want wikipedia to be as free as posible. Useing material under fair use conflicts with this so we try and keep such use as minimal as posible.17:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Yeah, very right, it also serves that purpose. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enric_Naval" title="User:Enric Naval">Enric Naval</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Enric_Naval" title="User talk:Enric Naval">talk</a>) 17:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>It's not clear that the presence of a logo will discourage people from adding a photo to a page if a relevant one can be found. Also, the principal types of pages being argued about here (pages such as <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007-08_North_Carolina_Tar_Heels_men%27s_basketball_team" title="2007-08 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team">2007-08 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team</a> which use <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NCAATeamSeason" title="Template:NCAATeamSeason">Template:NCAATeamSeason</a>) can't really display any type of image other than a logo. This is why we allow non-free content when there is no possible replacement. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 19:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I'm quite sure there are free photos of games played by the team during that season, perhaps even a group shot of the team. If none are available now, we could always ask someone who took such a photo to release it under a free license. There are many free alternatives to the logo to illustrate the subject. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 20:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>(sarcasm alert!) There are also many free alternatives to corporate logos. A photo of the local McDonald's would suffice to represent the whole chain, no? And, along the same lines, a shot of an old IBM typewriter would do to represent that company. Of course, the golden arches on the sign in front of the restaurant and the IBM logo on the typewriter would have to be blurred out, as they are non-free content and, thusly, evil incarnate. (end sarcasm)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>There's really no intellectual distance at all between the statements above (not my sarcasm; the real ones) to a ban on all fair use images. Fortunately, I still haven't seen any actual wikipolicy (an essay which carries no official weight doesn't count) that agrees with the radical anti-fair use crowd.</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>And let me repeat: endless wikilawyering = less contributing editors. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 20:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>We allow the IBM logo in the IBM article, just as we allow the team logo in the main article on the team. On the other hand, this is indeed similar to an article on a specific model of IBM typewriter, in which case a shot of the typewriter would indeed be sufficient. We do not allow the IBM or McDonald's logo in every article which concerns IBM or McDonald's, and we do not allow the team logo in every article which concerns the team. There is no dissonance there. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 20:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>IBM logo is ineligible, so overuse of it doesn't actually matter, but you have a point somewhat. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ViperSnake151" title="User:ViperSnake151">ViperSnake151</a> 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>There is no reason to remove the logos to promote free content. Look at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Texas_Longhorn_football_team" title="2005 Texas Longhorn football team" class="mw-redirect">2005 Texas Longhorn football team</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_USC_Trojans_football_team" title="2007 USC Trojans football team">2007 USC Trojans football team</a>. Both are <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_Articles" title="Wikipedia:Featured Articles" class="mw-redirect">Featured Articles</a>. Both use the team logos. Both have lots of free-use images also. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>The fact that a lot of cleanup is needed shouldn't stop us from doing it. There's cleanup needed on those as well, but we've got to start somewhere. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 20:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>The only "group photo" of a team that you'll find (with all the players and coaches) will be the official team photo, which is also copyrighted by the school. Again, there is no free alternative to headline a team's season page. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>I would argue that this is a more appropriate non-free image to use to represent a team from a single year than the general logo for the school, sports program, or team. In the case of past college years, there would be no free equivalent of that entire collection (as opposed to the current year) and thus is allowable. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 20:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <ol> <li>Seraphimblade, what cleanup are referring to? My post is pointing out that the inclusion of logos on these 2 FA has not been any sort of deterrent to people providing free content. Or were you replying to someone else's post in the thread? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 20:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ol> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>There is overuse of nonfree content on the two articles you pointed out as well, in addition to the unnecessary logos, so they need cleanup. They actually probably have more overuse than the other articles we've discussed here. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Masem's idea is interesting. Where available, would people oppose including a non-free photo of the team on, for example, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-09_Duke_Blue_Devils_men%27s_basketball_team" title="2008-09 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team">2008-09 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team</a> instead of the logo? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>absolutely. Attend some games take some pics then fire up your copy of GIMP and start building a composite.<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geni" title="User:Geni">Geni</a> 22:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> <dd>There is no reason to replace the logo with free photos. The free photos are found throughout the article. Please take a look at the Featured Articles I mentioned above. Or at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Texas_vs._Ohio_State_football_game" title="2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game">2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game</a>. This is one of the articles Hammersmith originally complained about. It has appropriate free images despite also including the team logos. Again, the logos do not keep people from adding free images. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>There is every reason to replace logos with free photos where we can. We are a free content encyclopedia. In fact, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a> #1 requires us to replace non-free content with free content where such exists or could be created. The issue of encouraging free content is a minor issue here; whether there's free content or not on the article doesn't play into whether a logo should be allowed on the article. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 14:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>And here are some more good examples: <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Holiday_Bowl" title="2007 Holiday Bowl">2007 Holiday Bowl</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Hawai%27i_Bowl" title="2007 Hawai'i Bowl">2007 Hawai'i Bowl</a>, and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Orange_Bowl" title="2008 Orange Bowl">2008 Orange Bowl</a>. All use logos and still have free images also. The <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Orange_Bowl" title="2008 Orange Bowl">2008 Orange Bowl</a> is another Featured Article, so yet again this proves that even in the stringent FAC process that this use of logos has not been seen to be problematic. The logical conclusion is that the logos are not deterring people from adding free images. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 23:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Those are specific cases, since those events ACTUALLY HAVE LOGOS. Unless its like a championship season or something, most specific seasons of a team will not have their own logo. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ViperSnake151" title="User:ViperSnake151">ViperSnake151</a> 23:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>But the logos are not specific to the year in question. Therefore, it is exactly analogous to the question of a team season. My point is that the existence of the logos has not prevented people from finding and adding free content. The section heading of this discussion assumes that removing the logos forced people to add free content. I am pointing out that this is not necessary. The logos are not preventing anyone from adding free content. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johntex" title="User:Johntex">Johntex</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johntex" title="User talk:Johntex">talk</a> 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The individual game logos have the same problem as the teams. Whatever is decided for teams should work for the bowl series game within a given year.</dd> <dd>Going back to the team pictures, the ones that, at least, I am thinking of, include every player, every coach, every aid, and the like - a shot that, unless you are there when they pose for it, is impossible to replicate via free content. It further does serve to identify every player and person involved with the team for that year. While this doesn't change the amount of NFC content, it does seem to be an appropriate replacement. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 04:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="Proposed_compromise" id="Proposed_compromise"></a> <h3>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=8" title="Edit section: Proposed compromise">edit</a>] Proposed compromise</h3> Let me suggest a compromise that might work from now on: <ul> <li>1. Prohibit the use of logos on annual season articles. This seems to make up the bulk of the non-free overuse that has been described above, and with the potential of adding an image for each year in perpetuity, it could become extreme. <s>(Although I would point out that Hammersoft started out this discussion claiming that <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ohio_State_buckeyes_logo.png" title="File:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png">Image:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png</a> was used 102 times, yet I can find no version of it with more than 9 article namespace links to it.)</s> (Thanks Beta)</li> </ul> <ul> <li>2. Permit the use in specific rivalry articles and individual games or series that are notable enough to warrant a separate article. The number of rivalries that are notable enough to have their own articles are limited. In the NFL, for example, there are 32 teams giving 1024 possible opponent combinations, but there are only 14 total rivalry articles. And the number of individual games each season that are notable enough to have an article is similarly small.</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>This recognizes that the head-to-head juxtaposition of logos or helmets between two opposing teams has reached a level in our society to become an expression in and of itself. Just see the myriad of individual Bowl logos that feature both teams' helmets or any episode of <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN_Gameday" title="ESPN Gameday" class="mw-redirect">ESPN Gameday</a> to see how much this juxtaposition has reached into the consciousness of our society so that it conveys a meaning that fulfills what is asked of by <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">NFCC#8</a>.--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2008Olympian" title="User:2008Olympian">2008Olympian</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2008Olympian" title="User talk:2008Olympian">chitchat</a> 05:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Not getting into the merits of part two see <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=200812101559&limit=93&target=Betacommand" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=200812101559&limit=93&target=Betacommand" rel="nofollow">where I removed it from 93 articles</a>. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand" title="User talk:Betacommand">βcommand</a> 05:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Question on 1: What would be the acceptable way to represent (identify) an individual season article if not by a logo? It seems that the fact that the logo of the season's team is the same as the overall team is incidental. For instance, the logo of the 1950 version of a team would likely be different than the 2008 logo of that team, and therefore require a different logo, but the fact that the 2008 logo is the same as the team seems like it should be acceptable use insofar as the justification has been presented in the above conversations. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cardsplayer4life" title="User:Cardsplayer4life">Cardsplayer4life</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cardsplayer4life" title="User talk:Cardsplayer4life">talk</a>) 06:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>There is no acceptable way from what I can see, unless by chance it happens to be a year where the logo changes I think, in which case the article can discuss "This year, the logo changed from x to y, because this person/organization thought it should". The logos need to be discussed if they aren't being used for the purpose of identifying the main article (ie, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Seahawks" title="Seattle Seahawks">Seattle Seahawks</a> would be the main article of a set of articles on each teams' season). --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Izno" title="User:Izno">Izno</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Izno" title="User talk:Izno">talk</a>) 07:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>One suggestion has been to use the team group photo from that season. That seems like a pretty good idea actually.--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2008Olympian" title="User:2008Olympian">2008Olympian</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2008Olympian" title="User talk:2008Olympian">chitchat</a> 11:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>I think the second half of #2 moves closer to to where we should be talking, but isn't quite yet there, as while the images for a specific rivalry-game may increase understanding that this is what the article is about, it does not detriment the content so significantly that its use is required. Take for example <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Harvard-Yale)" title="The Game (Harvard-Yale)">The Game (Harvard-Yale)</a>: Were we to use such an image of "X vs X", the image still needs discussion about it to satisfy NFCC#8, at which point, it is likely you could spin out the article to a "Logo of <this game>", and in which case you should only be using the logo on the second page rather than the first (though, if you can fit it into the text of the article, than it is definitely appropriate). Explaining that "reached into the consciousness of our society" needs to happen in the article, about the logos, and it needs to be <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS" title="Wikipedia:RS" class="mw-redirect">sourced</a>, else you run into <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR" title="Wikipedia:OR" class="mw-redirect">original research</a>. Also, I don't think using the individual logos in this case would be appropriate; I definitely think using the "head-to-head" logo would be able to illustrate it better. That should also reduce the number of fair use rationales that have to be written, which is the goal. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Izno" title="User:Izno">Izno</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Izno" title="User talk:Izno">talk</a>) 07:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Ah, but the question should not be whether "its use is required," but whether its use is to be prohibited.--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2008Olympian" title="User:2008Olympian">2008Olympian</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2008Olympian" title="User talk:2008Olympian">chitchat</a> 11:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>That's backwards. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 03:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>I think I made my opinion clear in my writings in the discussion above, but just for the sake of clarity, I do not see the current usage (on season & rivalry articles) as "overuse" and do not see a need for new policy or standard. Do not see in anyway that it is violating NFCC policy/guidelines and therefor don't think a total overhaul of our current system is needed. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rtr10" title="User:Rtr10">Rtr10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtr10" title="User talk:Rtr10">talk</a>) 08:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Of course, you're right. Most of the arguments against this usage come down to Wikilawyering that is entirely insensitive to our essential questions here when it comes to the use of non-free images: (1a) Could it be replaced by equivalently informative free content? [In this case, No.] (1b) Does it deter us from pursuing free content of similar or greater informative value? [In this case, No.] (2) Does it expose us to legal jeopardy? [In this case, No.] (3) Does it enhance readers' understanding? [In this case, Yes.] (For those who may be new to this topic and don't know where these essential questions are coming from, please familiarize yourself with the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria" title="Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria">fundamental rationale of our non-free content policy</a>.) You're doing well, my friend. Keep up the good work and remain strong in the face of the zealotry and condescension that you've unfortunately had to face.—<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DCGeist" title="User:DCGeist">DCGeist</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DCGeist" title="User talk:DCGeist">talk</a>) 09:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>You're right, apart from the fact that it doesn't really increase the reader's understanding. If the pretty little picture is so essential, how come there is nothing in the prose (and probably nothing in relation to that particular season in decent sources) that discusses it? The person who cut the grass is discussed about as much, but there's no great desire to slam a non-free image of them at the top. Just because others overuse the logo, doesn't mean that we should- we're not aiming to use just too few non-free images to be sued, we're aiming to use the minimum that we could get away with and still produce a decent encyclopedia. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 09:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>A perfectly valid perspective, if unnecessarily snarky (yes, I know, glass houses...stones...), except for one <s>little</s> BIG thing: not "decent" encyclopedia, my friend. No. Excellent encyclopedia. Superb encyclopedia. The best. As we pursue the free content we love, we must never forget that.—<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DCGeist" title="User:DCGeist">DCGeist</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DCGeist" title="User talk:DCGeist">talk</a>) 10:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Actually, in terms of free content, if we can have a decent article with no nonfree content, that is sufficient. In the case of these articles here, very little if anything is lost from not having the logos. Someone interested specifically in the logo is likely visiting the team article, not a season article, and it is there. Someone interested in the season or game and seeking that article likely already knows at least one team involved, and other teams will be mentioned in the article, likely the lead. There is little to no benefit from use of the logos, so going on about "superb" or whatever aside, they're not needed and they need to go. A "superb" article on a game, season, what have you, can be written without those logos. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 10:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Well, "decent" may be "sufficient" for you personally, but that's not the consensus view here. The fact that you bracket "superb" with "whatever" is indicative of your indifference to quality which, I'm afraid I must point out, puts you and your idiosyncratic perspective outside of the Wikipedia mainstream.—<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DCGeist" title="User:DCGeist">DCGeist</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DCGeist" title="User talk:DCGeist">talk</a>) 10:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Can we please focus on what is being said and the arguments being made, rather than extrapolating from them that other respected users should, for whatever reason, have their views discounted? You are being unecessarily confrontational here. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 10:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> <dd>(EC) Please do not misrepresent me. I want high-quality articles as much as anyone. But our mission, as a project, is to produce high-quality free content. Free content is a part of our core mission. Indeed, as part of that, we have disallowed nonfree images of living persons, despite the fact that this means some living person articles are temporarily of slightly lower quality. Indeed, the differential there is far greater than game articles, where little to nothing is lost by excluding the logos. The name of a team readily identifies it without the need for a logo. There is little to no quality loss from excluding the logos, so that's really not a major consideration here. We do sometimes decide that an image is of such necessity that it is worth making an exception to nonfree requirements. In this case, however, the harm done to the free content part of our mission by widespread use of nonfree logos would far outweigh the minimal gain, if any, in quality of the articles. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 10:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>"little to nothing is lost by excluding the logos...There is little to no quality loss from excluding the logos, so that's really not a major consideration here" - That's your opinion, and apparently is an opinion many here disagree with. Don't state it as if it's fact. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 11:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Exactly. Seraphimblade, as ever, you refuse to recognize that the analogy you have wedded yourself to is a false one. We disallow nonfree images for the purpose of identifying most, though not all, living persons because we may plausibly endeavor to acquire free images of them (as we plausibly can in most, though not all, cases) and because those free images (in the case of most, though not all, living persons) will have substantially the same informative content as the available nonfree images. There is simply no rational comparison to the case of a visual team logo, which has an informative value substantively different from and beyond that of a verbal team name. It's regrettable that you cannot recognize the essential difference between the two matters.—<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DCGeist" title="User:DCGeist">DCGeist</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DCGeist" title="User talk:DCGeist">talk</a>) 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I can see that argument in the main article, and that's why we allow logos in the main article. However, I fail to see it for subsidiary articles. In the case of, let us say, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_Foo_Bars_season&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="2009 Foo Bars season (page does not exist)">2009 Foo Bars season</a>, the team we are talking about is identified right in the article title. Whether or not we include the logo has no bearing, anyone visiting that article may readily tell it is about the Foo Bars. The same is true of major games and the like, who inevitably name the team(s) involved in the lead section. In subarticles the logos are often replaceable as well, by photos for example of games played during that season, or in an article on a specific game by a photo of that game being played. Can you please clarify for me what benefit the logos serve in subsidiary articles that's so major it overrides our free content restrictions? Please keep in mind the onus in nonfree content is for those who want to include it, to show beyond doubt it is acceptable, not for those who wish to remove to show beyond doubt it is unacceptable. I think more specificity would help here if you believe they're really that critical, I'm not seeing it. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 20:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>Let me give a scenario where it assists the reader. Setting unique bowl logos that encompass the team logos aside, those did not exist until recently, a reader could be looking for a particular bowl game, say he knows that Texas played in the Sugar Bowl at some point in the 80s. As he browses through the various Sugar Bowl listings, hitting the one that has a Longhorn logo in the infobox will assist him in identifying that he is one the correct page much quicker and more efficiently than having to scroll through all the prose to figure it out.--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2008Olympian" title="User:2008Olympian">2008Olympian</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2008Olympian" title="User talk:2008Olympian">chitchat</a> 11:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>If you have to scroll though the entire article about the game to figure out what teams played I'd say the article must be rater poorly written. Surely it will be stated in the first couple of sentences + the infobox what teams where involved. So the logo is hardly nessesary to understand the article. Saving a fraction of a second in identifying the teams involved was not a compelling ratoinale for inclution of non-free media last time I checked. That is pretty much exactly the same rationale argued for keeping non-free images in episode lists and discographies (people know the cover more than the name, faster to find the right one etc), and it was repeatedly shot down as not beeing a sufficient rationale for including non-free images. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sherool" title="User:Sherool">Sherool</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sherool" title="User talk:Sherool">(talk)</a> 12:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Exactly - the use of logos for this quick ID makes sense in a paper encyclopedia when you are flipping through it, but if the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Bowl" title="Sugar Bowl">Sugar Bowl</a> article does not have a readily available list of games, teams playing, and results, or if each Bowl does not say who the teams are at the infobox or first or second sentence of the lead, you are making it difficult for the reader. The searching scenario described is reasonable, but using logos to resolve it (and thus justifying the NFC use) is nuanced for a non-paper encyclopedia. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 13:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Also, I can tell you right now with a very quick glance that Texas did not play in the Sugar Bowl in the 1980s. How do I know this so quickly? Because of logos? No. Because I had a look at the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Bowl" title="Sugar Bowl">Sugar Bowl</a> article. It contains a list with, at a glance, what teams played, the year of the game, and the score. Free text, such as a well-designed table like that one, easily replaces nonfree images for "at a glance" overview information such as who played in what year, and in this case it works very well. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> No interest in the proposed compromise. The proposals do not have a good grasp of the legal concept of overuse: simply having multiple articles that legitimately use the logo is not overuse. Its going to take another lawyer (other than myself, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://www2.mnbar.org/governance/districtbars/RegionMetro/District04Roster.htm" class="external text" title="http://www2.mnbar.org/governance/districtbars/RegionMetro/District04Roster.htm" rel="nofollow">listed here</a>) to convince me otherwise. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobak" title="User:Bobak">Bobak</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobak" title="User talk:Bobak">talk</a>) 17:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The law is not part of this discussion. please review the non-free content policies and review the differences. just because its legal does not mean it meets our standards. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand" title="User talk:Betacommand">βcommand</a> 17:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The fact is, the cases most being referred to all through out this discussion are legitimately in place under Wikipedia policy. It is against the ideology of a few editors here that Wikipedia should not use Non free content, but that is NOT the policy of wikipedia, just the personal beliefs of these users. That is why all articles were reverted, because there was no violation in policy. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rtr10" title="User:Rtr10">Rtr10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtr10" title="User talk:Rtr10">talk</a>) 00:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>This isn't the first time you've implied there's a small minority in opposition to your view. I actually ran the raw numbers (not that numbers=consensus). There's 34 people in the discussion. Of those, 32 made their position clear. 16 were in favor of your stance (including you) and 16 in opposition. Fair use requires consensus for inclusion, not exclusion. Barring an emerging consensus to keep this usage as is, I think you can expect this use will be deprecated. And no, I'm not threatening you. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 03:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>You only counted those active in the discussion on this page, which I suspect is watched by more editors concerned with "overuse" of fair use images than the average wikipedia editor. I guarantee, tho, that pretty much any attempt to remove logos from college team pages will immediately be reverted as "vandalism" by dozens, if not hundreds, of editors who've worked on those articles. Your opinions about official wikipedia policies on this subject are definitely in the minority. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 13:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>I'm sorry, but claiming to speak for the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority" title="Silent majority">silent majority</a> isn't helpful. You have no means of measuring that, and any claim of consensus based on silent hundreds of editors would be patently false. 34 people is a reasonable sample size, and can reasonably be used to estimate the opinions of more than 600 editors. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 15:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>I strongly suggest you read <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria" title="Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria">NFCC POLICY</a> no where does it state there must be consensus among users as you seem to believe. I would also suggest you stop trying to make up your own Wikipedia policy instead of assuming others don't know it. Your little game is not going to work here. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rtr10" title="User:Rtr10">Rtr10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtr10" title="User talk:Rtr10">talk</a>) 07:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>you might actually want to read the policy your linking to. it clearly states that non-free images can only be used on pages where its absence harms the understanding of the subject. (note I said harms, not having a logo rarely harms a subject). <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand" title="User talk:Betacommand">βcommand</a> 07:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I have read the policy a number of times. And by the way, NO WHERE in the policy is the word "harm" even used, so you may want to read it yourself, before misspeaking. The policy does state this... "(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)" The answer to the first question is obviously no in all of these cases and it is the answer to that second question which is being debated here. It is the opinion of myself and most other editors in the College Football project that can not adequately convey the message we are in these articles with out the images being used. You may interpret that differently, but we are not in violating the policy in our current system. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rtr10" title="User:Rtr10">Rtr10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtr10" title="User talk:Rtr10">talk</a>) 08:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> <dd>You might want to read <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#8" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#8</a> Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. how does your usage pass that? it doesnt. thats where the "harm" phrase comes from. you cannot and will not mass use non-free content. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand" title="User talk:Betacommand">βcommand</a> 08:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>If you have not read the numerous points above on how the logos significantly increase readers' understanding of the article, you should go back and read those. I really don't no what else to say, that already hasn't been said. It is pretty clear they significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article. It is not in violation of the policy. And by the way, you are not the ultimate authority on anything. You should not be throwing around threats and ultimatums to other users. You aren't even an admin, so I don't know where you are getting the Holier than thou attitude from. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rtr10" title="User:Rtr10">Rtr10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtr10" title="User talk:Rtr10">talk</a>) 09:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Those wanting the logos have shown speicifically how they "increase the reader's understanding" by being a quick visual indication of the team, but we are looking for more exceptional meaning, that we wanted to see how they "significantly increase" the reader's understanding. That has not be met yet. They can be replace with free text without loss of meaning, they don't help with searching, and so forth. The use of any NFC needs to be seen as exceptional and not the norm - even though we allow it, we prefer no usage whenever possible and this is such a case. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 13:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Wrong, If I wanted to remove non-free material, my behavior would be completely different. I support the usage of non-free material in limited usage. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_killer" title="Virgin killer" class="mw-redirect">Virgin killer</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima" title="Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima">Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima</a> are two perfect examples of why non-free material is needed. What both my position and that of the foundation is, we must have to cover some topics, but lets keep its usage to an absolute minimum. we dont need a single non-free image used 102 times. the policy is very clear about usage, from the license resolution All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above. there are limited exceptions that are allowed as the foundation knows that some topics cannot be covered properly without copyrighted material. that is not carte blanche for using copyrighted material. Please review both <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy" class="extiw" title="foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy">foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a>. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand" title="User talk:Betacommand">βcommand</a> 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Basically, then, you only support non-free images in articles about non-free images. I'm glad you don't oppose those, but that more or less comes out to removing almost all non-free material. Don't be disingenuous - you think that removing non-free content which Wikipedia could never possibly get into any trouble for using is more important than making our articles as useful as possible. Your position is that non-free images should be removed whenever one can make an argument to do so within the rules. Has there ever been a single instance of an actual dispute about use of a non-free image where you have not argued for deletion? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney" title="User:John Kenney">john k</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Kenney" title="User talk:John Kenney">talk</a>) 16:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Please review <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_killer" title="Virgin killer" class="mw-redirect">Virgin killer</a> its about an album, but its usage of non-free content cannot be disputed. there have been some who wanted to remove the image but it goes against what wikipedia is. Yeah a lot of non-free image usage is not needed. the non-free images in <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Simpson" title="Homer Simpson">Homer Simpson</a> have a pretty solid rationale. I have no issues with how those are used. (I picked a random example to spot check) or for that matter the usage on <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worf" title="Worf">Worf</a>. Images are kept to minimal usage and only what is absolutely needed. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand" title="User talk:Betacommand">βcommand</a> 16:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>Concur with Beta. Whether or not it is overuse as defined by law isn't relevant to the discussion. What is relevant are our policies, guidelines, resolutions, and overarching goals. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 18:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Not everyone agrees with the state of currently existing policies and guidelines, certainly not everyone agrees on your interpretation of existing policies and guidelines, and I warrant there's some disagreement about interpretations of "overreaching goals" as well. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney" title="User:John Kenney">john k</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Kenney" title="User talk:John Kenney">talk</a>) 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>I think it would serve the discussion better that rather than attribute "your interpretations" to someone (as is frequently done in such discussions), say "the opposing side's interpretation". There's plenty, plenty of people here who agree with my view, and I with them. I'm not an isolated loner here riding on a wild bucking pony saying "Yee ha! Lets get them thar fair use thingies outta here! <bang><bang><bang>" :) --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 22:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>I would also note that keeping nonfree content to a minimum is the Foundation's viewpoint, as expressed in their binding resolution. This is a free content project whose mission is to produce free content. We use nonfree content on a limited basis when there is absolutely no alternative. This is a case where there is an alternative, naming the teams by text. We do not use nonfree images where there are alternatives, and that's not negotiable and without exception. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>As I stated before, this line of reasoning would eliminate all non-free images. Do we really need logos to identify anything? Not if you say that the organization's name in text is an adequate substitution. However, the oft-quoted wikipedia guideline on fair use images specifically mentions logos as examples of acceptable fair-use images. Therefore, the foundation says that they're important enough to readers' understanding that they should be included. Therefore, this whole anti-logo rampage is an unnecessary waste of time. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>We do allow logos in a single main article about the organization. However, they are not allowed wherever that organization is mentioned. We allow the logo of a corporation in the article on that corporation. We do not, however, allow use of that logo in an article about a product by that corporation. For example, we allow the Apple logo in the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc." title="Apple Inc.">Apple Inc.</a> article, but not in the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod" title="Ipod" class="mw-redirect">Ipod</a> or <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Quadra" title="Macintosh Quadra">Macintosh Quadra</a> article. The rule is similar here. The team logo may be used in the main team article, as we may see at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_Broncos" title="Denver Broncos">Denver Broncos</a> or <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CU_Buffaloes" title="CU Buffaloes" class="mw-redirect">CU Buffaloes</a>. However, it may not be used in other articles which happen to concern that team, as for example we do not use the Broncos logo at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXII" title="Super Bowl XXXII">Super Bowl XXXII</a>. There is no dissonance there, and that distinction is longstanding. Use must be minimal. That doesn't mean none, but it doesn't mean all over the place either. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 01:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Hmmm. Looks like you have an argument with the user who posted this above: "We use nonfree content on a limited basis when there is absolutely no alternative. This is a case where there is an alternative, naming the teams by text. We do not use nonfree images where there are alternatives, and that's not negotiable and without exception." Hold on a minute; that user was also you. Interesting.</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Your first argument says that logos can be replaced by a text-only alternative. Continuing that thought, all fair use logos should logically be removed "without exception". And yet your second argument makes exceptions for some articles to the exclusion of others that many users feel are just as worthy of the logo. The "dissonance" is so loud that it's hurting me ears. Sounds like you're saying that fair use is only OK when your personal interpretation of wikipolicy says it's OK. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>actually both users who state that limited usage and that some logo usage can be replaced with text. Example <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod" title="Ipod" class="mw-redirect">Ipod</a> does not need to have the apple logo, as a simple link to their article can do the same for meaning. as for the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc." title="Apple Inc.">apple</a> logo on the main page it usage their can be defended. But you dont need its logos on all of its products as it is not needed. the usages are separate. usage of a logo on the primary article of the subject is allowed. what is not allowed is usage of the logo where ever it ties to the subject. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand" title="User talk:Betacommand">βcommand</a> 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="Consensus_must_exist_to_retain_content" id="Consensus_must_exist_to_retain_content"></a> <h3>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=9" title="Edit section: Consensus must exist to retain content">edit</a>] Consensus must exist to retain content</h3> If you're the type of person who adheres to <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TL;DR" title="Wikipedia:TL;DR">WP:TL;DR</a>, I suggest you skip what follows. Some concepts take time and effort to explain and be understood. If you're not willing to make the investment (which is fine), please do not bother to comment. Over the course of the above debate, the issue of requiring consensus to include or retain contentm and that the default case is to not use fair use content has been raised. Some parties disagree with this statement. I'm separating out this particular portion of the debate for further commentary. Here's the salient points regarding this: <ol> <li>Why not using fair use content is the default case: <ul> <li>Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. This is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation's <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vision" class="extiw" title="m:Vision">m:Vision</a> which asks us to imagine a world in which we can freely share in the sum of human knowledge. It is also supported by the Foundation's <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mission" class="extiw" title="m:Mission">m:Mission</a>, which asks us to develop content under a free license.</li> <li>Fair use content is not free as in libre. It can be free, as in gratis. However, free as in gratis carries very significant restrictions on usage. Wikipedia aims to create content under libre conditions, not gratis conditions. See the article <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_vs._libre" title="Gratis vs. libre" class="mw-redirect">Gratis vs. libre</a> for a greater understanding of this concept.</li> <li>Fair use content is allowed. However, in order for such content to exist on the English language Wikipedia, it must adhere to our mission and vision, the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy" class="extiw" title="foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy">Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy</a>, our local EDP policy at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a> and should generally be in line with our guideline on fair use image use found at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a>. It is only then that fair use images are permitted. These requirements must be met for the content to remain.</li> <li>Lastly, note that our policy says "it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created." I'll come back to this, as this sentence is often overlooked but is very key in understanding our policy.</li> </ul> </li> <li>Why consensus must exist to include or retain fair use content. <ul> <li>Consensus is part of the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars" title="Wikipedia:Five pillars">fourth pillar</a> of Wikipedia. Without consensus, a great many things on Wikipedia do not happen. We do not promote adminstrators, delete images or articles, undelete some things or reach decisions at ArbCom without consensus. It is a core principal of Wikipedia.</li> <li>Whether or not something exists on Wikipedia does not grant it the privilege of existence. As each editing window says near the bottom, if you don't want your contributions to be edited mercilessly, don't submit it. Just because somebody worked hard on something doesn't grant it special privileges that something someone contributed after a few seconds of effort does not have.</li> <li>We do require consensus for articles and images to be deleted. So why is fair use different? We come back to "it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created."</li> </ul> </li> </ol> But what is a valid rationale? Simply put, the rationale answers the concerns of our <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">fair use policy</a> on a case by case basis showing any reader who sees the usage how that particular image in that particular usage is acceptable under our policy. The fair use rationale requires us to show: <ul> <li>"What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage". This addresses WP:NFCC #2, #3 and #4.</li> <li>"If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original". This addresses #3b.</li> <li>"What purpose does the image serve in the article". This addresses #1 and #8.</li> <li>"To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image". This addresses #1.</li> <li>"Any other information necessary to assist others in determining whether the use of this image qualifies for fair use." which covers the remaining points of the policy.</li> </ul> If we have <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Foo_Bar&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="File:Foo Bar (page does not exist)">File:Foo Bar</a> used on <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bars_of_Foo&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Bars of Foo (page does not exist)">Bars of Foo</a>, and it has a rationale for that use, people may challenge that use if they feel it fails our policies. If it goes unchallenged, a presumed state of <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus" title="Wikipedia:Silence and consensus">consensus by silence</a> exists. Once that is challenged, consensus no longer exists until consensus is proven to exist either in support or in opposition of the usage. Now we come back to "it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" If there is no consensus that a valid rationale exists, then the content can not be retained in that usage. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>You claim that because the policy puts the burden of proof on those seeking to retain content to provide a rationale, it follows that they must be able to form a consensus in order for that rationale to be considered valid. In other words, you're saying that the default position is to exclude content unless there can be a strong consensus formed otherwise. I believe this to be a <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-sequitur" title="Non-sequitur" class="mw-redirect">non-sequitur</a>. Indeed, the burden is on us to provide a valid rationale, which we believe that we have per <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGO" title="Wikipedia:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">WP:LOGO</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a>, and even per <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy" class="extiw" title="foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy">Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy</a> (which, again, specifically allows the use of logos and does not say that their use should be curtailed). Nowhere in any policy I'm aware of does it say that our claimed rationale is presumed invalid unless we convince a majority of anyone, and therefore I believe that your "default to exclude unless a consensus is reached otherwise" position is not correct. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <ul> <li><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a> clearly states, as I noted above, "it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". That's policy. If no consensus exists that this is a valid rationale, then it isn't a valid rationale. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 21:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>I'm wondering if you read what I said. We agree that the burden is on those who want to include content to provide a rationale. We believe that we have. It does not follow from that policy that our rationale is presumed to be invalid unless consensus exists otherwise. Repeating the policy doesn't change my point, which is that your conclusion is unfounded. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 21:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Then please demonstrate what consensus exists for this usage? The burden is on you to demonstrate this consensus to retain this content. That's codified in policy. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>No, I think Oren is right. Policy says that you have to provide a valid rationale, not that you have to demonstrate consensus that the rationale is valid. If there is no consensus that the rationale is not valid, then there is no consensus that policy is being breached.</dd> <dd>Policy says that those wanting to delete an image do not have to show that no rationale could possibly be created; however that does not remove the onus from them to have to show consensus that a particular rationale is to be considered invalid. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 01:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>And then there's the issue of breaching consensus based a flawed premise. Like NFCC#8, for example, which is too subjective in character, non-consensual in nature (and the subject of on going debate) but is wielded by some like it was the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_of_Thor" title="Hammer of Thor" class="mw-redirect">Hammer of Thor</a>. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiggy!" title="User:Wiggy!">Wiggy!</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiggy!" title="User talk:Wiggy!">talk</a>) 21:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>As described in the discussion above, some interpret NFCC#8 as only allowing fair use images in cases where simple text can't possibly be used as a replacement. Since any organization / company / university / whatever can be described by their name, this interpretation would eliminate the use of non-free logos altogether. However, logos are specifically mentioned as an example of allowable fair use content, making the over-zealous (and oft-repeated) interpretation of the guideline obviously incorrect. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>No, we do permit logos of companies to be on their respective pages. We don't permit logos of companies to be on every product they make, every time the company is mentioned in some other article, etc. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>Rationales have existed every since these images were uploaded and put on their current pages. They do not violate current policy and there for to remove the content, you would need to change policy which requires a consensus. If there is no consensus reached on changing policy, then the current policy still stands. In that case the images cannot be removed because they do not violate policy. There, we have come full circle. Not too complicated. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rtr10" title="User:Rtr10">Rtr10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtr10" title="User talk:Rtr10">talk</a>) 02:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Having a rationale (with all required fields filled in) and proper license information is the bare minimum for retaining a non-free image. However, rationales may and can be challenged; a rationale that says "I think this image is pretty and show stay" is bound to be challenge. You may be right that they don't violate policy, but the rationales for the use of those images are (fairly) being challenged as being questionable under the NFC policy, per #8 and #3a (they're neither minimal nor significant as they stand right now). I will state that there is no clear violation of any NFC policy, but from comparison across the rest of the project and historical treatment of images, these rationales are not sufficient to justify the images. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 04:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Challenging them is one thing, but Hammersoft's discussion above leads one to believe they have no rationale or standing and there must be a consensus for every single image to be used. That is simply obsurd. And to say the rationale on these pages are "I think this image is pretty and show stay" is a joke. I have not come across a single rationale that has not been legitimate in this entire logo discussion. Just want to make sure people reading this are not being mislead and are not falling into Hammersoft's trend of making up Wikipedia policy that does not exist. Thats all I'm doing here. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rtr10" title="User:Rtr10">Rtr10</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtr10" title="User talk:Rtr10">talk</a>) 05:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Well, he's right about consensus for images to be used, with an unchallenged rationale being the same as consensus by silence. But there is a policy issue here, that being NFC, and the problem is that the rationale currently state do not clearly show why they should be considered within that policy. I'm not saying there may not be a way to state the rationales to make them fit with NFC, but history and current other use and non-use of logos throughout WP show that the current rationales typically don't past muster and some stronger reason is needed to have as much non-free use of these logos to break our free content mission. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 06:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Also, Hammersoft's definition of required consensus/burden of proof is dead on. This is a free content project, so nonfree content is by default unacceptable. Consensus is required to make an exception. In addition, the image must pass the nonfree content guidelines and the WMF resolution, the second especially cannot be overridden in any manner whatsoever. By definition that means the first cannot either, as it is the only route (as the EDP) to an exception under that resolution. Nonfree content is not "default OK unless consensus says it's not". It's counter to our mission, so it's "default unacceptable unless consensus allows for an exception." <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 06:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Just because you say something doesn't make it so. The policies you keep referring to don't say it (quite the contrary as some of us read them) and repeating the "consensus must exist to include" argument without proof <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam" title="Argumentum ad nauseam" class="mw-redirect">again and again</a> doesn't strengthen your argument. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oren0" title="User:Oren0">Oren0</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oren0" title="User talk:Oren0">talk</a>) 09:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Just because you say something doesn't make you right either. The burden is on those retaining content to prove it is valid once challenged. This use is challenged. You've not been able to achieve consensus that this use is acceptable. This debate has gone on for a considerable amount of time now. It's gone on <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Logos/Archive_2#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos" title="Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 2">for more than two years</a>. In this incarnation, we are now down to "You're wrong!" answered with "No, YOU're wrong", soon to be "Duck season!", "Rabbit season!" :) I think we're past the point of reasonable debate now, since we've all laid our cards on the table and not found agreement. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 16:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="Actually.2C_Consensus_must_exist_to_REMOVE_content" id="Actually.2C_Consensus_must_exist_to_REMOVE_content"></a> <h3>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=10" title="Edit section: Actually, Consensus must exist to REMOVE content">edit</a>] Actually, Consensus must exist to REMOVE content</h3> And that's just the way it is and has always been without concrete policy saying this and that can't be done. It's obvious that a pattern has been set in using the logos. It's up to you Hammer, to form a consensus as to why this pattern should be changed and so far, IMHO, you've done nothing but tell everyone else it's going to be your way, period. You started this whole fiasco, now you must deal with the fact that, when it's all said and done, tantrums won't win you friends and allies. Labeling the above section as you did, Consensus must exist to retain content actually did nothing but piss me off. Who are you to tell me, us, anyone that that's how it's going to be??? As for the logos, if a logo is being used 102 times but only has 9 Fair Use Rationales, common sense says that 93 articles need to have the logo removed IMMEDIATELY. But if a FUR exists on a relevant article (which rivalries and bowl games involving a college team ARE), then leave them alone. Why is that so hard? I wait with baited breath... - ✰<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Allstarecho" title="User:Allstarecho" class="mw-redirect">ALLST☆R</a>✰ <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Allstarecho" title="User talk:Allstarecho">echo</a> 08:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Oh, a pattern has been set. Hey cool! Ok, I'm going to upload a thousand images of living people who have no images on their biographies here. I'll be sure to add "valid" fair use rationales (just because an image has a rationale doesn't mean it's acceptable), and add them to the infoboxes of a thousand biographies. Hey, I just set a pattern. Now, by your logic, I could insist you develop a consensus to undo my actions. Your logic fails. We don't use brute force to put things here where no consensus exists for their use. I'll ignore your "trantrums" comment and remind you to abide by <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA" title="Wikipedia:NPA" class="mw-redirect">WP:NPA</a>. If you can't comment on the debate without commenting on me, then please do not comment. As for who I am to tell you "how it's going to be"; I, like you, am the most powerful person here. I'm an editor. I took time and great care in crafting the above section showing the basis in policy. I was asked to explain the stance, and I did. Now you're angry because I explained it? I'm sorry, I fail to understand this approach. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 16:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>One last word on consensus - Hammer claimed that the discussion was split evenly on this matter and that it's impossible to claim a "silent majority" in favor of keeping things the way they are. What he failed to acknowledge, however, is that the discussion is (not quite) evenly split on the talk page of a wikiproject dedicated to "reduc(ing) non-free content on Wikipedia, prevent copyright infringement, and further(ing) our free content mission." If the "pull the logos!" argument can't win consensus here, it's not going to win anywhere. This is further evidenced by the fact that premature efforts to remove logos from college team entries were immediately reverted by editors of those articles. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 11:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Just because the removals were reverted doesn't make the reversions correct. Further, it is an even split at the time I ran the numbers, at 16-16, with 2 neutral, after 34 editors had contributed to the thread. As I indicated above, the policy shows that consensus must exist to retain content. Would you please show me where the policy says that consensus must exist to remove content? I'd be much obliged. Thank you, --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 16:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>If the content that was being questions was free content without any copyright concerns, then I would totally agree that consensus needs to exist to remove that content. But non-free content is exceptional. We're a free encyclopedia, any use of non-free content must be considered exceptional. (Allowable, yes, but per the Foundation's wishes, needs to be minimal). Like BLP, copyvios, and other similar content, such content must be appropriately justified to be included - for BLPs, we need sources, copyvios have to show very very significant encyclopedic value (if even used), and for non-free images, a strong rationale for why the non-free image is being used. So its still up to those wishing to retain the images to figure out why we have to keep them, though it is worthwhile to note that unless we heard from Mike Godwin that we need to get of these images ASAP, we aren't under any deadline to prove they have to be kept.</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Note: let's not use the word "copyvio". If it's legal by fair use, then it's not a copyvio. But if it's not legal, then it certainly has no place here. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 12:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Just to be clear, I'm in no way trying to imply that the logo images are a copyvio. I'm speaking of, for example, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS" title="DeCSS">DeCSS</a>, which discussion of can be constructed to be a possible copyvio but as part of our education aspect, we have to cover. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 13:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Also, consensus is not just the number of !votes; it also has to be weighed against existing policy and guidelines. I have no doubt that if the question of the logos were taken to a larger audience that there would be a majority that would want to keep them, but likely for a reason that effectively boils down to <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ILIKEIT" title="Wikipedia:ILIKEIT" class="mw-redirect">WP:ILIKEIT</a>; on the other hand, those that want to see these logos removed from all but the team article have the strength of the NFC policy on that side. An uninvolved editor may determine in such a case may see the minority looking for removal to be the correct consenses since there is strong policy on that side, but it could go the other way. We just cannot kid ourselves that strict #s of votes is going to tell us the right answer; just because every car on a road is doing 20 mph over the speed limit doesn't mean that speed should become the new speed limit. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 12:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ILIKEIT" title="Wikipedia:ILIKEIT" class="mw-redirect">WP:ILIKEIT</a> does not apply here. This is a difference of opinion on the interpretation of a policy guideline. Apparently, the majority of users agree that current practice is acceptable under current policy. Therefore, there is no reason to change current practices. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeng8r" title="User:Zeng8r">Zeng8r</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeng8r" title="User talk:Zeng8r">talk</a>) 14:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>There is no majority. Several times now supporters of the usage have claimed this majority, or claim to speak for the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority" title="Silent majority">silent majority</a>. In reality; it's an even 16-16 split. And, as Masem notes, this isn't a vote; consensus is not based on majorities. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 16:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> <dd>A majority is not the same as consensus, because consensus is not a vote. And, if you want to reflect current practices, then we should look to all other sports articles for comparison and note that only the college football ones have this as a problem, so technically that is not current practice. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 14:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>So, I think that this discussion is getting nowhere. Masem has his view on what would happen if this issue was presented to a larger body, while I believe a majority of people would actually believe those who want to keep the images have the interpretation of the policy on their side, going against those who are basically pushing <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT" title="Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT" class="mw-redirect">WP:IDONTLIKEIT</a>. Hammer and some others seem to have the "my way or the highway" view, as do many of those trying to keep the images, even when presented with a compromise. This is just going in circles, so I feel we drop the issue. Keep the current system, keep stability. If in the future, wide consensus presents the notion that this discussion should be reviewed, perhaps then a change can be made, but as of now, I think most will agree that each has his or her own viewpoint, and they're really not going to budge. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mastrchf91" title="User:Mastrchf91">Mastrchf</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mastrchf91" title="User talk:Mastrchf91">t</a>/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91" title="Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91">c</a>) 14:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The issue is not resolved, so dropping it is not appropriate. Instead, I created the RFC at the bottom of this page to seek wider input on the issue. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 15:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name=".22Compromise.22_already_exists" id=".22Compromise.22_already_exists"></a> <h3>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=11" title="Edit section: "Compromise" already exists">edit</a>] "Compromise" already exists</h3> At times, different editors have suggested compromises in this debate. It should be noted that compromise already exists in the form of <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy" class="extiw" title="foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy">Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy</a> and the descendant local EDP policy at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a>. If we offer a new compromise here that is less restrictive than current policy and practice, then down the road a year or three someone can say that practice is too restrictive, and offer another compromise. Repeat, repeat, repeat and within ten years you have a project that has fair use all over every page. That's untenable. The compromise that already exists is what is being offered. You can use fair use images, but under tightly restricted circumstances. This is done to prevent serious encroachment on our goal of producing a free as in libre encyclopedia, to allow fair use content only where absolutely necessary. That is the compromise. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 16:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>How is hijacking the word compromise to re-brand a position a compromise? That's just a useless exercise in <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak" title="Newspeak">Newspeak</a> and is disrespectful of the folks trying to work towards a genuine compromise. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiggy!" title="User:Wiggy!">Wiggy!</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiggy!" title="User talk:Wiggy!">talk</a>) 16:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>There's no hijacking here. I was showing that if we compromise, we'll eventually want to compromise again, and again, and again. Eventually, the fair use position will be meaningless if that was done. A compromise already exists, and needs to be held to. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 16:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>I've yet to see you "compromise" on anything. All you've said is "my way, my way, this way, this way, boo hoo"! Telling us the "compromise already exists and that's it" isn't doing anything for your shallow cause. Grow up and just accept the fact that your actions in removing the logos with valid Fair Use Rationale tags from valid articles didn't sit well. Accept the fact that a silent majority does exist. Accept the fact that your wiki-lawyering is not working. Accept the fact that logos are used for identity of subjects of articles whether the subject gets a sentence mention, a paragraph, or the whole article.. a subject's participation in an article warrants accompanying visual aid as long as said visual aid falls within the guidelines of low resolution with accompanying Fair Use Rationale. And then move on with your life so people can get back to doing things that matter. - ✰<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Allstarecho" title="User:Allstarecho" class="mw-redirect">ALLST☆R</a>✰ <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Allstarecho" title="User talk:Allstarecho">echo</a> 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>You're quoting me for saying something I didn't say, and attributing emotions to me that I never felt. I encourage you to read <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA" title="Wikipedia:NPA" class="mw-redirect">WP:NPA</a>. I have no interest in continuing to respond to you if you can't discuss something without devolving into mud slinging. If you wish to rephrase the above without the personal attacks, I'd be happy to respond. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 23:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>I really don't give a rat's ass whether or not you respond. I haven't lodged a personal attack on you anywhere so you can stop referring me to <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA" title="Wikipedia:NPA" class="mw-redirect">WP:NPA</a>. The fact is, you can't answer the question and so you resort to playing the victim. That's fine with me too. Just don't expect others to agree with you or bow down to your "my way or no way" attitude. Cheers! - ✰<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Allstarecho" title="User:Allstarecho" class="mw-redirect">ALLST☆R</a>✰ <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Allstarecho" title="User talk:Allstarecho">echo</a> 00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>When you decide to be civil, I'll be waiting. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 00:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>Well that's strange coming from you Hammersoft, considering you have been "uncivil" in the exact same way on several seperate occasions. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:.:Alex:." title="User talk:.:Alex:.">.:</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:.:Alex:." title="User:.:Alex:.">Alex</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:.:Alex:." title="User talk:.:Alex:.">:.</a> 21:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>I am quite happy to express myself in direct terms, and I often do not mince words. However, I do not personally attack anyone. I refuse to engage with people who do. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 02:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>I'm not surprised people have attacked you. And yes, you have been uncivil in the past, but I think most users have been. I myself have been uncivil. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JayJ47" title="User:JayJ47">JayJ47</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JayJ47" title="User talk:JayJ47">talk</a>) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="Check_the_record" id="Check_the_record"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=12" title="Edit section: Check the record">edit</a>] Check the record</h2> I see <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng" title="User:Howcheng">Howcheng</a> has been imposing a particular version of criterion 8, ignoring the results of the extensive debates that took place earlier this year: <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_34#Criterion_8" title="Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34">Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34#Criterion 8</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_35#Criterion_8_objection" title="Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 35">Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 35#Criterion 8 objection</a>. If you wish to dispute the current language of the criterion, you're absolutely free to do so, but you can't change it by personal fiat.—<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DCGeist" title="User:DCGeist">DCGeist</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DCGeist" title="User talk:DCGeist">talk</a>) 08:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>those discussions never reached a clear consensus so I reverted back before your attempts to hijack the meaning. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand" title="User talk:Betacommand">βcommand</a> 14:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Exactly. As <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SILENCE" title="Wikipedia:SILENCE" class="mw-redirect">WP:SILENCE</a> indicates, even though mine and BlackKite's and CBM's objections were late, they were still made; thus consensus for the change cannot be said to have existed in the first place. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng" title="User:Howcheng">howcheng</a> {<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Howcheng" title="User talk:Howcheng">chat</a>} 04:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I'll consider protecting the page if the text on NFCC 8 keeps flipping with an edit summary equivalent to "I have consensus". People who participate often at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IFD" title="Wikipedia:IFD" class="mw-redirect">WP:IFD</a> (including some of the people in this discussion) have to rely on NFCC 8 often; ask them what they need to get the job done reliably and with a minimum of fuss. - Dan <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dank55" title="User:Dank55">Dank55</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dank55" title="User talk:Dank55">send/receive</a>) 15:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>Concur with Betacommand and Howcheng. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 16:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Hammersoft, your edit summary said "check the record", and since I just brought up page protection, perhaps that was a message for me. No worries, I keep up with monthly changes and I know in a general way how NFCC 8 is used at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IFD" title="Wikipedia:IFD" class="mw-redirect">WP:IFD</a>. However, when I start waving my mop around, I want to be careful not to hit someone with it ... that is, I don't want to come across as saying "Shut up, or I'll protect the page". Even if IfD "regulars" know the arguments, it's helpful to link to the past arguments and/or restate and summarize them when the policy is challenged, rather than just saying "This has consensus". If they were good arguments before, they'll still be good arguments now. - Dan <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dank55" title="User:Dank55">Dank55</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dank55" title="User talk:Dank55">send/receive</a>) 17:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>The edit summary was automatic, as will be this one. I'm simply saying I agree with Betacommand and Howcheng. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 17:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>Note to self: focus. - Dan <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dank55" title="User:Dank55">Dank55</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dank55" title="User talk:Dank55">send/receive</a>) 17:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>:-) --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>As anyone who cares to read the record can ascertain, the argument presented by Betacommand—"those discussions never reached a clear consensus"—and "agreed" to by Howcheng and Hammersoft is objectively false. The primary discussion, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_34#Criterion_8" title="Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34">Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34#Criterion 8</a>, unambiguously achieved a consensus on the language of NFCC#8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The subsequent debate, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_35#Criterion_8_objection" title="Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 35">Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 35#Criterion 8 objection</a>, achieved no consensus to overturn that language. If you wish to dispute the current language, please feel free to do so according to our well-established procedures. Best, Dan.—<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DCGeist" title="User:DCGeist">DCGeist</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DCGeist" title="User talk:DCGeist">talk</a>) 09:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>For one, consensus can change. For two, that discussion had fewer than ten people voicing support. Changing a crucial criteria of our NFC policy on such a limited participation is unethical. If you want to change the policy, then start an RfC on the matter and advertise its existence widely. For an example of this, see the discussion at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos" title="Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos">Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos</a> which has been so advertised and has drawn considerable input from many people across the project. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 03:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>For one, Softie, consensus can change, and it did. For two, stop acting like there are quorum rules...oh, that just happen to buck your personal position up...if they existed...which they don't. That's very, very bad of you to pretend we have rules that in fact we don't have. That's called a lie. It's bad to lie. Our encyclopedia relies on the good faith of its contributors. And good faith involves not stooping to lying. Stop lying, Softie.—<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DCGeist" title="User:DCGeist">DCGeist</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DCGeist" title="User talk:DCGeist">talk</a>) 09:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>I'm unclear who you are accusing of lying, since there's no "Softie" posting to this thread. Regardless, changing policy with so few people around to consider it is bad form and not acceptable. Quoting from <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus" title="Wikipedia:Consensus">Wikipedia:Consensus</a>, "In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages." So while there's no explicit number to indicate a quorum, the paucity of numbers in the consensus you cite is rather indicative of lack of participation in the discussion and advertising of the discussion. Further, even if we allow that the consensus you cite was valid, consensus can change. It's obvious from this thread that the consensus has changed. The fact that so many people continue to revert you on the policy page should be further evidence of that. Continuing to edit war on the policy page will continue to be unproductive. If you want to make the change you suggest, start an RfC and get true consensus. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="More_NFCC.238" id="More_NFCC.238"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=13" title="Edit section: More NFCC#8">edit</a>] More NFCC#8</h2> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stifle" title="User:Stifle">Stifle</a> has taken it upon himself to nominate all music video screenshots for speedy deletion citing NFCC#8. Including screenshots which are low-resolution (less than 0.1 megapixel), for videos prominently discussed in the article, which have good fair use rationales.<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ashanti_-_Only_You_007_0001.jpg" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ashanti_-_Only_You_007_0001.jpg" rel="nofollow">[14]</a><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Easy_Paula_De~vidcap.jpg" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Easy_Paula_De~vidcap.jpg" rel="nofollow">[15]</a><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dolly-get-to-livin-video.jpg" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dolly-get-to-livin-video.jpg" rel="nofollow">[16]</a><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crazy_screenshot.jpg" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crazy_screenshot.jpg" rel="nofollow">[17]</a> I'm getting sick of this. Can we please fix NFCC#8, to end the reign of terror of the image <s>nazis</s> fascists? The current wording is far too open to ridiculous interpretations and encourages abuse, IMO. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">Kaldari</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaldari" title="User talk:Kaldari">talk</a>) 16:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>A good start would be for you to refactor the phrase "Image Nazis", since you've already contravened <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law" title="Godwin's Law" class="mw-redirect">Godwin's Law</a>. As for your three examples - the first one is reasonable in the article for the single (to demonstrate the blue-hue technique) but shouldn't be in the parent article as well (minimal use); the next two add nothing to the text and should go. The fourth - debatable, but replaceable by text as below. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite" title="User talk:Black Kite">Black Kite</a> 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Absolute rubbish. Those images convey more information about the videos than the text sections do. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">Kaldari</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaldari" title="User talk:Kaldari">talk</a>) 16:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>(1) It's an unremarkable shot of the artist. (2) It's Dolly Parton in a ringmaster's uniform. Replaceable by text - <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#1" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#1</a>. Oh, and the changing of "Nazis" to "fascists" - well done. Any chance you could make your point in an adult manner? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite" title="User talk:Black Kite">Black Kite</a> 16:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li>All 4 examples seem completely appropriate for deletion: <ul> <li>The first three are primarily pictures of one person (the third has more people in shot but clearly only one is central). There is very little unique about how they are posed, filmed, dressed, or the like, that require a photo (the third, "Dolly is in a top hat and coattails" is free text that can replace that). This is a strong reason for deletion per not only NFC but our BLP policy - all these singers are still alive, and thus free images can be used to depict them, the music video image is duplicative.</li> <li>The fourth is easily replaced by text: "They're multicolored Rorschach inkplots". Clearly replaceable by free text. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>The video screenshots show you the visual style of the video, how the performer looked and dressed, etc. If these images cannot meet NFCC#8, how can any image? By your logic any image could be substituted with text in the article. A lot of editors have spent a lot of time finding these images, resizing them, writing captions for them, and creating detailed fair use rationales in good faith, believing that their work was contributing to Wikipedia and in line with our policies. To mass nominate them for speedy deletion is a slap in the face to all of these editors and their work. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">Kaldari</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaldari" title="User talk:Kaldari">talk</a>) 17:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Kaldari, please note that every edit page states "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." You should never feel irate because someone has come along and either has or is attempting to undo your hard work. This is a collaborative project, and your contributions will be edited and possibly removed. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </li> <li>Question. Is it possible for any music video screenshot to meet NFCC#8? Is so, how? If not, can any screenshot or album cover meet NFCC#8? If so, how? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">Kaldari</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaldari" title="User talk:Kaldari">talk</a>) 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>If a video is done in a distinctive style that has received criticism or commentary, or is necessary to improve the reader's understanding that is difficult by words, a screenshot is appropriate. A good example is "<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hardest_Button_to_Button" title="The Hardest Button to Button">The Hardest Button to Button</a>", as it's hard to describe how the video works in words but the picture helps. But, a video that just shows the singer or band singing with little else going on likely needs no image.</li> <li>Album and cover art - one image of these helps to identify the work that is the topic of the article (thus, there is expected to have commentary about the work to support it.) --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 17:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>None of what you just said is explained in the policies. The policies don't say "only if it's difficult to explain with words" or "only if it is used to illustrate a distinctive style". Believe it or not, a lot of editors added these image in good faith and believe that they meet the criteria. If anyone can come along and trash all of their work simply because they have a particular take on the meaning of the policy, that is unacceptable. Either the policy needs to spell out exactly what constitutes "significance" and "understanding" or the criteria should be removed. Right now it is causing far more conflict than usefulness. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">Kaldari</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaldari" title="User talk:Kaldari">talk</a>) 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#1" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#1</a> (replaceable by free content) and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#8" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#8</a> (significance) spell this out as concisely as possible. The examples then on <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFC</a> explain various cases. Unfortunately, we've tried to explain "significance" and the like in the past, and that's always met with resistance because it sets too low a bar. The best way to think if an image is ok is to run down <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a> and ask if each requirement is met (you should be doing this when you upload images per the "upload file" link when filling out the rationale). Now, mind you, editors will upload in good fiath what they believe are appropriate images; there is a learning curve for what the NFCC means but it becomes very easy to accept after the first couple tries. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li>Outdent. NFCC#8 is waaay too subjective and its overuse is just perpetually begging for a fight. I understand that there will be crystal clear instances where an image doesn't belong, but to constantly employ it to place one editors opinion over anothers by fiat is just wrong. Who is to say what one person will learn from an image that another person won't? You just can't do that on an arbitrary basis, especially when its clear that the rule is being misused by folks with a strong POV. Its an approach that doesn't belong in a consensus-based environment. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiggy!" title="User:Wiggy!">Wiggy!</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiggy!" title="User talk:Wiggy!">talk</a>) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>...Which is why we have <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IFD" title="Wikipedia:IFD" class="mw-redirect">WP:IFD</a> in the first place, and that images that have all the right parts but otherwise a questionable rationale cannot be speedily deleted. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 17:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Yeah, I get that. But there are too many editors who use NFCC#8 like a scythe and ignore the niceties of process where it should be legitimately employed. There is huge debate over that particular point and insisting on its use as the sole reason for the deletion of an image, without bothering to make a cogent argument to go along with it, is either lazy or overly aggressive. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiggy!" title="User:Wiggy!">Wiggy!</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiggy!" title="User talk:Wiggy!">talk</a>) 18:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)</li> <li>Agree with Black Kite: the first image is used suitable in the article on the single but not in the article about the artist, the other three should be removed. (I love the comment in the fair use rationale for the second image that "it has future historical significance".) <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmadler" title="User:Cmadler">Cmadler</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cmadler" title="User talk:Cmadler">talk</a>) 17:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)</li> <li>Masem, difficulties arise when a non-free image is used legitimately in one article but against policy in an another. In such a case, IfD is not suitable since we don't actually wish to delete the image. Because we don't have a system where an admin makes a final determination for such a case what tends to happen is a fruitless discussion here which, if it isn't defeated by filibuster, is simply silently reversed a month or so later when everyone has forgotten about it. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland" title="User:CIreland">CIreland</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland" title="User talk:CIreland">talk</a>) 17:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a>, please see <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#Images_and_media" title="Wikipedia:CSD" class="mw-redirect">Wikipedia:CSD#Images_and_media</a>, section 7c. No one uses IFD for these cases, nor it is encouraged to. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">Kaldari</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaldari" title="User talk:Kaldari">talk</a>) 17:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Frankly, I think we need to revise NFCC#8 once and for all. It's still too ambiguous, and all discussions to change it came close to doing so, but became stale. It's the ambiguity of that criterion that has been clearly causing problems for some time. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:.:Alex:." title="User talk:.:Alex:.">.:</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:.:Alex:." title="User:.:Alex:.">Alex</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:.:Alex:." title="User talk:.:Alex:.">:.</a> 19:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li>Per <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a>'s suggestion that borderline NFCC#8 cases should go to IFD rather than being tagged for speedy deletion, I have made <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Revising_wording_of_CSDi7c_to_deal_with_borderline_NFCC.238_cases" title="Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion">a proposal</a> to revise the wording of CSDi7c. If you support this idea, please weigh in there. Perhaps if we get the wording tightened there, we won't need to change the wording here. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">Kaldari</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaldari" title="User talk:Kaldari">talk</a>) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> Stifle may be doing a considerable amount of work in nominating these images using Twinkle, but I also see that he's done a lot of GOOD work. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:EasyCD2Cover.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=258565925" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:EasyCD2Cover.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=258565925" rel="nofollow">Example 1</a>, this image is essentially a duplicate of <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EasyCD1Cover.jpg" title="File:EasyCD1Cover.jpg">File:EasyCD1Cover.jpg</a> and provides no further information not present in the latter. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Earthintruders_alt_cover.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=258565908" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Earthintruders_alt_cover.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=258565908" rel="nofollow">Example 2</a>, same as example 1 as this image is a near duplicate of <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earthintruderscover.jpg" title="File:Earthintruderscover.jpg">File:Earthintruderscover.jpg</a>. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Donttellmem.jpeg&diff=prev&oldid=258563666" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Donttellmem.jpeg&diff=prev&oldid=258563666" rel="nofollow">Example 3</a>, this image isn't even discussed in <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Tell_Me_(Madonna_song)#Music_video" title="Don't Tell Me (Madonna song)">the article</a> and is hardly a unique style of any kind. It adds nothing to the article. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADont_Cha_Wanna_Ride_music_video.jpg&diff=258563438&oldid=190975661" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADont_Cha_Wanna_Ride_music_video.jpg&diff=258563438&oldid=190975661" rel="nofollow">Example 4</a>, the image might be construed as supporting the textual description, but the textual description actually replaces the image. People understand the video is shot in the summer, and the singer is in a VW Beetle (linked, if the person is curious what a beetle looks like). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Downloaditvideo.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=258564102" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Downloaditvideo.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=258564102" rel="nofollow">Example 5</a>, this image is missing a fair use rationale. Per <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a> #10c, all fair use images must have a rationale for each use. If not, they are subject to deletion if they have no valid fair use rationales at all. Stile seems to be doing some very good work here, and deserves some appreciation rather than being called a Nazi/Fascist. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Sure he's doing good, but he's also throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No one should be nominating 2 images per minute for speedy deletion, especially in cases that require careful judgement. Last time I checked, Wikipedia was not under imminent threat from fair-use image overload. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">Kaldari</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaldari" title="User talk:Kaldari">talk</a>) 22:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>I think you should be responding to his actions on a case by case basis, as he is doing considerably good work. Condemning all of his actions because of some potential (and so far not really held up as such) errors isn't proper. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 23:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>My quarrel is not with Stifle, it's against the combination of NFCC#8 and CSDi7c. This same issue keeps cropping up. Last time it was historic logos, this time it's music video screenshots. We cannot have individual editors deciding that an entire class of images is speedy deletable without even having to discuss the idea with anyone else. With the way that NFCC#8 is currently worded, any fair use image on Wikipedia could be argued to be in violation, and thanks to CSDi7c, that gives editors the right to nominate any fair use image for speedy deletion. I doubt there is a single fair use image on Wikipedia that is entirely safe from being nominated for speedy deletion at some point. This situation is just untenable. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">Kaldari</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaldari" title="User talk:Kaldari">talk</a>) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>I think I showed that Stifle isn't doing much that is improper (if anything). He certainly isn't nominating "an entire class of images" for deletion. Some people have previously tried to get more specifics out of the policy. It's actually beautifully crafted. Get too specific, and you lose grip over the entire fair use management. You can't anticipate all eventualities. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 02:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>It is not beautifully crafted. It is a problem because it is too subjective and unmeasureable. In its application it is being used as a bludgeon by editors holding a certain POV who simply point at it and then stonewall instead of engaging in useful dialogue. Kaldari is right in his view that its improper to wipe entire classes of images on such a skinny premise. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiggy!" title="User:Wiggy!">Wiggy!</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiggy!" title="User talk:Wiggy!">talk</a>) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Are you accusing me of bludgeoning other editors, of stonewalling and not engaging in useful dialogue? --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 21:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>No, but I can give you a whole list of editors who are. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">Kaldari</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaldari" title="User talk:Kaldari">talk</a>) 21:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Not necessary. In fact, I'd caution you to STOP using such terms as a method of debate. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA" title="Wikipedia:NPA" class="mw-redirect">WP:NPA</a> forbids such use. Please comment on content, not on editors directly. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 21:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>Unfortunately, there is no bright-line objective numbers test or anything that can be defined. NFCC asks two questions: 1) Is the reader's understanding improved? Usually, the answer will be yes, but even so we still have some easy failures here; 2) If the image were not included, could the reader still understand the text? Note that the latter is not necessarily the converse of the former. The whole idea of the NFCC is to keep usage to a minimum and only to where it's absolutely required -- criterion 8 is the attempt to define "absolutely required" away from a vague term that means different things to different people. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng" title="User:Howcheng">howcheng</a> {<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Howcheng" title="User talk:Howcheng">chat</a>} 23:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Policy doesn't say that. Policy says that the understanding you would have had if you had had the image must be impaired without it. That doesn't mean the text is unintelligible. It means that extra understanding you would have had with the image has been lost. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Absolutely. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnbod" title="User:Johnbod">Johnbod</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnbod" title="User talk:Johnbod">talk</a>) 01:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>That is incorrect, as our policy promotes minimal use, as required by the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution. An image almost always increases understanding to some degree, so allowing it anywhere that any such increase occurred would be to allow maximal use. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 06:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Using that logic, the corollary is that minimal use would mean no use because that is the most minimal you can get. Wikipedia has always relied on common sense and judgement, not extreme interpretations of policy. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tyrenius" title="User:Tyrenius">Ty</a> 15:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>Jheald, that's not the first time I've heard you say that, but it's taken me a really long time to figure out what it is that really doesn't make sense about that interpretation. However, I finally got it tonight and so let me try and explain to you using math-like terms, because I think that will make it obvious. OK, let's assume we have a hypothetical value called the Reader Understanding Index (RUI), which is a number from 1 to 10 indicating how well the average reader can understand an article or a section thereof. Furthermore, let us posit that an RUI of >= 6 means that the reader understood the gist of that article or section. For any given RUI value of X, by adding a non-free image that RUI is increased by Y points to a total of X+Y. Under your interpretation, the increased RUI would have to drop if the image were removed. Well, of course it does! Assuming that Y is a positive integer, then X+Y is always greater than X. Under your interpretation, the second clause of NFCC 8 is completely meaningless.</dd> <dd>My interpretation (and the original intent of that clause was, when I proposed it) is that if X (the RUI sans image) is already >= 6, then the additional RUI of Y is not necessary at all. (I just finished typing this and then realized that Seraphimblade made the point far more succinctly than I did.) <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng" title="User:Howcheng">howcheng</a> {<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Howcheng" title="User talk:Howcheng">chat</a>} 06:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Howard, I appreciate that you see this clause as some kind of silver bullet, and have used it almost as a personal credo at IfD. But I don't think it's widely shared - that's why whenever the clause has been up for discussion, the majority has consistently seen it as superfluous, but has not pushed its view because they see it as essentially harmless, just a way of underlining the point made in the previous clause. (A few will jump on to anything they think that might help them delete more images; but even they have hardly ever defended your position).</dd> <dd>You just have to look at some of the acceptable uses to see that your interpretation doesn't always hold up -- for example, we allow logos and album covers for the new element of understanding they bring, not because they clarify an existing element of the article.</dd> <dd>Seraphimblade, the important point about "minimal" is to understand that it comes straight from U.S. law, where it means "no more than is justified to achieve the purpose" - in this case, the purpose of trying to create an encyclopedic, educational article to convey a good understanding of the topic.</dd> <dd>And both of you, it is simply not the case that without this clause it would be "open season" or "anything goes". The key word in NFCC#8 is significant. If the image makes a significant contribution, as weighed against how much of a copyright taking it represents, then it stays in. If its contribution is not significant, then it is not justified under the law. But if it really is making a significant contribution, we should keep it, because the encyclopedia would be poorer without it. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 10:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The problem always has been that "significant" by itself is too vague, and has opened the door to arguments like, "the picture shows how people were dressed at the time" (in non-fashion articles) -- as if the clothing of the era were important somehow to the topic at hand. So the original goal of what we were trying to do here is to set some sort of minimum bar. Seraphimblade, BlackKite, CBM, Hammersoft, Betacommand, and myself (plus others that I can't think of off the top of my head) are in the camp where we see non-free images should only be included where absolutely necessary, where omitting it would be seriously damaging to the reader. How can best codify that? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng" title="User:Howcheng">howcheng</a> {<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Howcheng" title="User talk:Howcheng">chat</a>} 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I've heard this position that "non-free images should only be included where absolutely necessary" many times from many different editors. Not only is such a position lacking consensus and not founded in policy, it is actually counter to some of the core goals of Wikipedia. I wholly realize that one of the core goals of the project is to provide information that is as free as possible, and fair use images are not as free as Creative Commons or public domain images, but this goal must be balanced with the goal of creating a comprehensive encyclopedia that aspires to be the "sum of human knowledge". We have gone past the point of using common sense to weed out excessive use of copyrighted material. Instead we now have a dedicated camp of editors who are convinced that all fair use is bad. It's not that I don't believe in promoting the use free-license images (I've donated more photographs to this project than I can remember, and organized <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Nashville" title="Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Nashville">Wikipedia Takes Nashville</a>), but this campaign to purge fair use from Wikipedia is counter-productive and is driving people away from contributing to Wikipedia! Especially with all this speedy deletion mania. We need to slow down and not act like this is some kind of race to "fix" Wikipedia. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">Kaldari</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaldari" title="User talk:Kaldari">talk</a>) 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>There is a balance but the problem is that the balance always has to favor the reduction of fair use when it is replaceable by text (which is the case here) among the other NFC requirements. Remember, other non-en.wikis disallow any fair use images at all but I don't see them suffering from lack of comprehensive articles. En.wiki is the exception, and thus we should take delicate care to make sure that we are exception for good reason - because we keep striving to keep non-free use to the necessary minimum, and not to allow loose cases through. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> (outdent) I think part of the problem stems from the fact that "minimal use" depends highly on what area of Wikipedia you're working in. For any kind of media -- songs, videos, tv shows, movies, video games -- usually all of your images are going to be fair use. We should not be watering down our coverage of these areas just because they concern works that are copyrighted. This idea that some editors are pushing of "more than 1 fair use image per article is excessive" just isn't going to work for those kinds of topics. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">Kaldari</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaldari" title="User talk:Kaldari">talk</a>) 19:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>There are not problems with "more than 1 fair use image per article". The problem is with more than 1 fair use image per purpose". --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Damiens.rf" title="User:Damiens.rf">Damiens.rf</a> 20:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <ul> <li>I believe music video screenshots should not be deleted. They are low-res, so what's the problem? Plus corresponding articles really need these images. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netrat" title="User:Netrat">Netrat</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netrat" title="User talk:Netrat">talk</a>) 10:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>Then there should be no problem of sprinkling video screenshots on every article? We must respect minimal use. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 16:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> Just in general, this is a recurring topic for a reason. "Significance" is a very difficult concept to interpret. On one hand, you could interpret "significant" to mean something like "in any measurable way." On the other, you could say that it's somehow akin to "essential," to the point that the text literally makes no sense without it. I'd argue that the first interpretation would allow anything while the second would allow nothing. It's clear that this criterion needs revision; I don't think that any editor who is making a good faith effort to improve an article can rely on criterion 8 to help him decide whether to include fair use content in one of his revisions. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 04:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC) <a name="Rumble_Roses" id="Rumble_Roses"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=14" title="Edit section: Rumble Roses">edit</a>] <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumble_Roses" title="Rumble Roses">Rumble Roses</a></h2> There is a discussion <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rumble_Roses#Images_of_characters_being_removed" title="Talk:Rumble Roses">here</a> concerning the use of non-free images in the article. Any outside input would be appreciated. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 11:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC) <a name="May_it_infringe.3F" id="May_it_infringe.3F"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=15" title="Edit section: May it infringe?">edit</a>] May it infringe?</h2> Hi. I read this: "Just because something is "fair use" on a Wikipedia article in the US does not mean it is fair use in another context. A downstream user's commercial use of content in a commercial setting may be illegal even if our noncommercial use is legal. Use in another country with different fair use and fair dealing laws may be illegal as well. That would fail our mission. We therefore limit the media content we offer, to make sure what we do offer has the widest possible legal distribution. We do not want downstream re-users to rely solely on our assurances. They are liable for their own actions, no matter what we tell them." Does this mean that merely viewing the material in a country whose fair-use standard would "prohibit" the usage of the material would be infringement, and the downstream end-user would be guilty of infringement even without intent to do so? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mike4ty4" title="User:Mike4ty4">mike4ty4</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike4ty4" title="User talk:Mike4ty4">talk</a>) 04:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>By re-users we refeer to people who re-distribute/host the content, not end users. Viewing an image hosted legaly on a US server is very unlikely to cause any copyright isses for the user. Strictly speaking you can barely whistle a tune these days without violating copyright law, but just viewing an image is such a trivial thing that there is no need for any <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt" title="Fear, uncertainty and doubt">fear, uncertainty and doubt</a> for readers. The "problems" primarily begin when you host and re-distribute content. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sherool" title="User:Sherool">Sherool</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sherool" title="User talk:Sherool">(talk)</a> 01:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <a name=".22But_it.27s_a_featured_article.21.22" id=".22But_it.27s_a_featured_article.21.22"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=16" title="Edit section: "But it's a featured article!"">edit</a>] "But it's a featured article!"</h2> Can we please stop using this defense for use of non-free content? In particular with the recent discussion of non-free logos of college sports teams, but elsewhere in Wikipedia, I have seen this defense used as a reason to keep problematic non-free content around and, in some extreme cases, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Texas_Tech_University" title="Wikipedia:Featured article review/Texas Tech University">totally railroad anyone who begs to differ</a>. I think that part of this is that people get very <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN" title="Wikipedia:OWN" class="mw-redirect">defensive</a> (and understandably so) about articles they have helped bring to featured status. In situations like this, the article talk page is typically a poisonous environment to discuss non-free content. Is there a better forum than Featured Article Review where such discussions can take place, or are we doomed to an eternity of personal attacks and accusations of bad faith whenever we try to enforce this policy? (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ESkog" title="User:ESkog">ESkog</a>)(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ESkog" title="User talk:ESkog">Talk</a>) 05:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I'm quite sure that most mean the argument not in the way that the article is an FA, but that it has passed through the rigorous FAC challenge. But either way, why shouldn't it be used as a defense? In the featured article review, every point in the article is examined to determine if the article meets FA standards, and this includes images. If the article has passed through the FAC, then it most likely has the suitable amount, variation, style, etc. of images, both free and non-free. People are much more apt to go towards the side of a meticulous review than a few people who pop in and start removing images. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mastrchf91" title="User:Mastrchf91">Mastrchf</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mastrchf91" title="User talk:Mastrchf91">t</a>/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91" title="Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91">c</a>) 05:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> <dd>Personally, I've never understood how something can be classed a "Featured Article" if it contains non-free content. The two concepts seem contradictory. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland" title="User:CIreland">CIreland</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland" title="User talk:CIreland">talk</a>) 06:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I have actually given up pointing out fair-use violations on FACs after <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Preity_Zinta" title="Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta">Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Preity_Zinta</a>, which went on to be Today's Featured Article despite containing at least two images, and probably three, which fail various parts of NFCC. Makes you wonder why we bother sometimes. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite" title="User talk:Black Kite">Black Kite</a> 13:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I think the main problem with FAC is that very few who take an interest in image copyright issues actualy particupate there, and a lot of the "regulars" there while fantastic text contributors have virtualy no clue (and often no interest) when it comes to image policies. I think the only solution is for more of us to contribute on FAC's so that when someone do point out a problem he or she doesn't get shot down as a lone crank out to torpedo the article's promotion. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sherool" title="User:Sherool">Sherool</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sherool" title="User talk:Sherool">(talk)</a> 14:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>And actually, raising concerns about nonfree images in potential featured articles might be a good way to get awareness raised of the requirements. I think that's quite a good idea, and might later on prevent the "But it's a featured (article|list|what have you)!" That's a garbage defense anyway, "featured" doesn't mean "perfect", so I just tend to ignore it. Feature articles are subject to the exact same NFCC restrictions as anything else, and if they fail them, they need the offending images removed just like anything else. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> <dd>Actually, the Zinta article was a good starting point. It's already got a free image of her, and she's still quite alive if we want more, so that's a pretty cut and dry failure of #1. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="Another_character_article" id="Another_character_article"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=17" title="Edit section: Another character article">edit</a>] Another character article</h2> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas" title="List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas">List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas</a> is the last of an unfeasibly large number of similar GTA articles to retain its non-free images. A previous attempt to remove them led to <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas#Non-free_images_in_list_articles" title="Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas">here</a> and the images were eventually all restored. I've just tagged it with the Non-free image overuse tag again, and commented on the talk page, only to be immediately reverted by the same editor as previously. I have no great wish to re-hash that entire conversation again (read it to understand why), so could an uninvolved editor or two (regardless of viewpoint) pitch in on the current discussion on the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas" title="Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas">talkpage</a>? Thanks, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite" title="User talk:Black Kite">Black Kite</a> 00:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I'm "the same editor as previously." The fact that, for whatever reason, someone removed images from other articles doesn't somehow "prove" anything; it's a "what about X" argument. It could very well be that the other articles are better with the images, and that they should go back in. The previous discussions of this matter, as Black Kite says, all resulted in the images remaining in the article. The article is in compliance with this guideline. If we want to talk about changing the guideline (again), then by all means let's have the same conversation one more time. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 00:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>A similar discussion is currently going on regarding <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto_IV" title="List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV">List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV</a>, if anyone wants to pitch in there. I will look into the San Andreas situation now. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Same for both articles I believe. None of the images pass all the criteria of <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC</a>, and until it is explained exactly how they pass, especially, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#1" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#1</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#3a" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#3a</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#8" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#8</a>. The fact that some editors just "want them in there" is irrelevant. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite" title="User talk:Black Kite">Black Kite</a> 01:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>There's no free equivalent because images from the games are copyrighted, so no such image can be constructed to substitute. Prose is insufficient to fully explain a character's appearance. It's minimal use because it's restricted to major characters, per this guideline. It's significant because a reader can't fully understand the topic of characters in fiction without knowing what at least some of them look like. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 01:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>A reader couldn't fully understand the significance of a character without playing the entire game- doesn't mean we host a disk image ripped from the game. Images of the character need only be included in an article like these if the appearance itself of the character is in some way significant. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 01:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>And to say that a reader can't understand a character without knowing what they look like is ludicrous. On that basis we'd never understand a character that we were reading about in a book. And what is this "guideline" about major characters that keeps being quoted? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite" title="User talk:Black Kite">Black Kite</a> 01:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Books are not visual media. Video games are. "This guideline" is THIS GUIDELINE. The one that's connected to this talk page. "Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus." <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 01:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Yes, consider it. That note is merely pointing out that, for minor characters, the appearance is rarely going to be significant. For major characters, it may be, it may not be, that is up to those who wish to include the image to demonstrate. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 01:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>And if the characters were that major, they'd merit their own article (i.e. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_%22CJ%22_Johnson" title="Carl "CJ" Johnson">Carl "CJ" Johnson</a>). <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite" title="User talk:Black Kite">Black Kite</a> 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> (removing indents--please note that my comment here was posted after Jay's below, and he is not responding to me) It sounds like you're just saying that we should unnecessarily spin off the articles into separate ones. I think we might actually be better off Merging the "CJ" article back into the main article because it's a more logical presentation. The bottom line here is that we've had this discussion two other times, and both times the consensus opinion was that "those editors who wish to include the image" DID demonstrate, well enough to convince a consensus of other editors, that the articles were better off with a small number of images of major characters. The fact that you don't agree with that consensus is not somehow free reign to delete the images or to declare that they are "against policy" as if there were some new criterion 11 that says "no images at all in the GTA characters articles." The bottom line here is that, per this guideline, editors acting in good faith pared the images down to a small handful for major characters and agreed that the article was better for having them. You two disagree, and that's fine, but the guideline says that it's OK to have images of "major characters...as agreed to by editor consensus." Well, the editor consensus at these pages is to have the images. You are free to express that disagreement in an attempt to sway the consensus, but you haven't really done that; you've just removed the images and edit warred with anyone who undid your removal. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 08:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC) And now I'm annoyed that I didn't just say this the first time...Black KIte, you seem to be saying that if the "Officer Tenpenny" section were an article unto itself, it would be good and fine to have a fair use image for it? Well, as I argued the other two times this came up, this "characters" article is not a "list" the way <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dog_Breeds" title="List of Dog Breeds" class="mw-redirect">List of Dog Breeds</a> is a list. It's more akin to a collection of articles about characters in the series. The entries for the major characters have enough prose content to stand on their own as articles; there is no meaningful basis, in policy or in logic, to distinguish solely based on whether something is an article unto itself or it's not. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 08:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>General consensus appears to be that if a fictional character is independently notable enough to support its own article, then a single non-free image may be reasonable to illustrate that article. Of course, the opposite applies; if the characters are more minor, then under the concept of "minimal use" we don't need a non-free image (but see my comment under NFCC#8 below for exceptions). This is why nearly all "List of characters in..." articles on Wikipedia don't have images. Incidentally, the prose content of the article doesn't mean such a character could support their own article; the individual articles must still satisfy <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N" title="Wikipedia:N" class="mw-redirect">WP:N</a>, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V" title="Wikipedia:V" class="mw-redirect">WP:V</a> etc. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite" title="User talk:Black Kite">Black Kite</a> 10:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Why does this subject always appear every few months? This discussion has taken place many times beforehand and the result has always been the same. The images are needed to increase the readers understanding of each character. They are suitable for inclusion in the article, as mentioned several times before. As far as I'm concerned, the images should be kept and they don't fail WP:NFC. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JayJ47" title="User:JayJ47">JayJ47</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JayJ47" title="User talk:JayJ47">talk</a>) 07:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="Explanation_as_to_how_the_images_pass_the_criteria" id="Explanation_as_to_how_the_images_pass_the_criteria"></a> <h3>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=18" title="Edit section: Explanation as to how the images pass the criteria">edit</a>] Explanation as to how the images pass the criteria</h3> WP:NFCC#1: No free equivalent is available, and the chances of getting permission to use the images under a free license (which would serve the same encyclopedic purpose) is highly unlikely. WP:NFCC#3a: Several images in this article were deleted a long time ago in a previous discussion. There was concencus to keep the images which represented the major characters of the game. Regardless of the fact that many of these users were people who were part of the GTA Task force, this clearly showed that there was still strong concencus to keep the images. WP:NFCC#8: The images are significant, they do increase the reader's understanding of the topic, and they are detrimental to that understanding. They give an illustration of a character, which significantly increases the reader's understanding of the character. Also, where does it specifically say that images should not be included in "list of" articles? <ul> <li><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#1" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#1</a>; also means the images are not replaceable by text. None of these images appear so unusual that this is not an option.</li> <li><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#3a" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#3a</a>; if there is such "strong consensus" to keep images in character list articles (not that it matters anyway if they violate policy), why do so few such list articles retain their images?</li> <li><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#8" title="Wikipedia:NFCC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC#8</a> Just saying something is significant doesn't make it so. How do they increase the reader's understanding? If one of the characters was of such unusual appearance (and that appearance was important to understanding the character) that it couldn't be described in text, then a claim could be made. But these are all unremarkable looking people. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite" title="User talk:Black Kite">Black Kite</a> 10:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>The key point is point eight. I've already asked it numerous times here and on the article talk pages, but your constant refusal to actually answer the question is probably the reason this keeps getting brought up. Why are those images significant? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 11:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Actually now i'm wondering. Why is it that dicussions like this only occur when GTA pages are concerned? I see several other list of articles (game-related) with fair use images and there hasn't been a problem. Most of these discussions have only taken place when users like you have brought it up. Furthermore, I clicked on one of those fair use images, and the rationale seems very similar to that of the fair use rationales used for the images in GTA related articles. Also, as we have said before in previous dicussions, you cannot adequately illustrate and/or explain a character's significance/importance without an image. This cannot simply be replaced by text. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JayJ47" title="User:JayJ47">JayJ47</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JayJ47" title="User talk:JayJ47">talk</a>) 11:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I've noticed that the images present in GTA related articles have usually been involved in these lengthy discussions. I'm beginning to wonder why only these images have been (in a way) targeted. As I said beforehand, there are plenty of other list of (game related) articles with fair use images. Also, why hasn't anyone paid much attention to other images e.g. CD'S. Whose to say that they don't fail the policy (not to say they do). <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JayJ47" title="User:JayJ47">JayJ47</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JayJ47" title="User talk:JayJ47">talk</a>) 11:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Look, that assertion is not only <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS" title="Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS" class="mw-redirect">completely irrelevant</a>, but also false. I was one of the admins who originally removed the album covers from discographies in the wake of the episode screenshot discussion, and I am constantly removing examples of non-free images that are not necessary. However, I will remove only what I come across. For an example from the last few minutes, I point you to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C.U._Burn&diff=prev&oldid=260474575" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C.U._Burn&diff=prev&oldid=260474575" rel="nofollow">this</a>. Back to the point at hand, saying that "you cannot adequately illustrate and/or explain a character's significance/importance without an image" does not make it correct. Why is that correct? If a character's appearance is central to their significance, how come it is not discussed in the prose? I am not saying that the image could be replaced with prose (no one is, I don't know why you keep bringing that up) I am just saying that images should illustrate points made in the prose. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 12:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Actually, sometimes #1 (text replacement) does occur - for instance if the image is merely showing that a character is, say, a middle aged woman with red hair, then that is replaceable by text. However I'd agree that the important part is #8 here. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite" title="User talk:Black Kite">Black Kite</a> 12:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> I can't tell you the innumerable times I've seen debates about per character images in articles. It's endless. The debates never, ever end. The arguments are always the same. The points raised always the same. The defenses of the images always the same. Not surprisingly, the outcome is always the same; the images are wholly removed or significantly reduced. I removed the fair use images from this article over a year ago <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas&diff=176575506&oldid=176555545" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas&diff=176575506&oldid=176555545" rel="nofollow">[18]</a>. A year later, and the fighting it STILL going on. Pathetic. It's a wonder any work gets done around here at all when it takes at least a year to accomplish a single task. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 21:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I believe is does pass criteria #8 because: the images are being used to supplement an article summarizing the influences of established characters on the storyline of the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as identification of a major character of the game. It is also needed to adequately illustrate certain characters of the game. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JayJ47" title="User:JayJ47">JayJ47</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JayJ47" title="User talk:JayJ47">talk</a>) 22:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>There is no critical commentary of these characters. (Much less the fact that the list article fails many tenets of <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WAF" title="Wikipedia:WAF" class="mw-redirect">WP:WAF</a> but that's a different issue). The average WP reader - which is one who has not and will likely not play the game - need not know who these characters are to appreciate their necessity to the plot. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>What is "critical commentary"? I honestly do not believe that anyone here either knows what it is or agrees on a definition. To your other point, the question should not be "need a reader know what a character looks like to understand its role in the plot?" (I assume that you mean "what these characters look like" rather than "who these chracters are.") The questions should be, "Does a reader get significantly better information about the the characters in the game by seeing what the major ones look like?" The answer to that is certainly yes, as appearance conveys information about the characters' traits and personalities, as well as a general feel of the artistic approach to character design. Put another way: if the game's publisher released images of these characters into the public domain tomorrow, would we include them in the article? Again, the answer is clearly yes, and the fact that we would include such images (and I suspect we'd include them without any serious objection), tells us that the article is clearly more useful and more informative with the images than without them. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 08:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>That argument is frankly ridiculous. The understanding of the characters would also be improved if said screesnhots were hyper-high resolution, and if we had a screenshot of the character at various points throughout the game (first introduction, point of betrayal, death), but we're not going to include them. Your next point is basically saying "we would include them if they were free, so we should also include them if they are non-free". That's madness. We would also include an image of the game's cover at the top of the article if it happened to be free, doesn't mean it is justified when it isn't. We would include an image of the game's logo on the navbox if it happened to be free. How we would treat images if they were free has no bearing on how we should treat them if they are non-free. We can easily improve a reader's understanding of a character by including screenshots of their weapon of choice, as this would reveal a lot about their style etc, but we do not as this is, for most characters, a reasonably trvial aspect. Why is the appearance of their face any less trivial? I can't see why, and no one has yet explained why, only asserted that is. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 11:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>I don't think that any of those statements are logical extensions of my argument. I would be very reluctant to include images of minor details, even if they were free. I do not see the value of including "favorite" weapon" images; I don't think that would help readers at all. My point here is that it makes little sense to argue that readers are not better informed by images if we would plainly use them if they were free. The use of a small handful of images is a concession to the need to keep non-free use minimal. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>I can accept the argument that one non-free image to show the style of the characters is acceptable, but that only clears one image, not two or more. This is why that particularly on these types of articles that a montage image should be used - it serves several purposes, identification of the art style and identification of multiple characters. However, save in very few cases, once you've shown one image of a character, it is reasonable to expect that any other character can be appropriately envisioned by extrapolation along with free text. Implying traits and personalities from a single still image is a joke - the only traits and personalities that should be explicitly stated are those that are either obvious from the primary source or stated by secondary sources. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 11:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>I believe multiple images were used due to the unavailability of a montage image. It would have to be created, thus failing the criteria. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:.:Alex:." title="User talk:.:Alex:.">.:</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:.:Alex:." title="User:.:Alex:.">Alex</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:.:Alex:." title="User talk:.:Alex:.">:.</a> 12:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>There are plenty of in-game cutscenes where multiple characters are present. This can be used as a replacement montage instead of individual pictures. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 12:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Masem's suggestion of finding a scene involving several characters is good, and "A montage is preferred if one is available, but one may not be created" does not, and this is important, not equate to "Multiple images are acceptable if said montage is not available." We can probably justify one character image to show the general style of characters, either in the list article or the main game article (not both, one may link to the other!). This has been pretty clear—no largescale number of character images, especially if a significant amount of the sourced material isn't discussing what the character looks like. Most characters' significance is in action, not appearance. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 16:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>I'm certainly fine with using images that include more than one character. It's probably both better practice and more informative. My personality traits argument gets at the impossibility of "replacing" a character image (from a visual medium like a video game) with text or just removing it outright. In visual media, especially one where designers have total control over character appearance, it's possible to use appearance to communicate a lot about a character. There is plainly no substitute for actually seeing how the character looks. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I'm unconvinced of the argument that a still image is needed to show personality-traits. At least, unless it has some secondary source that says this (eg. "The numerous scars on character X's face and his permanent scowl shows a history of being put through the grinder but has managed to survive" from another source would be fine for me to justify the inclusion of an image of that character specifically), an assumption that character traits can be perceived from a single visual frame sounds like <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR" title="Wikipedia:OR" class="mw-redirect">original research</a>. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 19:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>It's actually just the opposite of OR: presenting the character's appearance and allowing each reader to form their own impression, just the way the game designer intended. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Let's say there's two possible pictures of a character. One where he obviously not doing anything but otherwise sitting and looking cold and calculating. And another where the same character seems to be in the middle of an action pose , about to break the neck of a foe with a malicious grin on his face. Without any other source or input, which picture I use will depend on my personal bias for the game but can give the wrong impression to the end reader. Say if I use the "cold and calculating" picture because I think that's the more important side of the character, but 90% of the time this character really is fighting others in the game, I've just misled the reader. We should not be trying to establish personalities of characters from single images without assistance from secondary sources. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 20:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Selecting images that give a certain impression in pursuit of "trying to establish personalities" would certainly be original research. However, that is never what I suggested we do. If we select images that serve to represent the character and his general appearance (and selecting a good representation is certainly editorial judgment, not any kind of research), then we serve the reader well by allowing him to form (or not form) his own impression of the character based on appearance. The alternative would be to either describe the character's appearance in a meaningless way so as to avoid anything that resembles opinion (he's male, brown eyes, black hair and skin) or to load up the prose with clearly opinionated statements (his mouth is always turned up in a mocking smile). By far the best, most neutral way to present information about what visual cues are communicating is by letting the reader see them and decide for himself. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 20:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>No, I got your point. In my example, if I were to use the cold and calculating picture as the single portrayal of the mostly action character, I've established the wrong personality by that picture. In some cases, this can be corrected through consensus but particularly for many console games, only a limited number of released images are available to select from, and thus while one may be able to get an image of a character it may not be the one that best represents the character's personality. If there is an important part of the character's personality that needs to be stated, this should be done either through quoting the primary source or from secondary sources, not relying on a picture which can give a false impression. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>The solution to having a misleading photo is obviously to choose another one that is not misleading, and that's an editorial judgment matter to be decided by discussion and consensus. Clearly, we should not ignore or deemphasize writing sourced text, but we should also recognize that in visual media, authors/designers use visual cues to communicate with the audience. Including images allows our audience to get that information. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>Which is a perfectly valid argument to allow per character images for every character of every series. Start your uploading engines now... --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 05:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>I appreciate that you acknowledge the validity of my argument. Keeping in mind our principle of minimal use, it would only make sense to add images for characters if knowing about them significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the topic. Minor characters by definition are not important enough to do that, so they should not get images. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 05:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> <dd>We cannot attempt to second guess what the authors or designers imply about visual clues included in character drawings to justify their use to try to show these; only a secondary source will help identify these. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 05:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>How is "second guessing what the authors or designers imply about visual clues included in character drawings" involved here? We don't need to make ANY "guess," and that's been my whole point all along. Show the character's appearance, let readers form their own impression. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The problem remains that you are arbitrarily judging which image to use, and which characters to bother illustrating. This is the problem with using images to illustrate vague principles. The image should illustrate a particular point in a particular way- Masem gave a good example before of a third party source discussing the scars etc of a character- an image of their face, showing said scars etc, may then be valid. Otherwise, we end up with this slightly odd situation of illustrating major characters, no matter how much an image of them is necessary, and not illustrating secondary characters, no matter how important their appearance is. A much more objective way to deal with this is to add an illustration when a point raised in the text calls for one. For instance, I could easily read through the description of Niko and at no point glance to the right to view the image, as no point raised actually makes me wonder what he looks like. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 11:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>I don't really see how there is a "vague principle" at work here; I think I've been pretty clear about how a reader's experience is enhanced by seeing an image. For any "characters" article they enhance the reader's experience in a very specific, non-vague way, though the impressions created by the character's appearance may vary from reader to reader. I am not at all opposed to images that connect specifically to the text, even if they are not of a major character. My position is that depicting major characters (and using one or two images with multiple characters in them is certainly a good way to do this) enhances the reader's experience significantly enough that it's worth doing. Beyond that, is there some kind of unwritten rule that a fair use image should depict something more specific than the subject of an article or section? If anything, I'd think that a description of scars would be just the kind of "replaceable by text" use that would fail criterion 1. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> (Undent) When images are not illustrating a specific point in the text, what stops them from being decorative? You are quite insistent that the images are illustrating the section, but it's an entirely arbitrary judgement that such sections need to be illustrated in such a way. The point I'm trying to make is that we should include images only if they are illustrating a specific point, otherwise whether to include an image is entirely down to a completely subjective, vague assertion that the character is "major", and so, for some reason, needs to be illustrated. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The subjectivity involved doesn't seem like a good reason to prefer one side or the other -- one could just as easily argue that if the significance of an image is ambiguous, there's no clear NFCC violation and so the image should be retained. — <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XDanielx" title="User:XDanielx">xDanielx</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XDanielx" title="User talk:XDanielx">T</a>/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/XDanielx" title="Special:Contributions/XDanielx">C</a>\<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_review/xDanielx" title="Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx">R</a> 23:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC) <ul> <li>That's backwards. We don't work from a default case of including fair use images. The reality is if there's no clear way the images pass NFCC, the images must be removed. Such is the case here. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 15:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd>Eh, this result pretty much equates to a "no consensus". The validity of the images is ambiguous both ways, and last time it was determined was that they are acceptable. Nothing has been determined here. Therefore they remain; for the time being (as no doubt there'll be yet another attempt next week). --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:.:Alex:." title="User talk:.:Alex:.">.:</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:.:Alex:." title="User:.:Alex:.">Alex</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:.:Alex:." title="User talk:.:Alex:.">:.</a> 17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC) <ul> <li>This growing trend of "It's there, you have to prove it's wrong before you can remove it" simply isn't supported in policy. If it were, we'd be overrun with fair use images. The reality is that most people on this project would prefer that fair use images be allowed anywhere and everywhere imaginable. Just because most people want it doesn't mean it's acceptable. We're descending into tribalism here, with the community taking over the project despite its mission. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 13:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>I think that your apparent distaste for "the community taking over the project" is a little strange, since this is by all accounts a community project in the first place. That said, I think that your "tribalism" point is valid, but it strikes me as a bit odd considering that you advocate so stridently for your "side." I don't see that as a good way to bridge the divide. The issue here, as it often seems to be, is that your interpretation of "the mission" is not the only one. It is not the case that the mission prohibits fair use entirely (though it would make matters infinitely easier if it did), so we have to balance the goal free content with the notion (which the project's mission recognizes) that the encyclopedia is often better off when it has some non-free content, too. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Croctotheface" title="User:Croctotheface">Croctotheface</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croctotheface" title="User talk:Croctotheface">talk</a>) 03:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="Postage_stamps" id="Postage_stamps"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=19" title="Edit section: Postage stamps">edit</a>] Postage stamps</h2> While <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postage_stamp" title="Postage stamp">postage stamps</a> are listed under the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images" title="Wikipedia:Non-free content">acceptable use</a> (in stamp articles and not for their subject) there is no mention in the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2" title="Wikipedia:Non-free content">unacceptable listing</a> of stamps. I think this should be amended. The reasoning stems from my review, as a member of the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philately" title="Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately">Philately WikiProject</a>, of the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_stamp_images" title="Category:Fair use stamp images">fair use stamp category</a>, and subcategories, most of which are being used in articles about the subject and are not stamp articles. The total number of images in question comes in around 300. I considered that it would be appropriate to create a notifying template that could be placed on the article talk page upon deleting the image from the article and also notifying the uploading editor that their image was being used improperly. The template would indicate the improper use being made of it, say why the use is improper and give a link to a Philately WikiProject example page showing proper fair use in a stamp subject article page; a scenario that can exist if there is substantial critical discussion about the stamp itself within the article. An initial test template is on one of my userpages <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ww2censor/bad_fair_use_stamp" title="User:Ww2censor/bad fair use stamp">here</a>. Any thoughts folks? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ww2censor" title="User:Ww2censor">ww2censor</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ww2censor" title="User talk:Ww2censor">talk</a>) 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Seems reasonable, much in line with our practice with magazine covers. If it would be helpful to have that explicitly stated in the policy, I think that would be a good call. (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ESkog" title="User:ESkog">ESkog</a>)(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ESkog" title="User talk:ESkog">Talk</a>) 23:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Hmm, there are like 12 examples of unacceptable use already, I think we should maybe try to group simmilar things togeter, for example mention stamps in the baseball card example since it's more or less the same logic. I'm just worried that if the list get too long the impression that anyting not listed is ok could easily spread (especialy if people link direction to that section instead of the top section where it says it's not an exshaustive list). --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sherool" title="User:Sherool">Sherool</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sherool" title="User talk:Sherool">(talk)</a> 18:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Only 12! Based on a complete review I estimate there are 180-185 unacceptable stamp uses <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ww2censor/Fair_use_stamps" title="User:Ww2censor/Fair use stamps">per the review list I made</a>. I have only listed the proper and possible proper uses in the list, so everything else is an unacceptable use. A small number of images are marginal and should probably be considered on a case-by-case basis. Some stamps are properly being used in a stamp article and also improperly; these are noted in the list. Review it and make any changes you think necessary. There is consideration that within the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philately" title="Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately">Philately WikiProject</a> we would like to start a page that gives examples of proper use of stamp images in non-stamp articles. I have seen stamps used in biography, architectural, geographical and Olympic articles as well as in biographies of (stamp) designers which might be regarded as an acceptable use. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ww2censor" title="User:Ww2censor">ww2censor</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ww2censor" title="User talk:Ww2censor">talk</a>) 00:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Ripken" title="Billy Ripken">Billy Ripken</a> example is what I would term as a substantial critical discussion that justifies the baseball card use in that case, just as a similar use of a stamp could be, but just stating which postal authority issued the stamp, where it was issued, and what is shown on it, even in great detail, cannot be considered a substantial critical discussion. I would consider <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otte_Wallish#Israel.27s_first_Doar_Ivri_stamps" title="Otte Wallish">this</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos#2008_Mount_Athos_stamp_issue" title="Mount Athos">this a fair use</a> in a non-stamp article. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ww2censor" title="User:Ww2censor">ww2censor</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ww2censor" title="User talk:Ww2censor">talk</a>) 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> <dd>@<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ww2censor" title="User:Ww2censor">ww2censor</a> I was referring to the 12 items in the ordered list of examples of unacceptable use of images on this page. Not the number of stamps used in an unacceptable way. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sherool" title="User:Sherool">Sherool</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sherool" title="User talk:Sherool">(talk)</a> 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Oops!! :)> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ww2censor" title="User:Ww2censor">ww2censor</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ww2censor" title="User talk:Ww2censor">talk</a>) 00:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="Slow_moving_editwar" id="Slow_moving_editwar"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=20" title="Edit section: Slow moving editwar">edit</a>] Slow moving editwar</h2> I've done a protection of this page for 1 day, after it expires any continued reverts, either way will result in a block for <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EDITWAR" title="Wikipedia:EDITWAR" class="mw-redirect">editwarring</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DISRUPT" title="Wikipedia:DISRUPT" class="mw-redirect">disruption</a>. Please discuss the matter here on the talk page, and do not make a change either way until you guys can reach a consensus on the matter. —— <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nixeagle" title="User:Nixeagle">nix</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nixeagle" title="User talk:Nixeagle">eagle</a> 17:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I do not believe there is a consensus on this at this time, if there were we would not have this continued editwar. My suggestion to you guys is to seek outside input outside of this talk page, however right now to me it looks like there is no consensus for either side, just long and hard to read arguments. —— <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nixeagle" title="User:Nixeagle">nix</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nixeagle" title="User talk:Nixeagle">eagle</a> 17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Note – "this page" means <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria" title="Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria">Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria</a> not <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content" title="Wikipedia:Non-free content">Wikipedia:Non-free content</a>— they share this talk page. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slakr" title="User:Slakr">slakr</a>\ <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slakr" title="User talk:Slakr">talk</a> / 17:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> Does it make sense to flag criteria #8 as disputed somehow, if it doesn't have consensus? (Or perhaps just put the disputed clause in italics, with a reference to this talk page.) — <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pytom" title="User:Pytom">PyTom</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pytom" title="User talk:Pytom">talk</a>) 22:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>That is up to you guys... Those that cared enough about this issue to revert war over... To figure out. I what I said above only applies to my first glance look at the situation, and should not be seen as a "fact" refuting any prior consensus. That is not my job as the intervening admin to do. What I do see is an editwar going on for days without much real discussion.</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>There is a warning on the page when you go to edit it that future changes to that critiria number without clear consensus may result in blocks. Editors, including you with your proposal would do well to follow that and attempt to come to a consensus. My suggestion to you guys is to seek consensus on that criteria number outside of this talk page. By the looks of it you guys need some outside input. —— <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nixeagle" title="User:Nixeagle">nix</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nixeagle" title="User talk:Nixeagle">eagle</a> 00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I've chosen to protect the policy page for one day, long enough for a bit of a cooldown. However I want all participants in this to consider criteria number 8 as offlimits without a clear consensus. When you go to edit the policy page, you will be reminded of this by a notice at the top of the page. I'm asking participants to exersize restraint, you all should know better. —— <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nixeagle" title="User:Nixeagle">nix</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nixeagle" title="User talk:Nixeagle">eagle</a> 00:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> Your action just allows the minority, whose view was not supported, and hasn't gained any extra support, to prevail, particularly because you protected the page on the "wrong version". Please at least set it to the longstanding version, rather than the innovation. I'll come back in two or three days, and if you haven't, you're going to have to block me, because I will. It's intolerable for an admin to take sides in an editwar by using his powers, and not to support the consensus version that has stood for some time now. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grace_Note" title="User:Grace Note">Grace Note</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grace_Note" title="User talk:Grace Note">talk</a>) 04:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version" class="extiw" title="m:The Wrong Version">m:The Wrong Version</a>. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rettetast" title="User:Rettetast">Rettetast</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rettetast" title="User talk:Rettetast">talk</a>) 23:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <ul> <li>Grace Note, threatening to edit war and following through with it is guaranteed to get you blocked. Also, the long standing version you claim, isn't the long standing version. The omission being a detriment was added in July of 2007, and stood until April of 2008. Since the attempted removal in April, it has been contested. It generated an edit war back then for which <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&diff=204811213&oldid=204810935" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&diff=204811213&oldid=204810935" rel="nofollow">it was protected</a>. Following the edit war, the prior version including the omission being a detriment language was retained. So, the new language lasted all of 9 days. The prior language stayed until <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DCGeist" title="User:DCGeist">User:DCGeist</a> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&diff=217716910&oldid=217707217" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&diff=217716910&oldid=217707217" rel="nofollow">removed it on 7 June 2008</a>. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Betacommand" title="User:Betacommand">User:Betacommand</a> restored it on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&diff=226813643&oldid=224130294" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&diff=226813643&oldid=224130294" rel="nofollow">20 July 2008</a>. In August, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari" title="User:Kaldari">User:Kaldari</a> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&diff=232000688&oldid=229588248" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&diff=232000688&oldid=229588248" rel="nofollow">removed it again</a>. In October, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng" title="User:Howcheng">User:Howcheng</a> restored it. Then <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dockino&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User:Dockino (page does not exist)">User:Dockino</a> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&diff=247419582&oldid=243670199" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&diff=247419582&oldid=243670199" rel="nofollow">removed it again</a>. And on and on and on to the current edit war. In short, every time there's an attempt to remove this language, it gets restored. It is hotly debated. Further, the consensus you claim isn't consensus, at least not one sufficient to change a fundamental policy. See <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Check_the_record" title="Wikipedia talk:Non-free content">Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Check_the_record</a>. If you want to remove the language, then you can do so by starting an RfC and advertising the RfC in appropriate places. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 23:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)</li> </ul> <a name="Images_at_Britney_Spears" id="Images_at_Britney_Spears"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=21" title="Edit section: Images at Britney Spears">edit</a>] Images at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears" title="Britney Spears">Britney Spears</a></h2> In cleaning up some other images, I found two non-free images which were (in my view, of course) not being used properly in <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears" title="Britney Spears">Britney Spears</a>. One of them is a magazine cover, which we do not typically permit for use in illustrating living persons; the other is a music video screenshot which clearly has a bad copy-paste rationale which identifies it as an album cover, which it patently is not. However, my removals were quickly reverted by another administrator. The article could use another few sets of eyes, and/or some discussion here. (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ESkog" title="User:ESkog">ESkog</a>)(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ESkog" title="User talk:ESkog">Talk</a>) 23:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britneyspearsrollingstone.jpg" title="File:Britneyspearsrollingstone.jpg">File:Britneyspearsrollingstone.jpg</a> does not violate fair use. It is not being used in the article to illustrate Spears, it is being used within policy to illustrate a controversial cover on which Spears appeared which is supported by prose. The licensing for magazine covers clearly states: If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image. Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult" title="User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult">The Bookkeeper</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bookkeeperoftheoccult" title="User talk:Bookkeeperoftheoccult">(of the Occult)</a> 01:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <a name="Image_gallery_at_Burger_King_products" id="Image_gallery_at_Burger_King_products"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=22" title="Edit section: Image gallery at Burger King products">edit</a>] Image gallery at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_products" title="Burger King products">Burger King products</a></h2> There is a huge gallery of 30 non-free images at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_products" title="Burger King products">Burger King products</a>, and I'm running into some <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN" title="Wikipedia:OWN" class="mw-redirect">WP:OWN</a> issues trying to clean it up. Would someone else mind taking a look at the gallery? (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ESkog" title="User:ESkog">ESkog</a>)(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ESkog" title="User talk:ESkog">Talk</a>) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Not only fails NFC, I would also say it fails <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#GUIDE" title="Wikipedia:NOT" class="mw-redirect">WP:NOT#GUIDE</a> - what symbols BK uses to identify products on wrappers seems very much unneeded. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 20:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>What about the corporate logo gallery at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_franchises" title="Burger King franchises">Burger King franchises</a>? I've removed two that didn't have FUR. I figure either remove them all, or add FURs for the ones I removed. I believe, like above, these images are just used for decoration and should be removed, but what do others think?-<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_c" title="User:Andrew c">Andrew c</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_c" title="User talk:Andrew c">[talk]</a> 21:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Yes, I'd say their use is analogous to historical logos of TV stations; we can use them when we have an article on the subsidiary, but not in a gallery on a parent page. (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ESkog" title="User:ESkog">ESkog</a>)(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ESkog" title="User talk:ESkog">Talk</a>) 21:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC) <dl> <dd>So is <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Carrols-LogoCrop.jpg&diff=261198964&oldid=215904361" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Carrols-LogoCrop.jpg&diff=261198964&oldid=215904361" rel="nofollow">this</a> legit? -<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_c" title="User:Andrew c">Andrew c</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_c" title="User talk:Andrew c">[talk]</a> 03:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>No, because <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King" title="Burger King">Burger King</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_franchises" title="Burger King franchises">Burger King franchises</a> are not about Carrols. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmadler" title="User:Cmadler">Cmadler</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cmadler" title="User talk:Cmadler">talk</a>) 04:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> I have removed the icons and the logos and watchlisted the pages. While we're on the subject, I'm also a little concerned about the use of the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burger_King_Logo.svg" title="File:Burger King Logo.svg">Burger King logo</a> on so many pages- it seems that the Burger King infobox has simply been copied into a number of related pages. The rationale has also been copy-pasted. I can understand the need for the logo for identification purposes on the main article, but is it really needed on all the others, when it is not part of the actual subject of the article (merely related to it) and is not discussed in the article? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 13:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>What about the kid's club logos at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_advertising#Logos" title="Burger King advertising">Burger King advertising#Logos</a>. I know we don't even mention Spain... Not clear why we need a gallery of 4 logos that gets little attention in the article text (there is a section that describes a logo that isn't even pictured..)-<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_c" title="User:Andrew c">Andrew c</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_c" title="User talk:Andrew c">[talk]</a> 14:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Aye, removed - there are already four more images there (some of which probably aren't required anyway), let alone a gratuitous further four. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Kite" title="User talk:Black Kite">Black Kite</a> 14:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>This made me curious about other fast food restaurant logo use. Seems like most of the smaller fast food restaurants are limited to one use on the main article, but then I came to <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:McDonald%27s_Corporate_Logo.svg" title="File:McDonald's Corporate Logo.svg">File:McDonald's Corporate Logo.svg</a>, which has 7 articles. I can understand being on the main page and the trademark page for sure, but the legal page? How does my viewing the McDonald's logo help me better understand the court cases. Maybe if it was a copyright infringement case, but the logo is simply being used as decoration at the top of the article.-<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_c" title="User:Andrew c">Andrew c</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_c" title="User talk:Andrew c">[talk]</a> 17:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>I think this is another example of the application of using logos wherever X thing is mentioned. There are those that feel if a logo is already on Wikipedia, then we can use it anywhere and everywhere X thing happens. There are those that feel this violates minimal usage. See the recent (and ongoing) heavy dispute over the use of college sport team logos (you know, we really must, must have a sport team's logo on every single season they ever played). --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 22:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> Gosh, what about <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Old_kids_logo.jpg" title="File:Old kids logo.jpg">File:Old kids logo.jpg</a>, being claimed PD based on an unsourced trademark office search? Copyright and trademark are two different things. I boldly reverted it, so check the history.-<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_c" title="User:Andrew c">Andrew c</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_c" title="User talk:Andrew c">[talk]</a> 17:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC) This is part of the main McDonald's corporate article, split off per the standards summary style. The McDonald's corporate logo appears as part of the corporate info box on all articles that deal with corporate operations of the company. This is done per the standards as defined in the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)" title="Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)">Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)</a>: Like static infoboxes, they are designed to present summary information about an article's subject, such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format. However, the template technique allows updates of style and of common text from a central place, the template page. Since the articles are all parts of the main McDonald's article, basically covering different parts of the operations and history of McDonald's, the usage of the logo in the infobox is appropriate. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jerem43" title="User:Jerem43">Jeremy</a> ( <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerem43" title="User talk:Jerem43">Blah blah...</a>) 19:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Just because it is a supporting article spun out from a larger topic doesn't make an image use on its page valid or not, particularly logos. A well-written lede will easily provide the user a link to the main corporation page which they can then see the logo. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <a name="With_all_the_changing_concensus..." id="With_all_the_changing_concensus..."></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=23" title="Edit section: With all the changing concensus...">edit</a>] With all the changing concensus...</h2> Its time for "NFCC 8 Rewrite Proposal 2548295", let's try this: <blockquote class="templatequote"> <div> Significance. Non-free content is only used where its presence significantly increases the reader's understanding of the article, where its omission would be detrimental to this understanding. If the non-free content is a graphical work specifically made to identify the subject (such as a logo, album cover, etc), and it is used in the article that it represents, it is considered to comply with this criteria. Any additional usage beyond this must be justified appropriately. </div> </blockquote> Notice the new Carte Blanche I added here. Basically, you can use a logo, album cover, etc, on the article of its subject - but any use outside the main article on its subject must be justified and increase the reader's understanding. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ViperSnake151" title="User:ViperSnake151">ViperSnake151</a> 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Lol! But I do like that added wording...a lot. But I have a simple (?) secondary question. What happens when the work/image that is "specifically made to identify the subject (such as a logo, album cover, etc)" is also self-published/user created? In other words an artists self makes their own album cover and uploads it here via a CCL for use "in the article that it represents." In my eyes that makes it "free" but others may feel, because it is an album cover, it would fall under fair-use. In these cases would one still have to make sure that "Any additional usage beyond this must be justified appropriately"? (You could look at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albert-hall-cd-cover.jpg" title="File:Albert-hall-cd-cover.jpg">File:Albert-hall-cd-cover.jpg</a> as an example or <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rumors_-_CD_Cover.jpg" title="File:Rumors - CD Cover.jpg">File:Rumors - CD Cover.jpg</a> as a currently unused example.) <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soundvisions1" title="User:Soundvisions1">Soundvisions1</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soundvisions1" title="User talk:Soundvisions1">talk</a>) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Uhh, that's why it says "if the non-free content is a graphical work specifically made to identify the subject". Couldn't make it any more clear. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ViperSnake151" title="User:ViperSnake151">ViperSnake151</a> 23:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>uh..yeah and that is why I asked because in "other" areas I have been told any such image (such as a logo, album cover, etc), even if it is user created and licensed under a "free" license still falls under non-free content. I just wanted to make sure that this also applied to that is all. Thanks. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soundvisions1" title="User:Soundvisions1">Soundvisions1</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soundvisions1" title="User talk:Soundvisions1">talk</a>) 00:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd>You need to specifically exclude photographs of living people when used to illustrate the person, as they are generally not allowed as fair-use, a very specific fair-use claim must be made, a claim that is generally impossible if the person is still available for photography. The term "graphic works" is ambiguous and some editors interpret that to include photographs, others do not. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davidwr" title="User:Davidwr">davidwr</a>/(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davidwr" title="User talk:Davidwr">talk</a>)/(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davidwr" title="Special:Contributions/Davidwr">contribs</a>)/(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/davidwr" title="Special:EmailUser/davidwr">e-mail</a>) 00:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <dl> <dd>Recommend changing "considered to comply with this criteria" to "presumed to comply with this criteria unless there is evidence or discussion to the contrary." There are clearly cases when it does not. For example, if there is already another picture that provides the same general understanding of the photo, a 2nd one is not needed. The editors of the article should be able to debate whether or not a given picture does or does not in fact increase the understanding of the article. Examples where it might not: Two very similar album covers, any image where a substantially similar free image is actually available on the commons or Wikipedia, 2 substantially similar photos of the same logo or branding, etc. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davidwr" title="User:Davidwr">davidwr</a>/(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davidwr" title="User talk:Davidwr">talk</a>)/(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davidwr" title="Special:Contributions/Davidwr">contribs</a>)/(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/davidwr" title="Special:EmailUser/davidwr">e-mail</a>) 00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The living person element is already included in criteria 1 and, as it would related to an album cover or book, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2" title="Wikipedia:Non-free content">"Unacceptable uses"</a>, Images - number 8, says "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover (or book) does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." For other uses number 12 says "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images.". I don't see why that would need to be explicit in regards to people in the actual criteria, number 8. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soundvisions1" title="User:Soundvisions1">Soundvisions1</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soundvisions1" title="User talk:Soundvisions1">talk</a>) 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <ul> <li>This proposal is presumably to address the over usage of logos across articles related to the main article of a subject. For example, company logos on all of its notable product pages, network logos on every subsidiary station page, and team logos on every season page. Am I correct? If that is the case, this proposed wording doesn't solve that problem. In fact, it makes it worse. To comply with #8 now, all a person has to do is say "Well, the logo identifies the (company/network/team) and therefore it's justified; we have a reason to use it". I don't like this. I'd rather see wording that specifically addressed the problem. If the intent is opposite; to make it so that logos can be used liberally, then just remove the #8 restriction entirely and indicate somewhere in the policy that logos can be used purely for identification purposes whenever and wherever in mainspace, so long as there's an identifying intent. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 01:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Hmm, let me try this:</li> </ul> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <div> Significance. Non-free content must either <ol> <li>Significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article, with its omission being detrimental to this understanding.</li> <li>Be a single graphical work that is used to identify a subject or entity (such as a logo, cover art, etc), as the use of these works for identification is presumed to comply with this criteria unless there is evidence or discussion to the contrary. This exception is only valid when the content is used on the article of its representing subject. Usage on other articles requires justification. In all cases, usage must also comply with the rest of the non-free content criteria</li> </ol> </div> </blockquote> By splitting up the scenarios into a either/or system, its a bit easier to understand this situation. But, this is a very hard thing to word. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ViperSnake151" title="User:ViperSnake151">ViperSnake151</a> 02:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) <ul> <li>Still problematic. A person can use "identification" as justification under this rewording, and it would have to be considered valid. If that's your intent, then just gain consensus to remove the #8 criterion completely. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hammersoft" title="User:Hammersoft">Hammersoft</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft" title="User talk:Hammersoft">talk</a>) 03:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>If you want to avoid perpetual harrangues over this, it needs to be objective as possible. It is not for one editor to judge what increases or is detrimental to the the understanding of the reader - everyone's needs are different and the rule as it is framed is too subjective. Taking that approach will just lead to on-going circular argugments. NFCC#8 in and of itself should not be sufficient to delete an image. If the language is going to be based on understanding, you're necessarily heading towards a consensual approach the weighs the validity of an image in the context it is being used. We are visually oriented beings - its a big part of how we function, learn, and understand. This type of subjective rule will be a forever problem in large part because of the way it has been abused in its application. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiggy!" title="User:Wiggy!">Wiggy!</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiggy!" title="User talk:Wiggy!">talk</a>) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> I think the intent (which is to limit logo use in a more restrictive manner as per the several recent threads), but altering #8 to make it work is not the right way. It would be better to place these as both acceptable and unacceptable uses, with the understanding that this is what is meant as meeting NFC#8. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 14:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC) <a name="Arb_break_-_Logo_use_as_acceptable.2Funacceptable_examples" id="Arb_break_-_Logo_use_as_acceptable.2Funacceptable_examples"></a> <h3>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=24" title="Edit section: Arb break - Logo use as acceptable/unacceptable examples">edit</a>] Arb break - Logo use as acceptable/unacceptable examples</h3> I think the best way to define how logos can and cannot be used is to add additional examples of acceptable and unacceptable use to this, as opposed to altering NFCC directly. This, and/or adding language to <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGO" title="Wikipedia:LOGO" class="mw-redirect">WP:LOGO</a> should help. Clearly, there are two acceptable uses: <ul> <li>The current logo of a corporation, organization, product, or event can be used on the specific page that describes that entity as a means of identification. (Within certain exceptions, as for musical groups where a free image of the band is preferred).</li> <li>A logo can be used in an article that is specifically about that logo (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Arches" title="Golden Arches">Golden Arches</a>), or provides criticism and commentary about the logo image itself, but not simply for identification without such.</li> </ul> The unacceptable uses that are clear is: <ul> <li>The logo of a corporation, organization, product, or event on a page that is directly related to that entity but is not the main page about that entity, without the presence of criticism and commentary about the logo in the article. This includes (but not limited to): a company logo on a product page, a parent company's logo on its affliates' pages, a sports team logo on a team's season page, or a corporate logo on pages regarding the history or legal matters of a business. Cases where the aforementioned logo is an integral part of the logo or image of the entity, such as a company label on a product (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_XL_H1" title="Canon XL H1">Canon XL H1</a>), or a sponsor's logo on a sports game's logo (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Bowl" title="Sugar Bowl">Sugar Bowl</a>) are not considered unacceptable for this propose.</li> <li>Historical logos of an entity without the presence of criticism and commentary about each of the provided logos.</li> </ul> This is not meant to exhaust all possible logo uses or disallowances, but does clear up the lines where the most recent discussions seem to have settled on in regards to logo use. Obviously, I'm wordy, so there's some tightening up that can be done. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 16:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Agree, with the single exception of "a sports team logo on a team's season page," per <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos" title="Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos">the discussion of that item</a>. I won't go into that argument here, because we've had a lot of discussion about that elsewhere, and I know that there is substantial disagreement on that point. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmadler" title="User:Cmadler">Cmadler</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cmadler" title="User talk:Cmadler">talk</a>) 17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I agree with that also, but with the same exception as Cmadler. I think it's quite apparent that consensus doesn't point towards removing these items from the season pages. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mastrchf91" title="User:Mastrchf91">Mastrchf</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mastrchf91" title="User talk:Mastrchf91">t</a>/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91" title="Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91">c</a>) 17:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>But, would it be allowable to put a new logo in a season page noting that a team changed their logo during this season? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ViperSnake151" title="User:ViperSnake151">ViperSnake151</a> 19:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>This is an equivalent situation to the TV station case; historical logos for teams should like be on the page that describes the team and only if there's criticism and commentary about that logo (why it was changes, why it was designed as such, etc.). --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>The language on historical logos is stronger than anything that came out of the discussion on old tv station logos; and doesn't reflect the tv station logos that were kept. Previous branding can be a significant part of the knowledge about an entity in the public view that an article should try to convey. This bullet should be reconsidered. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 20:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>(For reference for those new to it <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_38#Use_of_historical_logos_in_logo_gallery" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_38#Use_of_historical_logos_in_logo_gallery" rel="nofollow">here's the original discussion</a>).</dd> <dd>I don't see a fair conclusion out of that discussion, though the clearly appropriate aspect was that if historical logos has criticism and commentary about them, and typically not presented as a gallery but inline as part of the station's history, they were ok; my suggested writing includes this allowance. But clearly the use of historical logos just to show them without additional comment, only to show the evolution of the logo, is not appropriate. If the historical logos are "clearly a significant part of the knowledge about an entity in the public view", then there's bound to be sources that state why this is the case (even if from the entity itself). That's the balance that I believe the conversation stated. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The question is whether the logo would "significantly improve understanding of the subject". That's a question of editorial judgment, not sourcing. As a hypothetical: if a company has used the same logo from 1923 to 2006, and the company was well known, then I submit that that logo should be in the article, and a caption "logo of the company from 1923 to 2006" would be sufficient explanation. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I would assert that if a company changed its logo it had been using for 80-odd years to a new one, there's bound to be some mention of the change and reasoning for that somewhere. Companies don't just change logos for no good reason. That's why for historical logos, I'm pretty sure that it may take footwork to find the sources but most of these can ultimately be supported with at least a basic statement of the reason for the change to a new logo. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> I agree with Masem entirely, apart from the season page point. I personally agree with removing logos from a season page (obviously, barring any discussion of the logo itself) but I think at this time there is significant support for inclusion there (including an argument that, for college teams, each season is effectively about a different team anyway). <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <ul> <li>No on the exclusion of historical logos. They can easily and simply reflect the changing personality of a team/organization and quite often it origins, which might otherwise be mislaid or misunderstood. For example, the stripping of historical logos from the Chelsea FC article diminished the opportunity for someone unfamiliar with the club to get a qucik and interesting insight in that clubs history. As a matter of fact all the logos there were removed despite the presence of commentary - which is a quite cynical outcome when viewed in the context of this discussion. The intent to strip away all non-content regardless of its value or provision for its inclusion shines through a little too clearly. This whole thing is unnecessary rule creep. Show some understanding and good faith and back off of this. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiggy!" title="User:Wiggy!">Wiggy!</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiggy!" title="User talk:Wiggy!">talk</a>) 20:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)</li> </ul> <ul> <li> <ul> <li>It would be helpful if you could provide a diff to the article before the logos were stripped as to judge what sounds like is an acceptable case. I do believe that the historical logo problem may be overblown, as for most entities and organizations, when a new logo is introduced, they usually explain why that is the case in a press release, newsletter, or a simple web page posting, so even if we're quoting from the primary source to say "This logo was created in 19xx to reflect the new direction of the company", that's sufficient to justify (for myself) NFCC#8; it is just a matter of finding those sources. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Around late September of this year <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_F.C.&diff=241235571&oldid=241235419" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_F.C.&diff=241235571&oldid=241235419" rel="nofollow">[19]</a>. The most radically different of these logos (depicting a pensioner, not any form of lion) has apparently already been lost despite its information value simply in the name of scrubbing the page clean of non-free content. And ironically enough NFCC#8 was one of the clubs used to beat this use down. This was largely driven by a POV editor who also figured using national flags or two letter country codes was a good substitute for the use of a national team logo. That whole thing is unacceptably extreme and an example of the unreliability of some of these rules in the hands of some editors. Thanks BTW for the reasoned reply. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiggy!" title="User:Wiggy!">Wiggy!</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiggy!" title="User talk:Wiggy!">talk</a>) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>That is a prime example of what I think I'd be looking for to justify the historical logos, and what I think most uses of historical logos can easily met save for the footwork of finding sources. I'm not thrilled about them being in a gallery, but it's reasonably justified that given the layout of the article, sprinkling the logos among the rest of the body would be too difficult. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 21:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Examples of historical logos that should clearly be removed are <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STAR_Movies&diff=prev&oldid=260169843" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STAR_Movies&diff=prev&oldid=260169843" rel="nofollow">this</a> and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STAR_Sports&diff=prev&oldid=260169382" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STAR_Sports&diff=prev&oldid=260169382" rel="nofollow">this</a> (found with a quick search through my recent contributions). The problem with vague assertions that historical logos tell us something about companies when they are not even worth discussing in the prose throws open the doors to that kind of use. If images were removed when they were discussed, then there is a potential issue there- perhaps the remover was out of line, perhaps they were unclear in their reasoning, perhaps the rationales were lacking, perhaps they believed the discussion wasn't enough to warrant the images' use. However, the fact that someone removed images when they may have been needed does not mean that we should stop removing them when they clearly are not. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 20:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>But there's a problem if the removal was simply based in NFCC#8. It is not for any single editor with a non-free content agenda to judge the understanding of other editors. Recognizing an old logo can instantly provide context and understanding for someone familiar with it but not aware of recent changes an organization may have undergone. It can speak quite simply and eloquently to the evolution of an institution. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiggy!" title="User:Wiggy!">Wiggy!</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiggy!" title="User talk:Wiggy!">talk</a>) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Yes, and if it does, then a decent article will contain discussion of it in the text, meaning that its inclusion would be justified in the eyes of everyone. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 22:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> <dd>I am very hesitant of the rationale that providing an image to allow the reader to decide or interpret for themselves its meaning, as this doesn't provide the "significance" factor that NFCC#8 requires. If it is significant that we have to show it to the reader, then there should be some statement in the text why the reader needs to be aware of this image, hence the commentary or criticism. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The image itself may very well provide the "significance" that NFCC#8 requires, without any further commentary. We already recognise that to be the case for album covers and most logos.</dd> <dd>Whether there is significance or not is an editorial call to be made on the talk page, not a statement that has to be made on the article page. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Yes, we often use a single album cover or the current logo for identification purposes- you'll note that is included in Masem's proposal above. This does not extend to historical logos. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>But that doesn't take away from my point, that an image itself may very well provide the "significance" that NFCC#8 requires - album covers are just an example of this; and that whether it does or not is a question for the talk page. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 22:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>That applies only when the image is being used as a primary means of identification- a logo, a cover of some sort, a portrait of a dead person. It is clearly not the same issue with historical logos. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 23:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Then we disagree. I submit there may be many other cases where the image by itself can provide the significance required for NFCC#8. It is a question of judgment. That is clearly how policy frames it, as a question of judgment. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Can you name an example? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I think there are examples all over the project. The front cover of a newspaper, in the main article about the paper. A single best known or characteristic work in an article on a famous artist or illustrator. And, I would submit, a longstanding familiar logo in an article about a company or public entity. Many other examples could be found. The fundamental point is that requirement on the policy page is not for a statement that has to be made on the article page. Rather, the requirement is for a judgment that the image significantly improves understanding. Questions of judgment are issues for talk pages, or policy pages, or IfD discussions. They are not, per policy, article text issues. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I think your examples are poor (one is a cover, one you are implying is being used in place of the current logo and one would have commentary in the text if it truly was significant anyway) and still disagree with you. Images are either used for identification of the article topic, or illustrate a specific point in the text. Images (other than identifying ones) cannot reasonably be used to illustrate the whole article. I'm open to counter arguments or examples, but until I see a convincing one, I am going to strongly disagree with your conclusion. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I'm merely telling you what policy says. Policy says images to be usable must significantly improve understanding. It does not, to my knowledge, say that images must identify the article topic or illustrate a specific point in the text. I am interested to know what written policy or well-formed consensus discussion exists that you can point to that you believe mandates your position. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 21:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I'm basing this off what I see to be current practice. I cannot see a case where the image would not be discussed and not be identifying whereby it would be required, and that is not because of my "identify or discuss" rule of thumb- the rule of thumb came because of the observations. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 21:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Then that practice is not following policy. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald" title="User:Jheald">Jheald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald" title="User talk:Jheald">talk</a>) 23:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="SVG_logos.2C_again" id="SVG_logos.2C_again"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=25" title="Edit section: SVG logos, again">edit</a>] SVG logos, again</h2> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#Wizards_of_the_Coast.27s_logo" title="Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop">This recent encounter</a> bothered me. There is a systematic effort to create infinitely scalable images of non-free content, despite our minimal use/size requirements. It appears this topic came up most recently back <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_31#SVG_Logos" title="Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 31">in December 2007</a>. Now, I won't go so far to say that logo's shouldn't be scalable, but I don't think we should be encouraging editors to create their own versions of vectorized corporate logos. First of all, these are just copies, not the actual logos, and I have run across some vectorized logos that did NOT accurately recreate the corporate logo in question (see the deleted SVGs of <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CoolKid1993" title="User:CoolKid1993">User:CoolKid1993</a> if interested). I'd argue that it is technically impossible for someone to take a raster image of a corporate logo and 100% reproduce it in vector format. While some copies may be better than others, they are all, in the end, redrawn reproductions, not originals. My next concern would be the whole idea of it. Why would anyone want to turn a perfectly good raster image of a corporate logo into an SVG image if not to get a better quality/higher resolution version? The FUC says An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). If we are worried about an originally sized image being used for deliberate copyright infringement, isn't creating a scalable version even worse? I say, if a company has a vector version of their logo available in a press kit, or in a PDF, or somehow available to the public, then I wouldn't oppose using something that came straight from the company, but I really think we need to put an end to wikipedians making their own scalable versions of corporate logos. It is unprofessional, hackish work (in my mind) and seems to fly in the face of FUC. Is anyone with me? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_c" title="User:Andrew c">Andrew c</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_c" title="User:Andrew c">talk</a> 05:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Well to start with, your objection is couched in fairly personal (i.e. subjective) language. I'm not sure you'll impress that group of editors by characterizing their work as unprofessional and hackish. I'm fairly sure your good intentions will escape them. So instead of starting another riot, why don't why don't you guys wade in there and initiate a discussion that heads to some sort of standards-based resolution. For what its worth, I don't think the svg's are necessary either. But they are not explictly forbidden under the logo guideline and in fact were at one point encouraged there. At the other end of the spectrum it would be inappropriate to do the type of mass edits that OsamaK's bot made when it wanted to nuke everything at 300px and over - without any kind of prior discussion. So how about getting that group to buy into your objective instead of beating on them? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiggy!" title="User:Wiggy!">Wiggy!</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiggy!" title="User talk:Wiggy!">talk</a>) 13:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <dl> <dd>This was discussed a few months ago but I forget where - try the archives here or another copyright-related Wikipedia: discussion pages. I'm not sure if the conclusion reached consensus but a majority were okay with a "sufficient detail" standard. Non-free vector images should have "sufficient detail" for reproduction at the size needed in the article, and no more. This means that relatively simple designs will be able to be blown up to any size with little or no loss of detail, but complex designs, like coats of arms, will not be. If I recall, there were some mentions about this possibly being a technical violation of copyright law, but those arguments weren't persuasive. I think that if <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OFFICE" title="Wikipedia:OFFICE" class="mw-redirect">WP:OFFICE</a> chimed in and said "no, sorry, it's a violation" that would settle the matter but until then, I think you'll get some push-back if you try to tell people they can't use vector images for logos, particularly if they only contain "sufficient detail" for their fair use. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davidwr" title="User:Davidwr">davidwr</a>/(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davidwr" title="User talk:Davidwr">talk</a>)/(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davidwr" title="Special:Contributions/Davidwr">contribs</a>)/(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/davidwr" title="Special:EmailUser/davidwr">e-mail</a>) 16:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <dl> <dd>While I don't have an opinion about the scalability issue, in my own work I try to get logos from official sources as much as possible; some companies provide EPS versions of their logos on their press websites, while in other cases the logo may be harvested from official letterhead in a press release or from an annual report. While I don't like the idea of drawing my own logos, I have done it once, and I do use brandsoftheworld quite a bit as well. —/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mendaliv" title="User:Mendaliv">Mendaliv</a>/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mendaliv" title="User talk:Mendaliv">2¢</a>/<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mendaliv" title="Special:Contributions/Mendaliv">Δ's</a>/ 16:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Getting logos from official sources seems to be quite a good idea, thanks for your comment.-<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_c" title="User:Andrew c">Andrew c</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_c" title="User talk:Andrew c">[talk]</a> 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> While it is posible to have SVG logos that fall under fair use it is tricky to do and generaly not worth the effort.<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geni" title="User:Geni">Geni</a> 02:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC) <a name="Bots_are_evil..." id="Bots_are_evil..."></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=26" title="Edit section: Bots are evil...">edit</a>] Bots are evil...</h2> Okay, bots are not necessarily evil... but someone has put together a bot that is peeling through articles without the fair use rational and putting notices on the page. Can't we just have a bot that puts the fair use rationale on the pages?--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulmcdonald" title="User:Paulmcdonald">Paul McDonald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paulmcdonald" title="User talk:Paulmcdonald">talk</a>) 15:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Bots cannot determine why an image is being used on the page, this has to be done by a human. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 16:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>The bot is doing a good job. The very fact that you believe a bot could put a fair use rationale on a page is proof that you are not using fair use rationales correctly- a copy paste saying "image is irreplaceable, image is low resolution, image increases readers' understanding of the subject" is not a fair use rationale. A fair use rationale needs to explain why that specific use of that specific image is required, what in the article it is illustrating, and why that could not possibly be illustrated by free content material. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 16:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Unless... of course... a cut-n-paste fair use rationale, with changing the article, actually WOULD cover it. Which in many, many cases... it does! "Proof you are not using fair use rationales correctly" okay, so fix it yourself--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulmcdonald" title="User:Paulmcdonald">Paul McDonald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paulmcdonald" title="User talk:Paulmcdonald">talk</a>) 02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>easily solved, delete the image. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Canis_Lupus" title="User talk:Canis Lupus">Canis Lupus</a> 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> <dd>Actualy it probably doesn't but it shifts the risk over to the uploader rather than any bot writer.<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geni" title="User:Geni">Geni</a> 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> <dd>Fair use rationales should be like snowflakes - excluding changes to article names, no two should ever be the same. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 14:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>I'm not quite sure what you're saying with "excluding changes to article names", but there are lots of perfectly fine fair use rationales that are nearly identical. For example, basically every album cover used to illustrate an album article can be covered by the same rationale, except for the name of the article. This could easily be done by a bot that checks to make sure the image is sufficiently low-resolution and then writes the appropriate rationale. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rspeer" title="User:Rspeer">rspεεr</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rspeer" title="User talk:Rspeer">talk</a>) 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>How do you program a bot to identify whether an image is an album cover, and if it is the album in question? Say someone placed <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lindsay_Lohan_-_Vanity_Fair.jpg" title="File:Lindsay Lohan - Vanity Fair.jpg">File:Lindsay Lohan - Vanity Fair.jpg</a> in the <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Little_More_Personal_(Raw)" title="A Little More Personal (Raw)">A Little More Personal (Raw)</a> article. How can a bot tell that the image doesn't belong? Alternatively, how would a bot know <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Insearchof.jpg" title="File:Insearchof.jpg">File:Insearchof.jpg</a> is an album cover? What is relatively easy for a human to do would be nearly impossible to program a bot to do, unless you have an idea how to do this.-<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_c" title="User:Andrew c">Andrew c</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_c" title="User talk:Andrew c">[talk]</a> 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>A bot could reasonably tell you that <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lindsay_Lohan_-_Vanity_Fair.jpg" title="File:Lindsay Lohan - Vanity Fair.jpg">File:Lindsay Lohan - Vanity Fair.jpg</a> isn't an album cover -- it isn't even remotely close to square. On the other hand, it couldn't say that <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Insearchof.jpg" title="File:Insearchof.jpg">File:Insearchof.jpg</a> is an album cover, because there are plenty of square non-album images out there. It's a good example of why a bot can be used for checking rationales but not for writing them: it's easy to say something is certainly incorrect, but much harder to say that it is certainly correct. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carnildo" title="User:Carnildo">Carnildo</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carnildo" title="User talk:Carnildo">talk</a>) 21:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>There are <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Withsorrows.jpg" title="File:Withsorrows.jpg">non-square album covers out there</a>. A bot could never, ever, ever be programmed to write rationales. A further counter example would be when people use album covers in the infobox about the artist, something I see a lot. Then, the bot would happily write a rationale for the album cover illustrating an article about the album, when in fact it is being used to illustrate the artist. In response to Paul, yes, album covers being used in exactly the same way often share rationales. I am not sure I am comfortable with that, I have certainly seen it abused. And no, I am not going to follow you around fixing your sloppy edits- if I had to do that, why not just block you and save myself the trouble? Make decent edits, or make no edits. If you continue to make poor edits, then you should be aided in making no edits. It works for new users who don't get the point, so why not you? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 21:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="RfC_re-opened" id="RfC_re-opened"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=27" title="Edit section: RfC re-opened">edit</a>] RfC re-opened</h2> A user who was unhappy with the consensus at <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos" title="Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos">Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos‎</a> has attempted to re-open the discussion to another !vote regarding whether and how to enforce this policy. I notice that the bot has already archived the original link to the discussion, so here it is again, yet another non-free content conversation which will never ever end... (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ESkog" title="User:ESkog">ESkog</a>)(<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ESkog" title="User talk:ESkog">Talk</a>) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Please stop distorting my actions everywhere you go. There was no consensus and this !vote proves that (that doesn't mean there is a consensus though). <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BQZip01" title="User:BQZip01">— BQZip01 —</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BQZip01" title="User talk:BQZip01">talk</a> 05:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> <dd>You know I just re-read your comments and I'm even more incensed now. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF" title="Wikipedia:AGF" class="mw-redirect">How dare you assume my motivations for why I did anything</a>! You don't even know me and you are completely mischaracterizing my actions. I request a retraction. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BQZip01" title="User:BQZip01">— BQZip01 —</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BQZip01" title="User talk:BQZip01">talk</a> 05:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>I didn't re-open it, but it didn't really look like "consensus" to me, either. Thanks for the notification!--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulmcdonald" title="User:Paulmcdonald">Paul McDonald</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paulmcdonald" title="User talk:Paulmcdonald">talk</a>) 02:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Actually, the consensus--see <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos#Consensus" title="Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos">Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos#Consensus‎</a>--was that the use of the logos was permissible under <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC" title="Wikipedia:NFC" class="mw-redirect">WP:NFCC #3 and #8</a>.--<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2008Olympian" title="User:2008Olympian">2008Olympian</a><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2008Olympian" title="User talk:2008Olympian">chitchat</a> 04:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>A small majority of people did express the opinion that they want us to keep using the logos that way. However that does not equal a consensus that it is actualy permissable to do so under the policy. A great many of the "supporters" offered reasons entierly unrelated to the policy for retaining logos on all those pages randing from "it's not illegal" to "other sport sites do it", wich are hardly a compelling arguments for how the use complies with our policy. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sherool" title="User:Sherool">Sherool</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sherool" title="User talk:Sherool">(talk)</a> 11:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>And other users offered their own opinions on policy as if they were codified edicts. Both sides can dismiss other's arguments, but there wasn't a consensus. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BQZip01" title="User:BQZip01">— BQZip01 —</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BQZip01" title="User talk:BQZip01">talk</a> 05:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <a name="Keep_up_the_good_work.2C_everyone.21" id="Keep_up_the_good_work.2C_everyone.21"></a> <h2>[<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=28" title="Edit section: Keep up the good work, everyone!">edit</a>] Keep up the good work, everyone!</h2> Indeed, I have stopped disliking Wikipedia's policies on fair use and have come to see that they are absolutely necessary in order for Wikipedia to succeed in its goals. After all, we all know that the most important thing about any article is that no element of it might possibly be copyrighted. Having a possibly copyrighted image of, say, <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Douglas-Home" title="Alec Douglas-Home">a deceased former British prime minister</a> that is already all over the internet would be a disastrous blow to Wikipedia's credibility and to its wonderful mission of creating a free content encyclopedia. It is much better to not have any picture at all for several months, until somebody finds and uploads a not very good image from the US government which we will then be forced to use for all eternity - assuming there are any. If not, the best possible solution is clearly not to have an image in that article. I'm glad we sorted this out! <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney" title="User:John Kenney">john k</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Kenney" title="User talk:John Kenney">talk</a>) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Couldn't disagree more. If someone is deceased, then a free image cannot be obtained now. If no known free image exists, then we are up a creek and can only use a non-free, fair use image. Should a free image turn up later, we should remove and delete the non-free image post haste. A free encyclopedia is not the only goal of Wikipedia; quality is also a goal and they must balance out. Please realize the government doesn't have pictures of everybody...<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory" title="Conspiracy theory">or do they...</a>? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BQZip01" title="User:BQZip01">— BQZip01 —</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BQZip01" title="User talk:BQZip01">talk</a> 05:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Hi BQZip - I see my sarcasm was too subtle. I fully agree with you - I've just gotten frustrated about this and let out some of my irritation in the form of a sarcastic post. I think deleting the image of Douglas-Home was stupid, and would like to upload a new one, but I can't find any guidelines for how to get such an image included within the current guidelines. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney" title="User:John Kenney">john k</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Kenney" title="User talk:John Kenney">talk</a>) 06:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>If there's no free image available for a passed-away person, a non-free is allowable (on the reasoning that it is impossible to create a new free image of a dead person). But if there is a free image, it aught to be used instead. --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 06:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>But, of course, it is impossible to prove a negative. There is no way to prove, a priori that there are no free images of Douglas-Home. Can we use a free image until a non-free image is found? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney" title="User:John Kenney">john k</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Kenney" title="User talk:John Kenney">talk</a>) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>The reason it was deleted was because no source was given. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Canis_Lupus" title="User talk:Canis Lupus">Canis Lupus</a> 06:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>But <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SARCASM" title="Wikipedia:SARCASM" class="mw-redirect">sarcasm is still very helpful to discussion</a>, really it is. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade" title="User:Seraphimblade">Seraphimblade</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade" title="User talk:Seraphimblade">Talk to me</a> 06:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> <dd>What exactly is the nature of the "source" requirement? Can I find a picture on a website and just say "taken from <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://picturesofbritishprimeministers.com/douglashome" class="external free" title="http://picturesofbritishprimeministers.com/douglashome" rel="nofollow">http://picturesofbritishprimeministers.com/douglashome</a>," as long as I provide a real fair use rationale? Or do I have to know who the copyright holder is? Because the latter is just a totally onerous and unnecessary requirement - a fair amount of the time, nobody even knows who the copyright holder of a particular work is. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney" title="User:John Kenney">john k</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Kenney" title="User talk:John Kenney">talk</a>) 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>Just incidentally, it also had one of those nonsensical, blatantly wrong boilerplate pseudo-rationales ("... photo and its historical significance are the subject of the article..."). Why do people insist on making a mockery of the system by filling rationales with utter crap? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise" title="User:Future Perfect at Sunrise">Fut.Perf.</a> <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise" title="User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise">☼</a> 06:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Could be in response to people who insist on pushing nonsensical interpretations of policy that are utter crap? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiggy!" title="User:Wiggy!">Wiggy!</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiggy!" title="User talk:Wiggy!">talk</a>) 12:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> <dd>That is a pretty lame rationale, admittedly, but the fair use rationale is obvious - a picture of Douglas-Home has basically no commercial value, we have not yet discovered a free equivalent, and it substantially improves our article about the man. A bad rationale when a good one can be devised is a pretty weak reason to delete. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney" title="User:John Kenney">john k</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Kenney" title="User talk:John Kenney">talk</a>) 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>No commercial value? Sounds like we're just dying for one to illustrate our encyclopedia here because, as you say, it would substantially improve our article about the man. How's that no commercial value? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haukurth" title="User:Haukurth">Haukur</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haukurth" title="User talk:Haukurth">talk</a>) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> <dd>British prime minister so will likely have met the president of the united states (so PD pics likely exist from that) and was a fairly seniour politician more than 50 years ago (crown copyright expired). I'd say there is a reasonable chance of a free pic existing.<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geni" title="User:Geni">Geni</a> 14:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>There is a reasonable chance, certainly. If such a picture is not already on the internet, is it really our policy to require that there be no image until somebody finds, scans, and uploads such a picture? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney" title="User:John Kenney">john k</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Kenney" title="User talk:John Kenney">talk</a>) 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>That would be a reasonable conclusion. Our policies are intended to encourage the discovery of free images. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haukurth" title="User:Haukurth">Haukur</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haukurth" title="User talk:Haukurth">talk</a>) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> You can make a free drawing. Just make sure you don't base it on any one particular photograph. Works for <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_Jouhaud" title="Edmond Jouhaud">Edmond Jouhaud</a>. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haukurth" title="User:Haukurth">Haukur</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haukurth" title="User talk:Haukurth">talk</a>) 15:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Errrr, that's very potentially bad for two reasons. First, more importantly, if you are using non-free works to create the drawing, it can be considered a derivative work, and thus would still be non-free, even if you based it on multiple sources. That doesn't improve the non-free issue in the first place. Secondly, it looks bad - not in terms of your art skills - but its not a fair representation of the person. If the person is still alive, a photograph is likely possible; if dead, then a non-free image can be used, but having to resort to hand-drawn images is just a poor solution, and also smacks a tad of "original research" (just a tad, that's not the significant problem here). --<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masem" title="User:Masem">MASEM</a> 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>1) Drawing a person based on multiple independent sources on how they looked is not a copyright problem. Copyright doesn't give anyone a monopoly on information, just on a tangible fixation of a work. 2) It can look okay, a decent drawing is better than a bad photograph. Mostly, it takes more skill and time to make a good representational drawing than to make a good representational photograph. 3) Free images are better than unfree images. The law says nothing about photographs of dead people being in any way exempt from copyright - it's just one of the Wikipedia-specific criteria for when we may be willing to consider unfree images. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haukurth" title="User:Haukurth">Haukur</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haukurth" title="User talk:Haukurth">talk</a>) 15:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> Actually, for Alec Douglas-Home a free image could be created. There's a statue of him in Coldstream and a photo of it would not be licensed to the sculptor but rather the photographer under UK FOP law. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland" title="User:CIreland">CIreland</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland" title="User talk:CIreland">talk</a>) 15:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Can I suggest that a picture of a statue of Douglas-Home is not an adequate replacement for a photograph of him? Also, nobody has yet taken a free picture of that statue or drawn a picture of him and released it without copyright to wikipedia. These kind of substitutes are just a joke. And, yeah, images drawn by users are original research. Why on earth should we trust that <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rama" title="User:Rama">User:Rama</a> has made an accurate depiction of General Jouhaud? Looking at what pictures I can find of the man online, I'm not convinced that it is a particularly good likeness. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney" title="User:John Kenney">john k</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Kenney" title="User talk:John Kenney">talk</a>) 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>You kind of answered your own question there - you can check the accuracy of Rama's drawing by looking for pictures or video of the general. I don't see a problem there. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haukurth" title="User:Haukurth">Haukur</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haukurth" title="User talk:Haukurth">talk</a>) 16:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>There is clearly a problem with drawn images, with only a very few exceptions. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amezquita.jpg" title="File:Amezquita.jpg">This</a> is one of them- not a single image exists of this military figure, and so we have an award winning historian draw one, basing the likeness off a descendent, and basing the uniform off the notes in a contemporary source. If we have a reasonable belief that no free images exist of a subject and there is no chance that one could be created, then using a non-free image is the best option. A publicity/first party photo, or a photo used around the web (preferably with copyright holder known, and preferably without any ties to a specific publication) would be the best option on that front. I think the question of a statue is interesting- it is clearly acceptable to use a painted portrait, and statues are used for a lot of articles (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudicca" title="Boudicca" class="mw-redirect">Boudicca</a> springs to mind...) but could an image of a statue be considered acceptable when photos exist? <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Milburn" title="User:J Milburn">J Milburn</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn" title="User talk:J Milburn">talk</a>) 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>For people with no surviving representations, an artist's impression is of course fine. And if the artist wants to base his impression on a great-great-great-grandson that's fine by me. But I don't think this sketch is in any way superior to the General Jouhaud sketch by Rama. If no free images of a person are available, then sketches or artworks are appropriate. In an unusual case, we have free paintings of <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halld%C3%B3r_Laxness" title="Halldór Laxness">Halldór Laxness</a> and <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steinn_Steinarr" title="Steinn Steinarr">Steinn Steinarr</a> by a fairly well-known living artist. Those are good likenesses. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haukurth" title="User:Haukurth">Haukur</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haukurth" title="User talk:Haukurth">talk</a>) 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Portraits from life by professional painters are one thing. Portraits derived from photographs created by wikipedia users are quite different. At any rate, there has as yet been no guidance as to what to do about Douglas-Home. Given that we do not know if any free images exist, can we use a probably-not-free photograph of him? Beyond the question of what we can do about Douglas-Home under current policy, I'd like to reiterate how stupid our policies are. There are various images of Douglas-Home all over the internet. These are probably technically copyrighted, but it is quite clear that whoever the copyright holder is, they are not making any effort to enforce their copyright. And this is true of a vast amount of photographic material. We're not even allowed to use copyrighted promotional pictures which are basically released in order to be used in the way wikipedia would use them. I understand the desire for Wikipedia to contain as little non-free content is possible, but there's a large amount of technically copyrighted content which is effectively free, in that nobody is ever going to make any attempt to enforce copyright on it. And even if they did, we could plausibly make fair use claims for a large percentage of it. The current policy is basically cutting off our noses to spite our faces - Wikipedia has, on its own initiative, decided to drastically reduce the number of images available for use, and it really serves no conceivable purposes beyond a fetishistic attachment to "free content." The current process results in completely absurd things like our article on <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Stockwell" title="Dean Stockwell">Dean Stockwell</a> being illustrated by a picture of him from 60 years ago, when he was 13. Or that ridiculous line drawing of Jouhaud. Or the fact that an article about a British prime minister doesn't have a photograph attached to it, and people are seriously proposing that we put a photograph of a statue in place instead of a photograph. The current rules are an embarrassing failure. They make wikipedia looks absurd and amateurish (well, more absurd and amateurish than it looks anyway). The whole thing is a farce. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney" title="User:John Kenney">john k</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Kenney" title="User talk:John Kenney">talk</a>) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC) <dl> <dd>Yes, we're intentionally denying ourselves lots of content we could get away with using. Encouraging the creation, discovery and awareness of free content is ultimately more important. <a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haukurth" title="User:Haukurth">Haukur</a> (<a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haukurth" title="User talk:Haukurth">talk</a>) 00:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl>   <div class="printfooter"> Retrieved from "<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content</a>"</div>  <div class="visualClear"></div> </div> </div> </div> <div id="column-one"> <div id="p-cactions" class="portlet"> <h5>Views</h5> <div class="pBody"> <ul> <li id="ca-nstab-project"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content" title="View the project page [c]" accesskey="c">Project page</a></li> <li id="ca-talk" class="selected"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content" title="Discussion about the content page [t]" accesskey="t">Discussion</a></li> <li id="ca-edit" class=" istalk"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit" title="You can edit this page. Please use the preview button before saving. [e]" accesskey="e">Edit this page</a></li> <li id="ca-addsection"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=edit&section=new" title="Start a new section. [+]" accesskey="+">New section</a></li> <li id="ca-history"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&action=history" title="Past versions of this page [h]" accesskey="h">History</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div class="portlet" id="p-personal"> <h5>Personal tools</h5> <div class="pBody"> <ul> <li id="pt-login"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content" title="You are encouraged to log in; however, it is not mandatory. [o]" accesskey="o">Log in / create account</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div class="portlet" id="p-logo"> <a style="background-image: url(https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355im_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Wiki.png);" href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page" title="Visit the main page [z]" accesskey="z"></a> </div> <script type="text/javascript"> if (window.isMSIE55) fixalpha(); </script> <div class="generated-sidebar portlet" id="p-navigation"> <h5>Navigation</h5> <div class="pBody"> <ul> <li id="n-mainpage-description"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page" title="Visit the main page [z]" accesskey="z">Main page</a></li> <li id="n-contents"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents" title="Guides to browsing Wikipedia">Contents</a></li> <li id="n-featuredcontent"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Featured_content" title="Featured content — the best of Wikipedia">Featured content</a></li> <li id="n-currentevents"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events" title="Find background information on current events">Current events</a></li> <li id="n-randompage"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random" title="Load a random article [x]" accesskey="x">Random article</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div id="p-search" class="portlet"> <h5><label for="searchInput">Search</label></h5> <div id="searchBody" class="pBody"> <form action="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search" id="searchform"><div> <input id="searchInput" name="search" type="text" title="Search Wikipedia [f]" accesskey="f" value=""/> <input type="submit" name="go" class="searchButton" id="searchGoButton" value="Go" title="Go to a page with this exact name if one exists"/>  <input type="submit" name="fulltext" class="searchButton" id="mw-searchButton" value="Search" title="Search Wikipedia for this text"/> </div></form> </div> </div> <div class="generated-sidebar portlet" id="p-interaction"> <h5>Interaction</h5> <div class="pBody"> <ul> <li id="n-aboutsite"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About" title="Find out about Wikipedia">About Wikipedia</a></li> <li id="n-portal"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal" title="About the project, what you can do, where to find things">Community portal</a></li> <li id="n-recentchanges"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges" title="The list of recent changes in the wiki [r]" accesskey="r">Recent changes</a></li> <li id="n-contact"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us" title="How to contact Wikipedia">Contact Wikipedia</a></li> <li id="n-sitesupport"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate" title="Support us">Donate to Wikipedia</a></li> <li id="n-help"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents" title="Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia">Help</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div class="portlet" id="p-tb"> <h5>Toolbox</h5> <div class="pBody"> <ul> <li id="t-whatlinkshere"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content" title="List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [j]" accesskey="j">What links here</a></li> <li id="t-recentchangeslinked"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content" title="Recent changes in pages linked from this page [k]" accesskey="k">Related changes</a></li> <li id="t-upload"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload" title="Upload files [u]" accesskey="u">Upload file</a></li> <li id="t-specialpages"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SpecialPages" title="List of all special pages [q]" accesskey="q">Special pages</a></li> <li id="t-print"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content&printable=yes" title="Printable version of this page [p]" accesskey="p">Printable version</a></li> <li id="t-permalink"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=262871640" title="Permanent link to this version of the page">Permanent link</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> <div class="visualClear"></div> <div id="footer"> <div id="f-poweredbyico"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://www.mediawiki.org/"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355im_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/skins/common/images/poweredby_mediawiki_88x31.png" alt="Powered by MediaWiki"/></a></div> <div id="f-copyrightico"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/"><img src="/web/20090109053355im_/http://en.wikipedia.org/images/wikimedia-button.png" border="0" alt="Wikimedia Foundation"/></a></div> <ul id="f-list"> <li id="lastmod"> This page was last modified on 9 January 2009, at 00:54.</li> <li id="copyright">All text is available under the terms of the <a class="internal" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License" title="Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License">GNU Free Documentation License</a>. (See <a class="internal" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights" title="Wikipedia:Copyrights">Copyrights</a> for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/">Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.</a>, a U.S. registered <a class="internal" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29#501.28c.29.283.29" title="501(c)(3)">501(c)(3)</a> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Deductibility_of_donations">tax-deductible</a> <a class="internal" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization" title="Non-profit organization">nonprofit</a> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_organization" title="Charitable organization">charity</a>. </li> <li id="privacy"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090109053355/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy" title="wikimedia:Privacy policy">Privacy policy</a></li> <li id="about"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About" title="Wikipedia:About">About Wikipedia</a></li> <li id="disclaimer"><a href="/web/20090109053355/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer" title="Wikipedia:General disclaimer">Disclaimers</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <script type="text/javascript">if (window.runOnloadHook) runOnloadHook();</script> </body></html>