Fair use (inactive) | ||||
|
Archives |
Critical commentary
What's the point of allowing non-free images to be used for critical commentary? Wouldn't original critical commentary violate Wikipedia:No original research and WP:SOAP, as well as violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view unless all major viewpoints are represented? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- take a look at Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima it is an article about a picture, not an event almost everything in that article is critical commentary, as it discusses the image, usage, and effects of that particular image. critical commentary is by default neither positive nor negative. it is just sourced important commentary about said image. βcommand 02:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Critical commentary" does not mean "A Wikipedia editor's critical commentary". In some cases (see Guernica, Mona Lisa, or for that matter Virgin Killer), an image may have well been the subject of significant sourced critical commentary outside of Wikipedia. It is not original research to write what reliable sources such as well-respected publications have to say about them, any more than it's ever original research to cite and attribute a source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- IMO those are merely reports and summaries of existing critical commentary rather than critical commentary in and of themselves, which would be sufficient to meet the "in the context of critical commentary" criterion for cover art, but insufficient to meet the "for critical commentary" criterion used for screenshots, visual art and promotion material. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I just looked through the archives. The last time this received serious, in-depth discussion was in What is "critical commentary"? in archive 31. In that discussion, the consensus was that "critical commentary" basically means "criticism and / or commentary", and we only use the misleading "critical commentary" term because it's a legal term. If so, why doesn't the guideline explain the term or at least mention the fact that it's using the American legal definition of "critical commentary" rather than the plain English definition? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- IMO those are merely reports and summaries of existing critical commentary rather than critical commentary in and of themselves, which would be sufficient to meet the "in the context of critical commentary" criterion for cover art, but insufficient to meet the "for critical commentary" criterion used for screenshots, visual art and promotion material. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Template:RFC error I've added an RFC. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the basis of the question. To me (non-American, non-legal), "critical commentary" means casting a critical eye on the subject. That eye may discern a variety of positive and negative aspects - the role of a critic is not solely to disparage, it is to make balanced observations. Furthermore, critical commentary must always come from outside of Wikipedia, since we are here to report, not to comment by ourselves (well, in mainspace anyway :). Is there a mismatch in my understanding? Franamax (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think by the sound of it you may have a mismatch, and I'd recommend you do read the discussion that Gordon linked above, particularly the contributions from User:Wikidemo, since Wikidemo is actually a US Copyright lawyer in real life. The point is, as Gordon has said above, that "critical commentary" is an American legal term which essentially covers anything justifiable as "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" (17 USC 106). But see the earlier discussion, particularly Wikidemo's comments, for a fuller presentation. Jheald (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm - that pretty much matches my non/non-view - critical commentary means talking about something, not just saying something exists. I like this quote from Wikidemo: "a requirement that an image be used for purposes of commentary means that it has to actually support and expand on what is said in the text. Merely proving with a picture that the text is true is not adding any commentary value". Franamax (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- In response to your first comment, that's also how I interpret "critical commentary" as a term in plain English, but including one's own subjective judgements and interpretations of a work is prohibited by Wikipedia:No original research, while summarizing what critics have said about something is merely reporting or summarizing criticism, not making it. Basically, I have four questions. Does this policy use "critical commentary" in the plain English sense, or in the legal sense? If this policy uses "critical commentary" in the plain English sense, isn't everything encompassed by the term prohibited by Wikipedia:No original research? If "critical commentary" is used in the legal sense, why doesn't the guideline explain what it means in accordance with Wikipedia:Explain jargon? If "critical commentary" is used in the legal sense and cannot be easily defined, why isn't there at least a statement that it cannot be easily defined, followed by a list of examples like the one at Wikipedia:No personal attacks? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm - that pretty much matches my non/non-view - critical commentary means talking about something, not just saying something exists. I like this quote from Wikidemo: "a requirement that an image be used for purposes of commentary means that it has to actually support and expand on what is said in the text. Merely proving with a picture that the text is true is not adding any commentary value". Franamax (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think by the sound of it you may have a mismatch, and I'd recommend you do read the discussion that Gordon linked above, particularly the contributions from User:Wikidemo, since Wikidemo is actually a US Copyright lawyer in real life. The point is, as Gordon has said above, that "critical commentary" is an American legal term which essentially covers anything justifiable as "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" (17 USC 106). But see the earlier discussion, particularly Wikidemo's comments, for a fuller presentation. Jheald (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in reference to something that was said a few posts up, "critical commentary" is NOT a term used in U.S. copyright law, and Wikidemo has been very clear about how in that sense it is a very POOR term to use. It's an amalgamation of two SEPARATE terms that show up in fair use discussions: criticism and commentary. You can look up my past comments on this subject, but I believe that the term is very poorly defined. It either means something that would plainly be barred by WP:NOR, or it covers everything we do at every article. I can't imagine very many images of an article subject that do not "support and expand upon" what's in the text. Croctotheface (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would support changing this phrase as well. I did a Westlaw search for the phrase a while ago, and got very few results. There is no use using a faux-legalese term that doesn't have an ordinary meaning. If we want to be more demanding than simply "commentary" we should articulate what we mean in plain English. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's try this, replace all references to "critical commentary" with "sourced and verifiable encyclopedic content and discussion in relation to the non-free work", since that's what "critical commentary" is. ViperSnake151 02:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd support that. By the way, I accidentally used the politics RFC template rather than the policy RFC template. I've replaced it with the correct template and added a new timestamp. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I support replacing it, but I hope we can come up with a slightly more phrase term to use instead. I don't see why we need to say "sourced" when all material must be verifiable to be included at all. I don't see why we need to say "encyclopedic" because something inappropriate for an encyclopedia should be removed anyway.
I think that we could just use the term "commentary" and define it as something more like "enhance the reader's understanding of an element discussed within the article". Croctotheface (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Actually, I think we should probably just stop using the term or anything like it. We've gotten by this long by saying "screenshots are OK for critical commentary" which, as the current discussion shows, was tantamount to just saying "screenshots are OK" and then following that up with a more or less meaningless phrase nobody really understood. Obviously all non-free screenshots have to pass all of the NFCC, so saying that they're for "critical commentary" or whatever else is basically redundant; they need to pass a much more stringent set of criteria to be considered in the first place. Croctotheface (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)- There's a difference between sourced material and verifiable material. Material only backed up by an unreliable source could be sourced but unverifiable if the source is unreliable and no better sources are readily available, while a claim could be easily verifiable without any specified source if sources are readily available, for example if someone added a {{fact}} tag to the claim in the tree article that trees are plants, or added a citation in the pasta article to support the claim that pasta is a type of food, I suspect that edit would be reverted. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.", and Wikipedia:Citing sources specifies six reasons for citing sources. I'm not aware of any policy or guideline prohibiting unsourced material in general. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- My point, which I probably did not make well, is that I don't see why we would shift from verifiable, which is the standard for all of WP, to "sourced and verifiable" in this one instance. I have the impression that the whole "sourced and verifiable and encyclopedic" litany was designed to just put in as many adjectives that Wikipedia editors would consider as indicators of "good" content, regardless of whether they actually came to bear on what we were talking about. Being sourced has nothing to do with criticism or commentary, so I don't see why it should enter into the equation here. Croctotheface (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I am amused by User:Megapixie's edit here, as he has now removed the exact example used in the policy WP:NFC#Unacceptable use Images # 4 to illustrate when fair-use is allowed, with the edit summary ""Raising the flag" is NOT fair use in this context - per Policy. Replacing with another suitable image." This must be something of a record in the annals of policy creep. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong. The article that policy cites is Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, an article specifically discussing the photograph.
- Agency photos cannot be used as a general illustration of the subject of the photo, eg Battle of Iwo Jima; they can only be used specifically in the context of the discussion of the photo itself.
- IMO failure to observe this distinction is probably the most serious systematic image problem we have on WP at the moment. Jheald (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- IMO WP:UCS says it's OK to use in that context...Modernist (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Common sense can't supersede US copyright law. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- IMO WP:UCS says it's OK to use in that context...Modernist (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Jheald, you are wrong. The guideline text is: "unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)." The image is historically important in the context of the war and can therefore be used in an article about the war, not just in an article about the image. Ty 00:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Correct - the policy example would make no sense at all if it was only referring to the article on the photo. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but we can't use a copyright photo just because we want to. Use of the photograph simply to illustrate the battle is not what is legally called a "transformative use". Rather, it is exactly the use the photograph was taken for, and exactly the use for which people have to pay AP their licensing fees.
- The use becomes transformative if the article, or the section of the article, is specifically a commentary on the photograph itself, and its cultural and historical significance.
- If the guideline doesn't make that clear, then the guideline needs to be rewritten. Because that's the legal position. Jheald (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation of the law, which is a notoriously unclear one, and an interpretation which is against long-standing wikipedia consensus, as shown in the guideline and, for example, on {{Non-free historic image}}. An article which sets the image in its full historic context affects a transformation of the image, which is not then seen in the same way as it would be in isolation. Ty 01:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- See the discussion at Template talk:Non-free historic image about the copyright violation problems with this template. IMO we might be better off without this template because it seems to justify all sorts of CVs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- And it is not that the guideline "doesn't make that clear", but that the guideline clearly says something completely different, but is being ignored. Ishould mention I raised the matter at the Village Pump also. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation of the law, which is a notoriously unclear one, and an interpretation which is against long-standing wikipedia consensus, as shown in the guideline and, for example, on {{Non-free historic image}}. An article which sets the image in its full historic context affects a transformation of the image, which is not then seen in the same way as it would be in isolation. Ty 01:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposal
I propose adding the following wording in italics to unacceptable image use #4, to clarify the point:
An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war and the image is being used in a section of the article specifically analysing the image's historical importance or iconic status (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima).
Jheald (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I support this change.Per howcheng below, I now think that this wording is that great either. But in any event, some change is necessary because the current wording is unacceptable. Jheald's explanation of the relevant law is correct - and this is not a "notoriously unclear" aspect of copyright law. Transformative use is pretty much the key to understanding fair use. It is a copyright violation to swipe AP's image because it happens to be a great way to illustrate the Battle of Iwo Jima (as evidenced by its achieving iconic status). AP took this picture exactly so it could charge people for this use! It is fair use, on the other hand, to use the photo in an article about the photo, because it is transforming the photo, treating it as an artifact in its own right. In short, {{Non-free historic image}} is frequently misused to justify copyright violations. We should clarify the examples and the template text. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)- Note that this is not "policy creep" - the current example is plainly incorrect. If we are going to have an example, it should be an acceptable one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The proposed wording does not work. It retains the link to Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, which is clearly not the article the example intends to refer to - that is an article on the photo itself, and the degree of iconic status is just not relevant to fair use there. This is the link that has confused some into misreading the example. Equally, if "specific analysis" of the image is required, there is no point at all in the "iconic status" wording, indeed no need to have the whole exception there. But to remove the whole exception clearly would be a change in policy - downgrading to nothing all educational/non-profit factors & relying wholly on transformation. This approach runs against both US law and the Wikipedia Foundation declared approach, and should be resisted. I would add that Battle of Iwo Jima has sufficient analysis of the specific image to justify fair-use even if this wording were to be implemented, both in the lead, just opposite where this image was removed, and a much longer section slightly lower down. So even on this policy creep wording, it's removal was unjustified. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.As I tried to do in this edit, it's not that the guideline is incorrect -- it's that the example is. By using Raising the Flag, we create a conflict between #4 and #5, the latter requiring us to NOT use the photo because there's an entire article about it. Instead, the lead image in Six-Day War would be a much better example (although now that I look at the article more closely, it really needs more discussion to justify its use, but IIRC this one photo is emblematic of the war from Israel's perspective). howcheng {chat} 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)- N.B. I just added more details about the photo to the article, which should now easily pass NFCC. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- But do you believe some change is still required, then? BTW your changes have just been reverted. If the text is WP:UNDUE as claimed, does the image even meet NFCC in that article? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I unreverted and explained to Nudve why it was there, and he has agreed that the passage should be there. howcheng {chat} 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC) PS -- I guess I am not opposed to extra wording, just the example.
- The western wall photo should at most be thumbnailed next to the section discussing it. It should not be being used display-sized as the main photo, nowhere near the discussion of it. As regards Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, there is no conflict between #4 and #5, because "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" is the article entirely about the photograph. Jheald (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I unreverted and explained to Nudve why it was there, and he has agreed that the passage should be there. howcheng {chat} 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC) PS -- I guess I am not opposed to extra wording, just the example.
- But do you believe some change is still required, then? BTW your changes have just been reverted. If the text is WP:UNDUE as claimed, does the image even meet NFCC in that article? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- N.B. I just added more details about the photo to the article, which should now easily pass NFCC. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
A response to Johnbod's comment above: Is it a bit hazardous to be relying on our educational/non-profit status solely. From our article Fair use:
- "The subfactor mentioned in the legislation above, 'whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,' has recently been deemphasized in some Circuits 'since many, if not most, secondary uses seek at least some measure of commercial gain from their use.'[6] More important is whether the use fulfills any of the 'preamble purposes' also mentioned in the legislation above, as these have been interpreted as paradigmatically 'transformative.'"
The analysis in the case cited[1] is very persuasive and is worth a read. On a tangentially related note, there was a recent related holding in the patent context: "our precedent does not immunize any conduct that is in keeping with the alleged infringer's legitimate business, regardless of its commercial implications. For example, major research universities, such as Duke, often sanction and fund research projects with arguably no commercial application whatsoever. However these projects unmistakably further the institutions' legitimate business objectives, including educating and enlightening students and faculty participating in these projects. The projects also serve, for example, to increase the status of the institution and lure lucrative research grants, students and faculty."[2]. See also Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music:
- "The central purpose of this investigation is to see, in Justice Story’s words, whether the new work merely “supersede[s] the objects” of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is “transformative.” Although such transformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Such works thus lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine’s guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright, and the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use." (citations omitted.)
Clearly transformation is at the heart of fair use analysis. It should be at the heart of our NFCC analysis as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am by no means proposing we rely "on our educational/non-profit status solely" - you are the one resting everything on transformation, which, I repeat, reflects neither the law nor Foundation policy. Are you saying "iconic status" is wholly irrelevant? If we are quoting cases, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation would seem more relevant here. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Transformation is only one of the four factors of free use. There are a number of cases where the use of the copyrighted material was not deemed to be transformative, but the use was still ruled to be fair anyway, such as Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.. However, those cases aren't always applicable to us. For our purposes, yes transformation is indeed important. The story of the JonBenet Ramsey photos is a good case study. howcheng {chat} 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Non-free (as in speech) is non-free, no matter how much fair use in copyright law is strengthened or weakened. Even if US copyright law explicitly stated "all reproductions of copyrighted work for non-commercial purposes is completely legal", our NFC policy cannot be reflected to accommodate that change because reproductions of copyrighted work still carry non-free use issues, and thus require rationale to be used on en.wiki in light of the free content mission. That's why it's important to recognize that the NFC policy is not derived from copyright law but from the free content approach. --MASEM 18:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Except our NFC policy also is intended to be well within the bounds of what is allowed by copyright law. These non-transformative uses of historic images, especially those by press agencies, are not well within these bounds. To that extent that our NFC policy aims to ensure that wikipedia's use of these photos is legally sound, it must track what the law says. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- In response to this, I have amended {{Non-free historic image}}. ViperSnake151 12:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
No time limit
I read somewhere (but cannot find it any more - old talk pages don't seem to show up in Google, and the internal search is no good for this) that there is "no time limit" as such, and this means that "replaceable" applies not only to things for which someome has a replacement here and now, but for anything for which replacement is or will be possible. The images are Image:Ldn Ovrgrd Train.jpg and Image:Ldn Ovrgrd Train Internal.JPG. The usual exemption here for future things is when it's not certain that they will exist, however in this case we are not only past the point of having any doubt, but the subject now exists. This photo is several months old, and I am reliably informed that the first units of the real thing are doing the rounds in testing. As I understand it, "reasonably" does not extend to having to know where something is at any given time, otherwise we could say that photographs of anything not rooted in the ground (including people) are not replaceable. I'd like to hear a few other people's thoughts. 217.33.218.200 (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll say this again pretty much. It wasn't replaceable at the time it was uploaded, but it could be now. We just need someone to get off their office chair and get us the goods. ViperSnake151 12:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but your response was one of the reasons I asked here instead. I had hoped for an answer from someone that actually understands Wikipedia policy. This may be a grey area, but "it's fine until someone actually replaces it" is definitely not the correct answer. 217.33.218.200 (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that we should not use photos of things that will exist in the future, including architects' sketches of buildings (which seem to be included frequently in articles of buildings under construction) and these train mock-ups. We wait for other photos to be uploaded, never knowing when an image will become available, and these we know will become available. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about that. I agree that once something becomes replaceable with a free image, the non-free image becomes immediately invalid, but until that can be done, a non-free is appropriate, though I would expect that in describing the "replaceable" aspect in its rationale to estimate how long that image cannot be replaced for (completion of building). That is, the "replaceable" aspect of non-free applies to the past and the present (what we know to be true if replacement is possible), but we cannot crystal-ball into the future. Example, a building that is being built gains appropriate sourcing to be an article, but mid-point in its construction, something happens to cancel it (collapse, lack of funds, etc.) The planned building doesn't lose any notability, but it will be impossible to get a free image of the final product. --MASEM 16:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- But in that case, wouldn't we just be able to undelete the image if the project is canceled? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would think stuff like buildings would need an illustration of some sort of final concept anyway, since most articles on them will go quite into detail about what they are going to be like externally -- thus allowing the fair use until they are done. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- But why can't we wait until the building is done, like we do for every other subject? It may be years before we get a picture of Tulsi Giri, for instance--and for that matter we are likely never to get a picture--but we don't allow a nonfree image there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- With living people at the present, it is always possible to get a free image, even if the likelihood of getting one is not readily apparent. You can't do that for a building that isn't completed. As long as editors are aware that as soon as something that could not be taken as a free picture becomes as such and thus voiding any allowable use of non-free images, we are sticking to the policy correctly. (and in the same fashion as soon as a living person dies, a non-free image of them is then allowable if there has been difficulty finding a free one while they were alive). --MASEM 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- To avoid any confusion, people were taking photographs of this in the latter phases of construction over 6 months ago, and I'm reliably informed that the trains have been sighted in the wild. 217.33.218.200 (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- With living people at the present, it is always possible to get a free image, even if the likelihood of getting one is not readily apparent. You can't do that for a building that isn't completed. As long as editors are aware that as soon as something that could not be taken as a free picture becomes as such and thus voiding any allowable use of non-free images, we are sticking to the policy correctly. (and in the same fashion as soon as a living person dies, a non-free image of them is then allowable if there has been difficulty finding a free one while they were alive). --MASEM 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- But why can't we wait until the building is done, like we do for every other subject? It may be years before we get a picture of Tulsi Giri, for instance--and for that matter we are likely never to get a picture--but we don't allow a nonfree image there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about that. I agree that once something becomes replaceable with a free image, the non-free image becomes immediately invalid, but until that can be done, a non-free is appropriate, though I would expect that in describing the "replaceable" aspect in its rationale to estimate how long that image cannot be replaced for (completion of building). That is, the "replaceable" aspect of non-free applies to the past and the present (what we know to be true if replacement is possible), but we cannot crystal-ball into the future. Example, a building that is being built gains appropriate sourcing to be an article, but mid-point in its construction, something happens to cancel it (collapse, lack of funds, etc.) The planned building doesn't lose any notability, but it will be impossible to get a free image of the final product. --MASEM 16:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that we should not use photos of things that will exist in the future, including architects' sketches of buildings (which seem to be included frequently in articles of buildings under construction) and these train mock-ups. We wait for other photos to be uploaded, never knowing when an image will become available, and these we know will become available. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but your response was one of the reasons I asked here instead. I had hoped for an answer from someone that actually understands Wikipedia policy. This may be a grey area, but "it's fine until someone actually replaces it" is definitely not the correct answer. 217.33.218.200 (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd prefer that "replaceable" be read as "replaceable through the effort of modern persons". So, my preference is that depictions of future events be allowed (provided it meets the other criteria) until such time as it is no longer "future". I think it is silly to disallow non-free images when there is no possibility to create an alternative in the present-day. Obviously an artist sketch should be removed once it is possible to create an alternative, but not before that in my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this a free-use license?
Please see http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/about/terms.html. Does this mean that photos found on that site are free use? -- Avi (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, it just means that you don't need to pay them to view the website. --Carnildo (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the clarification. -- Avi (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Opinons requested - New CSD i9 propsoal
As this includes proposed removal of specific NFC wording I am letting editors know about the New CSD i9 proposal and request for comments. If you wish to read the discussions that led up to this proposal you can find them at Important I9 add needed, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 December 4#Image:Australian embassy bombing flag.jpg and admin noticeboard. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
How long can copyrighted quotations be?
The policy states that "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used... Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." What is the exact difference between "brief" and "extensive"? I've removed quotes longer than 100 words citing this policy only to be reverted. This article, for example, includes a 127 word copyrighted quote. Is that considered "brief" or "extensive"? Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Given the lack of supporting text I would say that that usage is too much. Canis Lupus 20:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
For more tips, see:
Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#"Repeating quotes verbatim is not plagiarism."
and the one that follows it (Guidance for writing "in your own words"?)
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Brief" versus "Extensive" is very context-sensitive. The courts have ruled that quoting a single sentence of a 500-page novel was not fair use (a newspaper review of the book giving away the twist ending), and have also ruled that quoting the entire lyrics of a song was fair use (an extensive line-by-line analysis of the song). --Carnildo (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- For the "novel", I believe you're referring to Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, which was more than a sentence (300 to 400 words), but still a tiny tiny portion of the 500-page memoir. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, then what's your specific opinion on the usage in this instance: Why Men Rule#Part IV: The Meaning of Male and Female. Personally, I think it's excessive. Canis Lupus thinks it's excessive as well. What are other people's opinions? Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- For the "novel", I believe you're referring to Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, which was more than a sentence (300 to 400 words), but still a tiny tiny portion of the 500-page memoir. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Require marking of fair use INSIDE articles?
Well, my interpretation of this particular line in the licensing policy suggests that we are still not in full compliance (but then again...we're not in compliance 100% at any point)...
As you know, the line I am about to bring up was used to rename all the non-free media templates to be prefixed with "Non-free" (which in my mind, actually makes sense from the ground up, even while not factoring this in, because the difference between "Non-free software screenshot" and "Free software screenshot" just "goes together".
Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.
Personally, since it does not fully say "where" it has to be marked, I am assuming that there has to be machine-readable markings ANYWHERE dealing with a non-free image. The recommendation of the Comics Wikiproject "suggests" that a comment such as <!-- FAIR USE of IMAGENAME.jpg: see image description page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMAGENAME.jpg for rationale --> be placed next to every image (but then, it ALSO "requires" that a copyright notice of the publisher itself be used on the page too, which if anything...may be something to look into requiring everywhere, but still).
Anyway, per interpretations of the policy, should non-free images be marked INSIDE articles too? ViperSnake151 21:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- HTML comments and other notices within the articles should be avoided. as for template naming all non-free license templates should currently start with non-free. Canis Lupus 21:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Clarification request
A Bot has marked the images of the article Starshine (comics) as being non-fair use and orphaned- despite being from comic book covers (which as I understand makes them usable on Wikipedia since their purpose is promotion.) Also they are clearly not orphaned if they are being used on an article. I believe this to be a Bot error. Please someone explain this to me, otherwise I'll proceed to remove them from the orphaned list. Thank you. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Neither Image:Starshine I.png nor Image:Starshine II.png has ever been marked as orphaned, and I don't see any other images having been used in the article recently. Which images are you referring to? --Carnildo (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely those images. The notice is at the bottom of my personal User talk:Wilfredo Martinez page. Again, note this was done by a Bot, which is why I think it's an error (and had to come here to ask. I hate bots.) -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- The bot's telling you about Image:Starshine I.gif and Image:Starshine II.gif (note that they're .gif files, not .png), which are indeed no longer used. --Carnildo (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- So the Images were changed from .gif to .png? And now the old ones are no longer used? That's OK, then... but why tell *me* about it? Couldn't the person who did the change have removed the originals? Again: this is why I hate bots. I'm seriously thinking of just ignoring them from now on. Give me a REAL person to talk with. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Severe overuse problem
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: Image:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png. 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, WP:NFC 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 2004 World Series, 2007–08 Los Angeles Lakers season, 2006–07 Boston Celtics season, 2005–06 Detroit Red Wings season and many other similar articles. In fact, I haven't found one where the logos are being used on such articles like Image:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png 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 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game ([3]). Yesterday, they were restored.
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? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#3a covers that. βcommand 15:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#3a covers that. βcommand 15:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 logo is famous enough for its own page, 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 offending template. ViperSnake151 15:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Template:Non-free logo with Template:PD-font 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 Template:PD-font. 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 WP:GNG 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. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
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. --Bobak (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- To others: I removed the logos from Jeweled Shillelagh, Bobak saw it and restored them. Sigh. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- And now, after I removed the inappropriate rationale from Image:LSUTigers.png, Mastrchf91 has reinstated it. Weeeeee! --Hammersoft (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- And the undoing of my efforts continues apace [4]. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC) [5] [6] [7] --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- And on and on [8] [9] --Hammersoft (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
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 WP:CFB or other pertinent projects? That's not the right way to go about it. --Bobak (talk) 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. Zeng8r (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 m:mission 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Hammersoft) is a perfect candidate for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, imo, especially since I'm not even sure any rules are being violated. Zeng8r (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, no rules are being violated. Except that small little thing of our m:mission. No mind, who cares if we're a free content encyclopedia? Who cares that WP:NFCC and WP:NFC devolve from the mission statement? Who cares that the Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy 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? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully, if you wish to repeal WP:NFC, then please do a request for comment, but in any case, consensus appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of those who disagree with you. — BQZip01 — talk 06:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully, if you wish to repeal WP:NFC, then please do a request for comment, but in any case, consensus appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of those who disagree with you. — BQZip01 — talk 06:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, no rules are being violated. Except that small little thing of our m:mission. No mind, who cares if we're a free content encyclopedia? Who cares that WP:NFCC and WP:NFC devolve from the mission statement? Who cares that the Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy 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? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Hammersoft) is a perfect candidate for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, imo, especially since I'm not even sure any rules are being violated. Zeng8r (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"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. Zeng8r (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I totally agree with User:Zeng8r that this is really not an issue. While I don't doubt User:Hammersoft 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. Rtr10 (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Totally agree with both Rtr10 and Zeng8r. There is no issue at all on this, and even if there were, then it should go through the proper channels. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- Compare; Let's say someone decides to put Milk Can (college football) 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 WP:AFD. Similarly, we don't make policy decisions or conduct enforcement with the approval of a particular project. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Johntex\talk 03:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Totally agree with both Rtr10 and Zeng8r. There is no issue at all on this, and even if there were, then it should go through the proper channels. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. CIreland (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Section break the First
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 Trinity Broadcasting Network 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. ViperSnake151 01:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Mastrchf (t/c) 03:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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?
- Here's another example: Why do we not have per character images of every character on every list of characters on the project?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Hammersoft. These are (in totality - a few uses will be ok) a clear breach of policy. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. CIreland (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Magnolia Bowl, 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. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 04:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Magnolia Bowl 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. --MASEM 04:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 05:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 07:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. -MASEM 12:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. -MASEM 12:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 07:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 05:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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? Mastrchf (t/c) 04:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Mastrchf (t/c) 05:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.... Mastrchf (t/c) 05:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 06:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Template:NCAATeamSeason is equally wrong (so, for example, 2008 Pittsburgh Panthers football team 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. Oren0 (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is an excellent point, Oren0. 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. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 12:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is an excellent point, Oren0. 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. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Template:NCAATeamSeason is equally wrong (so, for example, 2008 Pittsburgh Panthers football team 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. Oren0 (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 06:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.... Mastrchf (t/c) 05:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Mastrchf (t/c) 05:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- (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. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm curious where this "task" comes from. Are you referring to Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy? 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 WP:NFCC, 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 "If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk" argument. We're not the ones who say that logos are OK, meta is. Oren0 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 18:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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). Oren0 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- (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. Jheald (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- For example, a Google search for "with limited exception" brings up hits like
- "With limited exception, at least 10 facilities completed the survey in all regions" [10] -- ie apart from a very few exceptions, in every region at least ten survey forms were returned
- "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" [11] - ie except in certain exceptional circumstances, a loan company has to be licensed. Jheald (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- For example, a Google search for "with limited exception" brings up hits like
- 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. WP:NFC is our EDP, and has to be respected. Jheald (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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).
- Again, while it is possibly being concerned about something that will never happen, I've seen enough arguments on this page that evoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 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. --MASEM 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 18:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm curious where this "task" comes from. Are you referring to Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy? 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 WP:NFCC, 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 "If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk" argument. We're not the ones who say that logos are OK, meta is. Oren0 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- "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, Florida Gators football is the main article about the University of Florida's football team. But then 2008 Florida Gators football team 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.
- 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. Zeng8r (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- It don't see why the logo is necessary for 2008 Florida Gators football team 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. CIreland (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Section break the Second
- Generally speaking, there are several potential reasons to remove an image from an article:
- It is a copyright violation
- A replacement exists or may exist in the future
- The image detracts from a mission to promote free content
- The use of a logo in an article about a sports team does not violate any of the above:
- Fair use allows use of the logo to identify the brand/product/company being discussed, exactly as being done here.
- 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.
- Since no replacement can be created, there is no advantage to us in avoiding the use of the logo.
- Therefore, there is no reason to remove these logos from articles. Johntex\talk 21:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Johntex\talk 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Johntex\talk 22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Johntex\talk 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 m:mission statement. Where in there does it state that free content is a secondary mission? It doesn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. CIreland (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) There's really been no clear argument from the supporters why the logo is needed in the 'rivalry' articles, beyond WP:ILIKEIT. 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. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 2005 Texas Longhorns football team, which is a Featured Article. 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. Johntex\talk 22:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. CIreland (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- "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 IBM should be removed to facilitate re-use?
- Sigh. Please look at m:mission. Please? Please? "disseminate it effectively and globally" You can't spread things that aren't free. --Hammersoft (talk)
- (/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. Johntex\talk 23:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. CIreland (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 WP:NFC 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. Jheald (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. CIreland (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm merely stating the criteria WP:NFC 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. Jheald (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. CIreland (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Bridgeman vs Corel, 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. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes Hammer, but the point is WP:NFC 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. Jheald (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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; Logos and uniforms of the New York Giants. 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The Texas Longhorns logo 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 big bertha. Pray tell, why is the logo in use on that article? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- You did not do your research very well. It absolutely is the logo for the UT marching band.[12] As such, it is perfectly reasonable for it to be on the article about the group it represents. In this case, the UT band. Johntex\talk 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- In what way does the existence of that logo, on that article, increase the reader's understanding of that subject? WP:NFCC#8? Black Kite 02:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- From WP:LOGO: "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." - Johntex\talk 02:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fairly obvious here that Hammersoft 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 CH52584 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Mastrchf (t/c) 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- His methods were bad, but so was his premise.
- 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.
- 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 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game. The logos have not detered people from adding relevant free-use photos to that article.
- 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. Force10 (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. CH52584 (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- As I posted above:
- From WP:LOGO: "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."
- The logo at The University of Texas Longhorn Band and 2007 USC Trojans football team is just as valid as the logo at Pepsi or Black Panther Party or Republic Party. The clear consensus on the Wikipedia project is to allow fair-use images when no free alternative is possible. That applies to logos 100%. Johntex\talk 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 03:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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".[13] The article is about the team. The team has a logo. The logo is used in the article and represents the team.
- 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. Johntex\talk 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 USC Trojans football (and likely the other main USC teams), but not on a specific year of that team. --MASEM 04:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can assure you that the 2008 Michigan Wolverines football team is a very different entity than the 2004 Michigan Wolverines football team. Each team is its own entity.
- 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.
- 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.
- On the other hand, the reason to keep it remains - the serve to "identify the object or entity in question".Johntex\talk 04:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Masem, your premise is faulty. The USC Trojans have a logo. The 2008 USC Trojans football team also has a logo, which happens to be the same. If we had an article for the 1950 USC Trojans football team 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 WP:LOGO. Oren0 (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent point, Oren0. Force10 (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that WP:LOGO 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 WP:NFCC#8. 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? βcommand 04:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. File:Usc_football_logo.gif 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 (Coca-Cola, McDonalds, etc.). How would removing Google or Bank of America'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. WP:LOGO is a community consensus document whatever you call it and represents common practice. Oren0 (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I will make a technical argument against "is a community consensus": It was a community consensus at the time it was ratified. Has that consensus changed? 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 was in 2005.
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. --Izno (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)- 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. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I will make a technical argument against "is a community consensus": It was a community consensus at the time it was ratified. Has that consensus changed? 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 was in 2005.
- 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. File:Usc_football_logo.gif 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 (Coca-Cola, McDonalds, etc.). How would removing Google or Bank of America'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. WP:LOGO is a community consensus document whatever you call it and represents common practice. Oren0 (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that WP:LOGO 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 WP:NFCC#8. 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? βcommand 04:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent point, Oren0. Force10 (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Masem, your premise is faulty. The USC Trojans have a logo. The 2008 USC Trojans football team also has a logo, which happens to be the same. If we had an article for the 1950 USC Trojans football team 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 WP:LOGO. Oren0 (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 USC Trojans football (and likely the other main USC teams), but not on a specific year of that team. --MASEM 04:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 03:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- As I posted above:
- 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? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. CH52584 (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
<--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 WP:NFCC (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. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- To Izno - please remember that WP:LOGO 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. Johntex\talk 15:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 sample which suffers from a lack of samples across the entirety 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. --Izno (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
3rd Break - Deconstructing the problem
Ok, there seem to be three major points here that have to be considered:
- Repeated college logo images lack FURs for each use - This is a non-negotiable aspect of WP:NFC 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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. --MASEM 15:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Au contraire, Masem. See the 2002 NFL Expansion Draft, a Featured List, for an example of the use of a professional team's logo outside of the team page.--2008Olympianchitchat 15:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Masem, you look at the wrong points so it is not surprising that you draw the wrong conclusions. These facts are:
- There is no free-use alternative to a logo.
- The logo is used to identify the entity which is the subject of the article.
- 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.
- The use of the logos on these pages does not deter anyone from adding other free-use images into the articles.
- The use of the logos is consistent with WP:LOGO
- 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. The fact that other stuff does not exist is not a reason why something else should not exist.
- 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, Johntex\talk 15:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- @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.
That said, it is lacking a FUR for that page, which is a non-negotiable issue.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. --MASEM 16:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC) - @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. --MASEM 16:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sure they do! See, if someone comes to the Florida–Tennessee rivalry, 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. The Game (Harvard-Yale) 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? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The sarcasm really does not help make a case. --Izno (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- It highlights two things; one, the absurdity of the position being demonstrated, and the intractability of those holding the position. I stand by it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The sarcasm really does not help make a case. --Izno (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- @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.
- 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. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is mainly about specific seasons (such as 2003 Florida Gators football team), specific games (such as 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game) and specific rivalries (such as Bedlam Series). Though, I think your points are valid still. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- For another example of how the pros do it, see Cowboys-Redskins rivalry. 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.--2008Olympianchitchat 16:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Or the 1960 NFL Expansion Draft, or 1961, et al...--2008Olympianchitchat 16:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. That something exists doesn't mean it should exist. Please come up with another argument. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- (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. --MASEM 17:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Masem, what about the Cowboys-Redskins rivalry? 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.--2008Olympianchitchat 17:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- (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. --MASEM 17:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, see the articles at 49ers-Rams rivalry, Battle of Ohio (NFL), Bears-Packers rivalry, Bengals-Steelers rivalry, Browns-Steelers rivalry, Chiefs–Colts rivalry, Chiefs–Raiders rivalry, Colts–Patriots rivalry, Cowboys-Redskins rivalry, Eagles-Giants rivalry, Jets-Patriots rivalry.--2008Olympianchitchat 17:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. --MASEM 17:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Wiggy! (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- You guys made WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 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 WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST 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 Super Bowl. Each one (Super Bowl 42) 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 WP:NFC, WP:LOGO, or other considerations? Oren0 (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Wiggy! (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, see the articles at 49ers-Rams rivalry, Battle of Ohio (NFL), Bears-Packers rivalry, Bengals-Steelers rivalry, Browns-Steelers rivalry, Chiefs–Colts rivalry, Chiefs–Raiders rivalry, Colts–Patriots rivalry, Cowboys-Redskins rivalry, Eagles-Giants rivalry, Jets-Patriots rivalry.--2008Olympianchitchat 17:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
(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 different football 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 MOS:LOGO, with some parallels to the issues surrounding flags too. Were such an article to come up at FAC, I'd certainly raise it as an issue when reviewing. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad you mention FAC. You are actually mistaken about the logos being a problem there. Please see 2005 Texas Longhorns football team and 2007 USC Trojans football team. 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. Johntex\talk 16:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 16:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Johntex\talk 23:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 04:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Johntex\talk 23:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 16:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Going in circles, solving nothing
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:
- 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.
- Fair use policy isn't a consensus issue. The Foundation's resolution makes that clear.
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 WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:NOHARM, WP:PRETTY and it passes WP:NFCC because it does. If this isn't done, you should expect to find this use deprecated soon. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. Both sides can post plenty of blue links. For instance, WP:LOGO, 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. Johntex\talk 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- As long as were enumerating our points:
- Please don't make threats. "If you guys don't satisfy me, I'm going to remove these images" is inappropriate.
- Please don't use strawmen. The arguments you list above are completely unrepresentative of what the pro-inclusion camp is arguing, to the point where maintaining WP:AGF is difficult with you (maybe your reading comprehension is just bad?).
- The arguments of the pro-inclusion camp are based on guideline and policy, specifically WP:LOGO and WP:NFCC, and even the same Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy you link above (which specifically allows logos and gives no indication their use should be curtailed). We argue, for example, that the 2004 Florida Gators football team has the same logo as Florida Gators 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 WP:ILIKEIT, etc. is disingenuous.
- 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. Oren0 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- <beavis>I didn't threaten you. Please don't attempt to interpret things as threats</beavis>. It is better if you just assume bad faith. You'll find processing of my posts considerably easier. If that fails, read my homepage. Now, with the personal attacks out of the way and allowing us to return to actual discussion....
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:FUEXPLAIN 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. βcommand 20:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. In this case, he is not even linking to a policy or a guideline, just an essay. Johntex\talk 00:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
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. john k (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 WP:NFC, 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. Jheald (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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!
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The fundamental goal of this project is m:vision. The document m:mission is secondary - it describes our priorities in how to get there. The recent Signpost article describes how the two can conflict, and how WP:NFC represents a balance between them. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, there are two distinct viewpoints in how NFC affects m:mission. 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.
- 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. Jheald (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- hammersoft one thing that those images cannot meet is WP:NFCC#8 ... 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 WP:ILIKEIT 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. βcommand 21:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 File:Texas Longhorn logo.svg. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 [14] if it would help in anyway. MBisanz talk 22:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- This issue is basically a debate on how to judge "significance", WP:FUC rule #8, regarding the inclusion of sports logos on various sports articles — something that has not been fully resolved in more than two years, unfortunately. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair use in The Game (Harvard-Yale)
After mentioning The Game (Harvard-Yale) 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 article history. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Army-Navy, Alabama-Auburn, Duke-North Carolina, UCLA-USC, and Cal-Stanford 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.--2008Olympianchitchat 02:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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, User:Geologik is ignoring WP:BRD and edit warring to push his preferred version. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.--2008Olympianchitchat 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- So you own 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Izno (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Izno (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perfectly acceptable for me personally. Unfortunately some are not convinced of the need for a temporary stalemate. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously there are a lot of people in the above conversations that disagree. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously there are a lot of people in the above conversations that disagree. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perfectly acceptable for me personally. Unfortunately some are not convinced of the need for a temporary stalemate. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Izno (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- By all means, as the removal of unique logos, which was discussed above and agreed would be in compliance, is also being pushed onto 2002 NFL Expansion Draft, see :[15].
- That is not by any means unique, it is also used in a gallery at Houston Texans. 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- "...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. -- Mastrchf (t/c) 06:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is not by any means unique, it is also used in a gallery at Houston Texans. 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Izno (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Such articles don't even have the potential to talk about the logos thus there is no reason to include them.Geni 13:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly any article has the potential to discuss anything in the article, including images. Johntex\talk 16:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.Geni 17:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The real reason is forcing people to find non-free content
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. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yeah, very right, it also serves that purpose. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 2007-08 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team which use Template:NCAATeamSeason) 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. Oren0 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 2007-08 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team which use Template:NCAATeamSeason) 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. Oren0 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, very right, it also serves that purpose. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- (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)
- 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.
- And let me repeat: endless wikilawyering = less contributing editors. Zeng8r (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- IBM logo is ineligible, so overuse of it doesn't actually matter, but you have a point somewhat. ViperSnake151 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- And let me repeat: endless wikilawyering = less contributing editors. Zeng8r (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is no reason to remove the logos to promote free content. Look at 2005 Texas Longhorn football team and 2007 USC Trojans football team. Both are Featured Articles. Both use the team logos. Both have lots of free-use images also. Johntex\talk 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Oren0 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 20:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Oren0 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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? Johntex\talk 20:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Masem's idea is interesting. Where available, would people oppose including a non-free photo of the team on, for example, 2008-09 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team instead of the logo? Oren0 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- absolutely. Attend some games take some pics then fire up your copy of GIMP and start building a composite.Geni 22:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game. 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. Johntex\talk 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is every reason to replace logos with free photos where we can. We are a free content encyclopedia. In fact, WP:NFCC #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. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Masem's idea is interesting. Where available, would people oppose including a non-free photo of the team on, for example, 2008-09 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team instead of the logo? Oren0 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- And here are some more good examples: 2007 Holiday Bowl, 2007 Hawai'i Bowl, and 2008 Orange Bowl. All use logos and still have free images also. The 2008 Orange Bowl 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. Johntex\talk 23:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. ViperSnake151 23:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Johntex\talk 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. --MASEM 04:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Johntex\talk 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. ViperSnake151 23:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposed compromise
Let me suggest a compromise that might work from now on:
- 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.
(Although I would point out that Hammersoft started out this discussion claiming that Image:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png was used 102 times, yet I can find no version of it with more than 9 article namespace links to it.)(Thanks Beta)
- 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.
- 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 ESPN Gameday 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 NFCC#8.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not getting into the merits of part two see where I removed it from 93 articles. βcommand 05:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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, Seattle Seahawks would be the main article of a set of articles on each teams' season). --Izno (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- One suggestion has been to use the team group photo from that season. That seems like a pretty good idea actually.--2008Olympianchitchat 11:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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, Seattle Seahawks would be the main article of a set of articles on each teams' season). --Izno (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 The Game (Harvard-Yale): 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 sourced, else you run into original research. 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. --Izno (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, but the question should not be whether "its use is required," but whether its use is to be prohibited.--2008Olympianchitchat 11:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's backwards. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not getting into the merits of part two see where I removed it from 93 articles. βcommand 05:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 fundamental rationale of our non-free content policy.) 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.—DCGeist (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- A perfectly valid perspective, if unnecessarily snarky (yes, I know, glass houses...stones...), except for one
littleBIG 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.—DCGeist (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.—DCGeist (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- "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. Oren0 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.—DCGeist (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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, 2009 Foo Bars season, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.—DCGeist (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- "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. Oren0 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.—DCGeist (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.--2008Olympianchitchat 11:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Sherool (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly - the use of logos for this quick ID makes sense in a paper encyclopedia when you are flipping through it, but if the Sugar Bowl 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. --MASEM 13:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Sugar Bowl 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly - the use of logos for this quick ID makes sense in a paper encyclopedia when you are flipping through it, but if the Sugar Bowl 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. --MASEM 13:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Sherool (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- A perfectly valid perspective, if unnecessarily snarky (yes, I know, glass houses...stones...), except for one
- 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. J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 fundamental rationale of our non-free content policy.) 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.—DCGeist (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
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, listed here) to convince me otherwise. --Bobak (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. βcommand 17:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Zeng8r (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but claiming to speak for the silent majority 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest you read NFCC POLICY 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. Rtr10 (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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). βcommand 07:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to read WP:NFCC#8 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. βcommand 08:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 13:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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). βcommand 07:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Virgin killer and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima 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 foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and WP:NFCC. βcommand 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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? john k (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please review Virgin killer 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 Homer Simpson 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 Worf. Images are kept to minimal usage and only what is absolutely needed. βcommand 16:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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? john k (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Virgin killer and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima 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 foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and WP:NFCC. βcommand 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. john k (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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>" :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. john k (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Zeng8r (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Apple Inc. article, but not in the Ipod or Macintosh Quadra article. The rule is similar here. The team logo may be used in the main team article, as we may see at Denver Broncos or CU Buffaloes. 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 Super Bowl XXXII. 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Zeng8r (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- actually both users who state that limited usage and that some logo usage can be replaced with text. Example Ipod does not need to have the apple logo, as a simple link to their article can do the same for meaning. as for the apple 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. βcommand 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Zeng8r (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Consensus must exist to retain content
If you're the type of person who adheres to WP:TL;DR, 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:
- Why not using fair use content is the default case:
- Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. This is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation's m:Vision 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 m:Mission, which asks us to develop content under a free license.
- 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 Gratis vs. libre for a greater understanding of this concept.
- 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 Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, our local EDP policy at WP:NFCC and should generally be in line with our guideline on fair use image use found at WP:NFC. It is only then that fair use images are permitted. These requirements must be met for the content to remain.
- 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.
- Why consensus must exist to include or retain fair use content.
- Consensus is part of the fourth pillar 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.
- 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.
- 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."
But what is a valid rationale? Simply put, the rationale answers the concerns of our fair use policy 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:
- "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.
- "If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original". This addresses #3b.
- "What purpose does the image serve in the article". This addresses #1 and #8.
- "To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image". This addresses #1.
- "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.
If we have File:Foo Bar used on Bars of Foo, 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 consensus by silence 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 non-sequitur. Indeed, the burden is on us to provide a valid rationale, which we believe that we have per WP:LOGO, WP:NFCC, and even per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy (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. Oren0 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Oren0 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Jheald (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Hammer of Thor. Wiggy! (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Zeng8r (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Zeng8r (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 04:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 06:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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." Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 again and again doesn't strengthen your argument. Oren0 (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 for more than two years. 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 again and again doesn't strengthen your argument. Oren0 (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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." Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 06:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Rtr10 (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 04:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Consensus must exist to REMOVE content
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... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 08:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 WP:NPA. 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Zeng8r (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 WP:ILIKEIT; 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. --MASEM 12:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:ILIKEIT 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. Zeng8r (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is no majority. Several times now supporters of the usage have claimed this majority, or claim to speak for the silent majority. In reality; it's an even 16-16 split. And, as Masem notes, this isn't a vote; consensus is not based on majorities. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 14:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 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. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 15:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 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. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
"Compromise" already exists
At times, different editors have suggested compromises in this debate. It should be noted that compromise already exists in the form of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and the descendant local EDP policy at WP:NFCC.
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. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- How is hijacking the word compromise to re-brand a position a compromise? That's just a useless exercise in Newspeak and is disrespectful of the folks trying to work towards a genuine compromise. Wiggy! (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 WP:NPA. 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 WP:NPA. 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! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- When you decide to be civil, I'll be waiting. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Check the record
I see Howcheng has been imposing a particular version of criterion 8, ignoring the results of the extensive debates that took place earlier this year: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34#Criterion 8 and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 35#Criterion 8 objection. 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.—DCGeist (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- those discussions never reached a clear consensus so I reverted back before your attempts to hijack the meaning. βcommand 14:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. As WP:SILENCE 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. howcheng {chat} 04:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 WP:IFD (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 Dank55 (send/receive) 15:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. As WP:SILENCE 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. howcheng {chat} 04:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Concur with Betacommand and Howcheng. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 WP:IFD. 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 Dank55 (send/receive) 17:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- The edit summary was automatic, as will be this one. I'm simply saying I agree with Betacommand and Howcheng. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note to self: focus. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- :-) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 WP:IFD. 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 Dank55 (send/receive) 17:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Question about File:Lenna.png on Lena Soderberg
Don't know if this is the right place to ask, but there's a slow motion edit war starting over the use of File:Lenna.png in Lena Soderberg. The image is a Playboy picture (although SFW) of Ms. Soderberg, but has achieved some fame (the photo itself I mean) because it is used as a standard test image on many image processing scientific publications. Nobody seems to dispute the use of this image on Standard test image, but I do have a problem with it being used as a biography illustration on Lena Soderberg. Some argue that the woman's celebrity derives from this image but I would contest this as well.
I'm commenting here to avoid getting into an edit war. I'm sorry if this is the wrong place. --Damiens.rf 16:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've commented in appropriate places, removed the image due to blatant violation of our policies, and requested page protection. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- If there is a better place for this discussion, please provide a link here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- For many of us, Lenna or Lena Soderberg is the only playmate known by name, certainly the only one to be an honored guest at an image processing conference, and it's because of this image. Her celebrity is in a different category from that of other playmates because of this image. It seem absurd to me to have an article on her and not show the basis for her fame. We can add a different image to identify her, but that does not detract from the need to comment on this image in her bio. The usual fear of the deletionists, that wikipedia may risk the wrath of the copyright holder, is also clearly not applicable to this case. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- The fear isn't copyright wrath. The concern is upholding Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and our m:mission. Also, there are quite a number of playboy models who are famous for more than being a centerfold. Pamela Anderson comes to mind, as does Marilyn Monroe and Anna Nicole Smith. That for many of you Ms. Sonderberg is the only playmate recognizable by name is not a reason for including fair use imagery for depiction purposes. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes of course, I know those names, too, just didn't know they were playboy centerfolds. The point is, Lenna is the only one famous for a particular crop of her playboy centerfold, or at least the only one famous for such a use, even though she was not the first or only one to be used as such (the one that Larry Roberts used in his Master's thesis, with permission from Playboy, never became famous or standard). Dicklyon (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- This still isn't a reason for inclusion on her biography. Link the Lenna article on her biography instead. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- The reason to include the image on her bio is to talk about the image, the basis of her fame; it is not a replaceable image, being a standardized test image, and is a low-res crop of the original copyrighted image. There is nothing in policy against using it, as it satisfies the 10 fair-use criteria. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #5. When we already have an article on the image, we don't need to use it elsewhere. howcheng {chat} 06:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, that's the first sensible thing anyone has pointed out, though it is just a guideline, not a policy. Dicklyon (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Guidelines don't necessarily carry less weight because they are guidelines. Think of it this way; policies are the 'law', guidelines are the description of how the law is put into play in current practice. Though guidelines carry some flexibility, it is wise to have a very strong reasons for stepping beyond their bounds. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. If the image is going to be on wikipedia anyway, why on earth shouldn't it be used to illustrate her article? Beyond that, #5 oughtn't apply, because the image is not to illustrate an article passage about the image (or, at least, not entirely to do so), but to illustrate what Ms. Soderberg looks like. The criterion which would presumably apply would be #12, which is dubious - a free picture taken of Ms. Soderberg today would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the famous image of her from the 70s which is the whole reason that she is famous. john k (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's a concept of minimal use. This is shown across the project. One example is the use of album covers. We don't allow their use anywhere just because they exist somewhere on the project. It is preferred that we should use fair use content (as appropriate) when it already exists on the project rather than uploading new content. But, it is also preferred to not use fair use content unless we absolutely must. The general practice is that if an image is used elsewhere, it is generally preferred to refer to where it is used rather than replicating it across other articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. If the image is going to be on wikipedia anyway, why on earth shouldn't it be used to illustrate her article? Beyond that, #5 oughtn't apply, because the image is not to illustrate an article passage about the image (or, at least, not entirely to do so), but to illustrate what Ms. Soderberg looks like. The criterion which would presumably apply would be #12, which is dubious - a free picture taken of Ms. Soderberg today would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the famous image of her from the 70s which is the whole reason that she is famous. john k (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, that's the first sensible thing anyone has pointed out, though it is just a guideline, not a policy. Dicklyon (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #5. When we already have an article on the image, we don't need to use it elsewhere. howcheng {chat} 06:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is how I see it - a musical artist's article, even if it includes a discography, does not include cover art of all their albums - to limit use, those are relegated to the pages on the albums. If the article on the Lenna test image got merged into Lena Soderberg's article, then so should the test image itself. But currently, the article on the woman should merely summarize her relationship to the graphics community, and direct to the test image article for details - details which include the image itself. Dcoetzee 04:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perfect. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
More NFCC#8
Stifle 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.[16][17][18][19] I'm getting sick of this. Can we please fix NFCC#8, to end the reign of terror of the image nazis fascists? The current wording is far too open to ridiculous interpretations and encourages abuse, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- A good start would be for you to refactor the phrase "Image Nazis", since you've already contravened Godwin's Law. 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. Black Kite 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Absolute rubbish. Those images convey more information about the videos than the text sections do. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- (1) It's an unremarkable shot of the artist. (2) It's Dolly Parton in a ringmaster's uniform. Replaceable by text - WP:NFCC#1. Oh, and the changing of "Nazis" to "fascists" - well done. Any chance you could make your point in an adult manner? Black Kite 16:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Absolute rubbish. Those images convey more information about the videos than the text sections do. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- All 4 examples seem completely appropriate for deletion:
- 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.
- The fourth is easily replaced by text: "They're multicolored Rorschach inkplots". Clearly replaceable by free text. --MASEM 17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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? Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 "The Hardest Button to Button", 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.
- 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.) --MASEM 17:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Kaldari (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable by free content) and WP:NFCC#8 (significance) spell this out as concisely as possible. The examples then on WP:NFC 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 WP:NFCC 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. --MASEM 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Kaldari (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Wiggy! (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- ...Which is why we have WP:IFD in the first place, and that images that have all the right parts but otherwise a questionable rationale cannot be speedily deleted. --MASEM 17:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Wiggy! (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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".) Cmadler (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. CIreland (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- MASEM, please see Wikipedia:CSD#Images_and_media, section 7c. No one uses IFD for these cases, nor it is encouraged to. Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- ...Which is why we have WP:IFD in the first place, and that images that have all the right parts but otherwise a questionable rationale cannot be speedily deleted. --MASEM 17:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Per MASEM's suggestion that borderline NFCC#8 cases should go to IFD rather than being tagged for speedy deletion, I have made a proposal 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. Kaldari (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
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. Example 1, this image is essentially a duplicate of File:EasyCD1Cover.jpg and provides no further information not present in the latter. Example 2, same as example 1 as this image is a near duplicate of File:Earthintruderscover.jpg. Example 3, this image isn't even discussed in the article and is hardly a unique style of any kind. It adds nothing to the article. Example 4, 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). Example 5, this image is missing a fair use rationale. Per WP:NFCC #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. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Kaldari (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Kaldari (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Wiggy! (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Are you accusing me of bludgeoning other editors, of stonewalling and not engaging in useful dialogue? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, but I can give you a whole list of editors who are. Kaldari (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not necessary. In fact, I'd caution you to STOP using such terms as a method of debate. WP:NPA forbids such use. Please comment on content, not on editors directly. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. howcheng {chat} 23:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Jheald (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Ty 15:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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.) howcheng {chat} 06:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. Jheald (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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? howcheng {chat} 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Wikipedia Takes Nashville), 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. Kaldari (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --MASEM 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Wikipedia Takes Nashville), 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. Kaldari (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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? howcheng {chat} 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Jheald (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
(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. Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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". --Damiens.rf 20:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Netrat (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Then there should be no problem of sprinkling video screenshots on every article? We must respect minimal use. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Unacceptable use images #4
Lost in the previous discussion above was my suggestion to NOT use Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima as the example for WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #4 ("An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war") because that case specifically contradicts #5 ("An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article" and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is its own article). Is there any opposition to replacing that with Six-Day War? howcheng {chat} 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Me. I don't believe the image is being used in an appropriate way on Six-Day War. It is primarily being used to illustrate the whole article, rather than to illustrate a discussion of the image. I also don't believe the image is significant enough to deserve its own section in that article. Whilst iconic, there were also other iconic images of the Six-Day War, and editors on the page (rightly in my opinion) judged a specific section on the image would be WP:UNDUE.
- Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a good example of acceptable use because it is a page specifically commenting on the image -- the point the section is trying to make.
- Whether or not other pages can or can't talk about that image is irrelevant - they are not being cited; only this specific page is being okayed. Jheald (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I think there's a disconnect here, because when I see read this, it seems to OK the use of Raising the Flag in other articles. howcheng {chat} 20:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, maybe we should add the words "the article" then, to make it absolutely clear that it is the article that is being cited as an example, not a blank cheque for the image. Jheald (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't work. The example reads, "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war" (emphasis mine). In other words, using Raising the Flag is prohibited in the Battle of Iwo Jima article (as we were discussing above). Maybe you can find a better example than Paratroopers at the Western Wall ... an image from a war that is famous in its own right, but that doesn't have its own article, and thus can be used in the war article. howcheng {chat} 23:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- But the section isn't saying the "Raising the Flag" image is okay for Battle of Iwo Jima; it's saying it's okay for Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. I don't understand why that's not sufficient. Jheald (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Here's what I suggest:
- Unacceptable use #4: An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war and the image is being used in an article or section of an article specifically analysing the image's historical importance or iconic status (e.g. the article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima).
- Does that work for you? Jheald (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's what you had proposed above, right? It works for me. howcheng {chat} 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with this wording that excludes the use of the image on Battle of Iwo Jima. However, such agreement is pointless since if you try to change to this wording, someone will revert you faster than you can say "free enyclopedia". CIreland (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- "An article about the war" to me means any article related to that war, however tangential. howcheng {chat} 06:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's what you had proposed above, right? It works for me. howcheng {chat} 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't work. The example reads, "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war" (emphasis mine). In other words, using Raising the Flag is prohibited in the Battle of Iwo Jima article (as we were discussing above). Maybe you can find a better example than Paratroopers at the Western Wall ... an image from a war that is famous in its own right, but that doesn't have its own article, and thus can be used in the war article. howcheng {chat} 23:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, maybe we should add the words "the article" then, to make it absolutely clear that it is the article that is being cited as an example, not a blank cheque for the image. Jheald (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I think there's a disconnect here, because when I see read this, it seems to OK the use of Raising the Flag in other articles. howcheng {chat} 20:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose the whole idea, which is a blatent example of policy creep; the "beautifully crafted" (Hammersoft tells us above) guideline says non-free images must be used in a minimum of one article. If it had meant a maximum of onme it would have sais so. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind helping out with putting album covers onto discographies? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Er, what? Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Are we talking about two different things here? This guideline says nothing about non-free images being used in a minimum number of articles. I'm just trying to clarify the language used in this example, because I read it completely differently than Jheald did. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC #7, which is reproduced in this one. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- All that means is that we don't retain nonfree images when they are not currently in use for an article. It certainly does not mean we should splatter them as widely as possible, it simply means we're not a webhost and aren't going to keep around nonfree content when it's not in use. It takes exceptional circumstances to justify a nonfree image in more than one article, in almost all cases a link to the main article with the image suffices. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- In many cases it suffices unfortunately only for an impaired encyclopedia and less informative articles. Ty 15:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- A free content encyclopedia is not an impaired encyclopedia. Rather the opposite. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is not impaired as far as re-use is concerned (actually it is, because GFDL terms have to be adhered to which are cumbersome), but it is impaired as far as content is concerned in important areas, when draconian interpretation of minimal is applied. Minimal needs to be minimal to present content of world class standard according to normal expectations in the particular discipline. Ty 05:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- In many cases it suffices unfortunately only for an impaired encyclopedia and less informative articles. Ty 15:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- All that means is that we don't retain nonfree images when they are not currently in use for an article. It certainly does not mean we should splatter them as widely as possible, it simply means we're not a webhost and aren't going to keep around nonfree content when it's not in use. It takes exceptional circumstances to justify a nonfree image in more than one article, in almost all cases a link to the main article with the image suffices. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC #7, which is reproduced in this one. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
False edit summary?
Dan Geist (User:DCGeist) would like me to apologize for calling "rv test(?), baseless alteration" at WP:NFCC a false edit summary. His deletion was the same deletion he made 3 times previously in a little more than 24 hours, and the text he deleted is some text that has been present most of the time since July 2007, and even during the few months that that text hasn't been present, people have followed it at IFD largely without noticing that it was missing. Can long-standing text be considered a "test"? His edit came one minute after "Blathnaid (Talk | contribs | block) (Undid revision 258633878 by 77.28.163.49 (talk) -- Text removed without a reason)"; wouldn't a reasonable person think that a "test" referred to the speculative edit, rather than to the established text?
I don't blame Dan for thinking I'm trying to punch him in the nose here, but that really isn't my intent; the result I really would like to see is that he not get blocked. Talking things out would be good; page protection would be less good, but I'm about to ask for advice over at WP:AN, and I'll consider it. Either of those options would be a lot better than blocking Dan Geist just to try to keep some reasonable (but not oppressive) stability on a policy page. I just want people to talk about why the contested phrase is or isn't a good idea, rather than giving us endless variations on the phrase "I have consensus". As some of you know, a lot was said on this topic in April and also back in the summer of 2007; we don't need to see every word, but if Dan or anyone else would like to change the text, a summary of the argument would be preferable to 4 deletions in a little over 24 hours. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages
Template:RFCpolicy Note that this discussion has also been added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex. Oren0 (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
See the recent previous discussion for more details. Prior discussions from August of 2006 and October of 2007 are also available.
It has been found that for several college football articles that the team logo(s) are being used on, generally, two classes of articles:
- Articles on the team on a per-year basis, e.g. 2008 USC Trojans football team
- Articles on specific rivalries between teams, e.g. Michigan–Ohio State rivalry
The use of the logos are not limited to these two (for example, The University of Texas Longhorn Band using the Longhorn logo), but the bulk of the images in question fall into the first two categories.
It is presumed that the logo is appropriate on the articles that are directly about the team, e.g. USC Trojans football, and thus these are not in question.
As a result, there are some team logos that are being used more than 100 times across the various per-year and rivalry pages. There is an issue that some of these uses lack fair-use rationales for specific pages, but this is a solvable aspect and not a question in this RFC.
Instead, the RFC is seeking more input on whether the use of these logos in these articles are appropriate per the non-free content policy. Those that are concerned about their use cite three primary aspects of the NFC policy:
- WP:NFC#1, the name of the team in text is a free content replacement for the logo image that conveys the same meaning.
- WP:NFC#3a, Minimal use - the reuse of the same logo 100+ times cannot be considered minimal use
- WP:NFC#8, Significance - the logos are only used to help identify the teams but otherwise receive no other treatment in the article, and thus do not serve to increase the reader's understanding.
These users also point out that the logos are not reused for similar purposes for other sports (such as professional football, baseball, or the like). Also, a recent case involving the logo for the Trinity Broadcasting Network had the logo removed from all the networks subsidiaries (100+ uses) for similar concerns.
Those that wish to retain the logos note that their rationales are complete (barring the technical note above), that logos are an allowance per the WP:NFC policy, and that they are significant for the page for helping the reader identify the team(s) the page is about.
The discussion with involved parties has come to an impasse, thus this RFC seeks wider input to resolve the issue. The question that is asked is:
- Is the use of the non-free logo of a sports team on an article that significantly involves the team (such as an article about a single season for the team, or a team's rivalry with another team) but otherwise not the article about the team an appropriate use of the logo per our non-free content policy?
Please provide your response and comments below.
Addendum: There is no legal question in regards to these images: if we were exceeding fair use allowances by US law or being sued by the copyright owner of the logos, Mike Godwin (WP's lawyer) would have made this clear. Thus, the use of such images being legal or illegal is not a question to be considered here. The focus is on the images in conjunction with non-free criteria. --MASEM 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: the logos are permissible
Please note - if you were canvassed to add your opinion here by means such as this, please read WP:NFCC, especially WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 to ensure you know what you are commenting on
- Support. While I understand that the goal is to avoid free-use images whenever possible, in these cases, no image has the visual connection with the subject that a logo does. Their use in season articles and the like does not constitute advertising, and because they are the image most commonly associated with the subject, their status as fair-use images should not deter their use in a justified and sparse manner. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Avoiding "free use" images isn't the goal of this policy. Avoiding the overuse of "fair use" images is what this policy tries and does. Different can of worms there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I believe I accidentally switched free-use and fair-use when I was typing. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Avoiding "free use" images isn't the goal of this policy. Avoiding the overuse of "fair use" images is what this policy tries and does. Different can of worms there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly support. I realize I am relatively liberal on this issue, but generally I look at each article individually and ask what is the most appropriate way to visually represent the key thing (or things) being discussed. For something like an article on the sports team of a particular year, that is often (but not always) through the use of a logo. Similarly for rivalries and key games, I would imagine team logos are often the best visual representation unless their is more suitable imagery or iconography associated with that specific event. If that leads to a particular icon appearing in 100 articles, then so be it. That doesn't bother me so long as consensus can agree that the icon is appropriate to each article taken individually and considered in isolation. I have always considered the "minimal use" rule as applying to the amount of non-free content used per article, and don't consider the question of how many articles it is used in to be relevant. Or put another way, I believe these issues should be handled on a case-by-case basis and not through blanket rules about how many articles can use an image or whether subtopics (e.g. year articles, rivalries, etc.) can use the same identifying images as the parent. Dragons flight (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Too much rule creep happening. Above anything else, I'm afraid that the outcome of an oppose here would simply be that a small group of POV editors would take the decision as license and use it to beat down everyone else. I'm happy to wander around here and quietly do my thing inside the rules as best I can, but I am extremely tired of having to face down zealots. Wiggy! (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, rules creep would be to allow a specific type of non-free image in a specific type of article, which is what this RfC seems to be about. If we don't want rules creep, the articles should be treated like, well, every other article on the encyclopedia and have the images removed. J Milburn (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Qualified Support This is more of a question of what the guidelines should say more than what they do say - it may be time to revise the guidelines if the results of this discussion conflict with the current guideline, as consensus can change. When it comes to using logos to identify entities on article pages, my "what I would do in the absence of established consensus" rule of thumb: 1) is it legally permitted? (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy) 2) is it helpful to the understanding of the article, and 3) does it come across as advertising or otherwise make the article or entire project less encyclopedic? If the answers are yes, yes, and no, then I'm generally for it. #3 is the big one. I'd say if an article has more than 2 team logos, it's probably violating this. This means articles like "1999 team" or articles about a particular match are probably okay, but not articles about entire leagues or lists of winners of a championship over time. A comparison would be with national flags in some other sports-related articles, with the major exception that national flags don't present legal issues and do not come across as a commercial advertisement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC) updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wish we would've split this into whether they're acceptable for seasons and whether they're acceptable for other things. As it stands, Support the use of logos in individual team seasons, neutral on the inclusion in rivalries. Oren0 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support The question being asked is Is the use of the non-free logo of a sports team on an article that significantly involves the team (such as an article about a single season for the team, or a team's rivalry with another team) but otherwise not the article about the team an appropriate use of the logo per our non-free content policy? Yes, definitely. A valid Ole Miss logo with a valid Fair Use Rationale, as an example, would be just as appropriate to Ole Miss Rebels football, 2008 Ole Miss Rebels football team, 2009 Cotton Bowl and Ole Miss - Mississippi State rivalry (all articles featuring Ole Miss football) as it would be to Ole Miss Rebels (the main Ole Miss sports article). Why? Obvious. An Ole Miss logo on an article about quantum physics? Of course not. This whole support/oppose thing is ridiculous since it's so obvious but since it's here, there you go. Support fully the inclusion of non-free logos of sports teams in articles that significantly involves the teams. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 20:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support I don't see where a free alternative could be used to replace a logo; we can't just go out and make one; that would be the same thing as just using the original. I don't see where text is itself a valid alternative, I don't see where if its allowed in the main article about the team, it would then be arbitrarily disallowed in places where the team needs identification elsewhere at Wikipedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support on the basis of common sense- If an article includes the team in a reasonable manner, I.E. the team page or a rivalry page, it should be included. Rather non-concerned with season pages as of now. Mastrchf (t/c) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I would like to first point out that we are way more conservative then we need to be. That said, a number of the logos we use are not copyrightable or already in the public domain. Arizona_Cardinals, for example, has used the same logo for long enough for it to have falling in the public domain. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The point here is wether the use of logos that are non-free on every article a team is mentioned is apropriate per the policy. That some logos are not copyrighted is irrelevant here since public domain logos are not affected by this policy. Assuming that is that it is actualy identified as public domain along adequate sources/information to back up the claim that it's copyright have explired or never existed in the first place naturaly (this is importnat because while no team is likely to complain over fair use of their logo they might object to a unfounded claim that they have no copyright to their logo). All the logos in the article you point out is tagged as non-free as far as I can tell for example. --Sherool (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support The current standard and practices do not violate current policy. WP:NFC#1- As stated in every single rationale I have ever seen in the College Football Project the use of the logo cannot be replaced with free content that adequately conveys the same message. WP:NFC#3a- This policy refers to the use of multipe images, not how many times an image is used. WP:NFC#8- Each rationale clearly states the significance of each logo. It pretty clearly increases readers' understanding of the topic. As stated in the policy. This has all become overblown and a few specific users have went way over board and have totally forgotten to use common sense. Rtr10 (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support There is no conflict with the way WP policy currently is and the use of these types of logos as long as it is a proper article and there is a proper image justification used for each page that it is present on. In addition, these images provide a great addition to many pages and the efforts of wikipedia would overall be set back if it were to disallow them. I also agree with what many of the supporters have stated above me. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I don't see anything objectionable or problematic here. This is much adieu about nothing, in my opinion.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Canvassed !vote ([20]).
- Support strongly – There is no legal, moral, or policy issue here. It's that simple. As for the allegation of "overuse": It is either appropriately used, or it is inappropriately used. And it is either acceptable to use them, or it is unacceptable to use them. Using these images once, to give a strong (and irreplaceable) visual cue, on a directly related article is appropriate (page count is patently, and ridiculously irrelevant – of course the University of Texas athletics logo is going to see more use on articles than, say, Wesleyan, UT is more notable in the field of sports!). The fundamental question is "Are non-free images appropriate for any purpose on Wikipedia?" Because either they have one, or they do not, and frequency of use is wholly irrelevant. Strikehold (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Canvassed !vote ([21]).
- I think not. I was directed here because I am a contributor in an affected area to this discussion. I clearly have addressed the issues at hand here. And what happened to "it's not a vote"? Strikehold (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support There is no legal issue in play here. While the goal is to make Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, the fact that we allow non-free images means we are going to have them. Anyone who wishes to change that consensus is welcome to do so, but that is not the issue at hand. These logos are used for the purposes of identification and are being used appropriately for the subject matter in which they relate. The quantity of use is irrelevant as long as the use is appropriate and is done IAW policy. If the images are being used on a person's user page, that isn't appropriate. If the logo is being used on the football team's annual page, there is no reason it can't be used each year, especially if the logo changes. — BQZip01 — talk 06:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support As for the use of logos in rivalry articles and specific-game articles, as I have pointed out before, 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 ESPN Gameday to see how common this type of juxtaposition has become, conveying a meaning that fulfills what is asked of by NFCC#8. As for the use in specific-season articles, considering that the logo and/or helmet can change over time--many schools have changed their logos/helmets several times--I think that a concrete message that is not adequately conveyed by words is also expressed by such fair-use images in these articles as well.--2008Olympianchitchat 07:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support Come on people, use some freakin common sense. The current system in place does not break any policy and has been the standard for as long as I can remember. Just don't see what the issue is here. Do you people have nothing better to do than sit around and rile up people who actually contribute real content to Wiki? As one of my favorite commercial's say "Come on man, it's the holidays!" RammaJammaYellaHamma (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support This whole issue has taken wikilawyering to the extreme. If it's ok to use an fair-use image in one article, it's ok to use it in 100 articles or 1,000 articles if there's a reasonable reason why it should be there. There is absolutely no reason why the discussion should have gotten this far. Common sense, people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CH52584 (talk • contribs)
- Canvassed !vote ([22]).
- Support per Allstar, Jayron32, etc. - One other thing to think about is the common sense aspect for this. These are sports teams, THEY WANT THEIR LOGO ON OUR ARTICLES! The main reason for us having to come up with fair use rationales is so we won't get sued if someone complains and asks us to take it down, and we refuse. This, frankly, will never happen for a sports team. They want us to write about them. They want us to write about seasons they have had, or rivalries. They want their logo on these pages for brand recognition. We could probably put the logos on each individual player's page without any complaints. Was this discussion prompted by an actual fair use complaint? I highly doubt it. VegaDark (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- VegaDark, you are an administrator and should know better. We restrict nonfree content far more than the law requires, not because we're going to get sued, but because this is a free content project. We don't allow nonfree content anywhere the law would permit it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was the only reason we have fair use rationales, just the main one. And I don't think the goal of having a 100% free content project should overshadow the quality of the encyclopedia, which IMO is exactly what restricting this is doing. Personally, I would go to the extent of what the law allows in terms of images, or at least close to it. VegaDark (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ammendum: I think we need to balance the goal of having free content with the bounds of what the law allows. Do I think we need to have the logo on every season page? Not really. I don't think it should be restricted to just the main Oregon State Beavers page and not allowing it on, say Oregon State Beavers baseball, though. It seemed like some were supporting that in my onceover of this discussion. I'd also probably support it on rivalry articles. I don't consider that excessive since there aren't nearly as many of those in comparison to season articles. Whatever happened to the idea that season articles were being replaced with decade articles, too? VegaDark (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- VegaDark, you are an administrator and should know better. We restrict nonfree content far more than the law requires, not because we're going to get sued, but because this is a free content project. We don't allow nonfree content anywhere the law would permit it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support per m:Resolution:Licensing Policy, which specifically allows us to "include identifying protected works such as logos". While that could perhaps be worded more clearly, it seems like it allows a logo to be used in an identifying role, which is what is happening in all the articles in question. Perhaps the NFCC should be updated to allow this usage. — PyTom (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support: we've had appropriate push/pull before, resulting in the previous agreement that only one logo is appropriate per season page (and that's the team which the article's about). That made sense. This does not. I appear to be one of two IRL lawyers floating around in this discussion, and I don't see how this usage is excessive in any sense: every individual use has been appropriate, and has not taken advantage of the rule --it just happens that there are a lot of football seasons, that's how things are. Meanwhile, I can't even fathom how the use of fair use images would harm the addition of free content --the very notion is laughable: I've probably uploaded a hundred fair use logos, but that hasn't harmed my personal output. There were good intentions here, but they are ultimately flawed. Too bad. Perhaps we can get back to constructively working on Wikipedia? Nothing here, either way, will ultimately have any significant impact IRL, at all --it will only mess up this Project. --Bobak (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Canvassed. ([23]).
- True, but this user also contributed very much to the sections above without being canvassed. There's no reason to assume they wouldn't have contributed here as well. Oren0 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- User:Black Kite has proved he doesn't actually pay attention to the conversation. As Oren0 pointed out, I'm an admin that's participated in this discussion already. Please try not to lose sight of the forest from these trees. Support Wikipedia, create and improve articles. --Bobak (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just pointing out which users were canvassed. However, since I'm assuming good faith (unlike some of those that have responded to me below), I'll remove those that contributed previously. How's that? Black Kite 21:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support per the arguments that have already been stated in favor of allowing logos. --Geologik (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support with caveats though. The team logos are generally used across the board by a school, so if there is a standard one in use, it makes a degree of sense that it would appear in multiple articles. The caveats though:
- If there is a specific variation for a particular team or organization, that logo should be used in the appropriate article. that is, if the marching band and basketball team have their own logos, then the football logo shouldn't be in the article even if the band only plays at the football games or the football logo is the default for the athletics department.
- Rivalries... again, if there is a specific, "special", logo the schools use, then that should be used for the articles, not the team logos. This is especially true if the article on the rivalry expands beyond a single sport.
- By year... I can see the preference for a team photo, I would even go so far as to say that a team for to should be incorporated into the article. But the team logo is still as valid. However, it should be the logo in use for that year/season. A 2009 logo may have very little relevance to a team that played in the 1940s.
- Specific games... Again, if the game has it's own logo, that should be used. It may be reasonable for the team logos to be present, but not as primary images.
- Fair use rationales should be updated to cover all articles that use a particular logo.
- Strong Support My arguments would be redundant of what is already posted here. Ndenison talk 19:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support I believe that the use of Collegiate Athletic logos are appropriate with regard to Yearly Team pages (i.e. 2008 Florida Gators football team) and rivalry pages (i.e. Michigan-Ohio State rivalry). With respect to yearly team pages, these articles cover the current incarnation of that sports team or organization. These articles are often the primary page most people read on Wikipedia, even more so than the main team pages. And as others have stated, nothing sums up a visual representation of that team more than the sports logo. The goal of Wikipedia should not be strictly confined to free content, especially if a fair use image can enhance the quality of an article, as logos do. As for Rivalry pages, these pages are far less numerous and thus there is no threat of "spreading the logo around" too much. In fact, I don't think the argument of overuse applies because the image exists only in one location, as long as the logo is of low resolution. Furthermore, the use of these images emulates the use of NFL logos for the yearly pages of NFL teams. Thus the use of the college logos for the yearly pages achieves uniformity with the NFL pages. Finally, before removing the image from the page, the removing editor should make a good faith effort to contact another editor to give them a chance to find a free image to upload. Editors removing images at their whim, I believe, are violating good-faith standards of Wikipedia and are assuming an impropriety that is really their own POV. This last point is especially true considering the issue is not yet resolved Tedmoseby (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: the logos are not permissible
- Oppose: The use is only identifying in nature. This is appropriate for main articles about a team, and was the intent of the policy/guideline. It is not appropriate to spread the logos around every time the team is mentioned as a participant in XYZ season, game, rivalry, etc. The teams can be identified by text, such as Texas Longhorns football, making the logo images replaceable by free content and thus the use of the logos fails WP:NFCC #1. The use of the images in this way scales to a use that is approximately 2.7 times the amount of usage if used just for main articles. See the table I generated which shows the uses of the current top ten college football team logos. This breaks minimal use standards, thus failed WP:NFCC #3. The use of the logos as identifying a team is not a credible reason that significantly increases reader's understanding. The name of a team is considerably more well known than any logo works of a team. If we flipped the argument to we're deleting the names of the team and only using the logos, there'd be no way we would agree to remove the names. With logos, it's a superfluous usage; the team name is readily sufficient to identify the team in question. If logos were such a necessity to identify teams that readers would get lost without them, then sports radio would never have gotten off the ground since nobody would know what teams they are talking about. Therefore, the usage fails WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- You should really check your math on that table (specifically, why none of the sums are right or why Texas Tech counts as 12 for one column but blank for the other). Oren0 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Corrected. Thanks for the heads up! The page had been left in an incomplete state, which can be seen from my notes on the bottom of the page. It's still incomplete for the purpose I wanted it for, but the table is at least accurate now. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I could accept non-free sports logos in articles about the sports logos (and possibly in an article about the team if the logo is mentioned), but any other use seems mostly decorative and certainly not minimal. But anyway, I fundamentally oppose per WP:VEGAN. Kusma (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for the main team articles (New York Giants, the articles on the Superbowls they've been, and perhaps for the "active" players at most) should be allowed. I'm torn on the actual individual game articles, but that is the most. Anything else, nope. rootology (C)(T) 17:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Team logos should only appear in articles where the article either talks about the logo or where there can be a reasonable expectation that once it is complete it will do so.Geni 17:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose although the logos may be acceptable in certain (likely many) main team articles, other uses are contrary to the letter and spirit of the EDP. Moreover, it's worth remembering that the application of WP:NFCC cannot be set aside even if there is consensus to do so; the only issue for consensus is interpretation of the criteria. CIreland (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Fair use is strictly for limited use for a very specific topic, not to use willy nilly for no good reason. No point to even holding a vote on this, as any number of people voting to break the law doesn't mean we can. DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly recommend we don't bring "legal" into this; until Mike Godwin says otherwise, let's assume that their usage falls into fair use law for the US. This is strictly on whether these fall into our non-free content policy. --MASEM 20:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're asking us to assume something that is almost certainly wrong? Talk about completely the wrong attitude to take. Fair Use is not something we assume, it's something we establish, otherwise all of our bility to proclaim ny potential error was made in good faith goes out the window. DreamGuy (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- First, I'm not trying to diminish your opposition - as I agree with the stance. All I'm saying is that in previous cases dealing with large #s of logo uses such as the Trinity Network, Mike Godwin has been asked if there's a legal concern, and his answer was no. We should not limit fair use content for the reason of copyright paranoia. We should however limit its use for free content concerns. There is no legal argument that we should worry about here. --MASEM 00:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're asking us to assume something that is almost certainly wrong? Talk about completely the wrong attitude to take. Fair Use is not something we assume, it's something we establish, otherwise all of our bility to proclaim ny potential error was made in good faith goes out the window. DreamGuy (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly recommend we don't bring "legal" into this; until Mike Godwin says otherwise, let's assume that their usage falls into fair use law for the US. This is strictly on whether these fall into our non-free content policy. --MASEM 20:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- If there is one thing that is certain, I oppose the idea of adding the logos to articles such as Michigan–Ohio State rivalry. As for pages related to a specific team, I am also leaning towards the side of no, except the main article. In my personal view, we should try and limit the number of total uses of a specific image. For example, I feel it is not a good idea to use the Michigan logo on an article of the 1901 football team. Works published in the US before 1923 are no longer protected by copyright, so finding a team photo, or just a photo from that year, will suffice. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. We do RfCs on whether small subgroups of articles should be allowed to ignore a core policy (in this case WP:NFCC#3a and to a limited extent WP:NFCC#8) now? News to me. No. Black Kite 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Obvious. Garion96 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose of course. What part of "minimal use" is not understood? howcheng {chat} 23:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't like the instruction creepiness that this is sneaking towards: this is the rule, except for this...and this...and this kind of fits. For me, the use fails WP:NFC#8. Although, I'm inclined to agree with Cmadler's comment below [24] --maclean 23:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Howcheng and per Kusma. Also, it quite simply makes no sense to me that minimal use in this case is considered to be 15, rather than the obvious once or even not-at-all. --Izno (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not up for discussion, splattering logos all over articles for which the teams are clearly identified is in no meaningful way minimal use. Logos are allowed for use once in the main organization article so that they may be seen by someone looking for information on the organization. For anything else, a link to that article is sufficient. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, and further qualify that Seraphimblade is correct that this is not really a matter of a vote. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, the logos have (supposedly) an informative function in the coverage of the team, but that's once, in the main article. Everywhere else is just eye-candy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - There is a point at which the encyclopedic value of including a non-free image gives way to it merely being decoration, and this is that point. --Dynaflow babble 07:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose - the logos are clearly adding little to the articles. I think people are more inclined to support the use here because the logos are already elsewhere- frankly, that doesn't matter. Each use should be judged on its own merits- an image is permissable or it is not, there is no "well, it's already uploaded, what harm could there be?". These images should have been removed on sight, this RfC is a joke. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Logos should only be used to identify a team. You look up the team, and you see the logo and think, "yes, that's the team I saw." There doesn't seem to be much need for this sort of identification on the more specific articles. -Freekee (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, unless these rivalries actually have a dedicated logo, there should not be a logo there. ViperSnake151 17:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose the current usage of File:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png (on 4 pages) is well within policy. rationales need to be provided prior to having that image 100% compliant. any more usage of that logo is just decorative. such usage violates the core philosophy of our non-free content policies of minimal usage and importance. βcommand 18:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Quibbling point... how would swapping File:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png for File:Ohio State Buckeyes logo.png (this is assuming the 2 debated uses are dropped) make the one "decorative" by adding 1 more use? Especially since the use in the article on the basketball team would be the same as the ones for the baseball and football teams. Further more, where is the quantification that "After X uses, find another image even if this one is the best fit and a valid FUR can be provided"? - J Greb (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- There, it could be used in the university article and link there, I don't see that the different teams have differing logos. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- To a degree, that's the point. The file that Betacommand pointed to is used in the infoboxes for the University, its athletics department, the baseball team and the football team. B's comment implies that those usages live within NFCC guides and policy but 2 of them really need FURs to be 100% compliant. But additional uses of the file would only be decorative. The second one is used in 3 places, the article for OSU men's basketball team, the 2000 football team, and the OSU-MSU rivalry. Would unifying the files (since they are essentially identical images) automatically make all uses of the logo decorative because it's used in more than 4 articles?
And, yes, OSU is one of the cases where the university has basically branded everything with one logo. So it is a good example of the pertinent image likely going onto a large number of articles. - J Greb (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)- I see an issues with usage on Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball. its decorative as its is covered under Ohio State Buckeyes baseball. if the parent article did not exist then their may be a claim for usage their. βcommand 19:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS just like most thing related to non-free content we cannot set a hard number as situations are unique. 4 usages are sometimes well within bounds and other times a single usage is out of bounds. βcommand 19:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- um... Beta, you are aware that "baseball" is the game played outside with the small white ball and the wooden stick and "basketball" is played indoors with a large orange ball? The only relationship between Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball and Ohio State Buckeyes baseball is the athletic department.
And I do take you point, and appreciate the clarification that closely related parent/child articles, such as "University basketball", "University men's basketball", and "University women's basketball", shouldn't see the infobox image repeated. The question then becomes "How close is to close?" - J Greb (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- um... Beta, you are aware that "baseball" is the game played outside with the small white ball and the wooden stick and "basketball" is played indoors with a large orange ball? The only relationship between Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball and Ohio State Buckeyes baseball is the athletic department.
- To a degree, that's the point. The file that Betacommand pointed to is used in the infoboxes for the University, its athletics department, the baseball team and the football team. B's comment implies that those usages live within NFCC guides and policy but 2 of them really need FURs to be 100% compliant. But additional uses of the file would only be decorative. The second one is used in 3 places, the article for OSU men's basketball team, the 2000 football team, and the OSU-MSU rivalry. Would unifying the files (since they are essentially identical images) automatically make all uses of the logo decorative because it's used in more than 4 articles?
- There, it could be used in the university article and link there, I don't see that the different teams have differing logos. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Quibbling point... how would swapping File:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png for File:Ohio State Buckeyes logo.png (this is assuming the 2 debated uses are dropped) make the one "decorative" by adding 1 more use? Especially since the use in the article on the basketball team would be the same as the ones for the baseball and football teams. Further more, where is the quantification that "After X uses, find another image even if this one is the best fit and a valid FUR can be provided"? - J Greb (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose as how we deal with even free icons for "visual identification" is spelled out to use as minimal as possible (also already has existing advice at WP:MOSLOGO). --MASEM 19:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
- WP:LOGO says that 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. For a general article about a team (e.g. Michigan Wolverines and Michigan Wolverines football) this is clearly applicable. For an article about an instance of a team (e.g. 2008 Michigan Wolverines football team), a photograph of the team (even a non-free official team photograph) is preferable to a logo as this better fulfills the intent; however, when a photograph is not available (e.g. 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team) use of the logo is acceptable. Team logos should not be used in articles about rivalries except to the extent that the rivalry has a logo which incorporates the team logos. Likewise, team logos should not be used in articles about bowl games except to the extent that team logos are incorporated into the bowl game logo. Likewise, team logos should not be used in articles about individual games except to the extent that the individual game has a logo incorporating the team logos. Cmadler (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- The question has too many parts to allow a simple support/oppose. I suggest that it be broken apart into component questions:
- Is logo use appropriate in single-season articles?
- Is logo use appropriate in rivalry articles?
- Is logo use appropriate in single-game articles?
This allows better differentiation of what is considered acceptable or unacceptable. Cmadler (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I for one would support the logo in a rivalry article and a single-game article, but not a season article. The RfC should be dissected. Mastrchf (t/c) 01:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. The usage is the same; it's being used for identifying the team outside of the team's main article. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- The usage is not the same. That arguement could be reasonably extended to say that, since the "block M" logo is used by all University of Michigan teams, the logo can only be used on the main article, Michigan Wolverines but not on the articles for individual teams such as Michigan Wolverines football, Michigan Wolverines men's basketball, Michigan Wolverines baseball, etc. In fact, since in that case it is the logo of the university rather than a specifically athletic logo, the main article is University of Michigan, and even use on Michigan Wolverines is prohibited. However, it is the logo of the University AND the logo of the university's athletics AND the logo of the football team AND the logo of the 2008 football team, and can appear on each of those pages. They all happen to have the same logo in that case, but not always. It is NOT, however, the logo of the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry, or the 2007 Rose Bowl, or the 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game and can't be used on those pages. Cmadler (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- We disagee. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is the best summary of the pro-inclusion argument I've seen so far, and I completely agree with your conclusion. Oren0 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- The usage is not the same. That arguement could be reasonably extended to say that, since the "block M" logo is used by all University of Michigan teams, the logo can only be used on the main article, Michigan Wolverines but not on the articles for individual teams such as Michigan Wolverines football, Michigan Wolverines men's basketball, Michigan Wolverines baseball, etc. In fact, since in that case it is the logo of the university rather than a specifically athletic logo, the main article is University of Michigan, and even use on Michigan Wolverines is prohibited. However, it is the logo of the University AND the logo of the university's athletics AND the logo of the football team AND the logo of the 2008 football team, and can appear on each of those pages. They all happen to have the same logo in that case, but not always. It is NOT, however, the logo of the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry, or the 2007 Rose Bowl, or the 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game and can't be used on those pages. Cmadler (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Given that, assessing the overall use of logos (of any type) across WP as neutral evaluated as possible, that a logo's use presently is only allowable on the organization's page in question, then it's not a question of which types of other articles can a logo be used, but whether they can be used on those articles at all. If there's a clear concern that these cases need to be considered separately with more input, expansion can then be done. --MASEM
- These questions are easy to answer: no, no and no. Why do they need a separate discussion? Kusma (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I would ask two questions:
- If the 2008-09 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team had it's own logo, specific to this season, would we allow its inclusion on that page?
- If yes, why does the fact that the 08-09 logo and the North Carolina Tar Heels basketball logo are the same exclude the logo from appearing on one of the pages?
I don't think anyone here argues no to question 1. If the logos were different, there would be two non-free logos on the two pages, which is the same as if the logo is the same and included on both pages. So it's unclear that minimizing use is the argument because the use is the same in both cases. The only logical argument I can see for this distinction is the argument that the UNC logo is not the logo of the 08-09 team and therefore shouldn't be included. But that can be easily refuted by looking at literature released by the school. So I ask, simply, why is there a distinction between two entities with different logos and two entities with the same logo? Or is there a problem with one of my assumptions? Oren0 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I know myself and I think Hammersoft would argue that the answer to the first question is "no", that logos on per-season team pages is inappropriate. "Minimal use" not only applies to the number of different images in (say) the Image:/File: name space, but also the number of times those images are used - that's the reason that each use of an image requires a FUR. And at least myself, I don't see the "08-09" version of a team to be a different entity from the overall team; the players and coaches may change, but the organization running and managing from the financial side remains the same year after year (in this case generally being the school's athletic department). --MASEM 19:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Because if there is a special single season logo it is reasonable that the article might disscuss that. For logos that don't change much year to year they are unlikely to be discussed outside of the the centeral article on the team.Geni 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- While a per-season logo would be exceptionable based on what I've checked (most duplicate the current logo), I'd consider that an appropriate use if it was more than just plopping the season numbers on the existing logo. --MASEM 19:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- @Geni: is there a guideline that says logos must be discussed (or even have the possibility of being discussed) in an article to merit inclusion?
- @Masem: OK, so if you would accept a logo that was substantively different on a season page, why is it that when the logo is the same you oppose the logo? What is different from the point of view of policy, the mission, whatever, in the two cases? Oren0 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mixture of 5 and 8. If the article can't or won't discuss it it is a bit hard to justify it being encyclopedic.Geni 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- But the purpose of a logo may be for reader identification. Many companies have logos on their pages but there's nothing particularly interesting about them so they're not discussed on those pages. Would you advocate removing those logos from those pages or forcing a discussion of them? Oren0 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No because I would considered it not unreasonable to expect the article to one day discuss them.Geni 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- ...Seriously? You really think most company or brand logos are noteworthy enough for discussion in an encyclopedia? Strikehold (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- They are usualy part of the public face of the company so yes.Geni 19:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- ...Seriously? You really think most company or brand logos are noteworthy enough for discussion in an encyclopedia? Strikehold (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- No because I would considered it not unreasonable to expect the article to one day discuss them.Geni 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- But the purpose of a logo may be for reader identification. Many companies have logos on their pages but there's nothing particularly interesting about them so they're not discussed on those pages. Would you advocate removing those logos from those pages or forcing a discussion of them? Oren0 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mixture of 5 and 8. If the article can't or won't discuss it it is a bit hard to justify it being encyclopedic.Geni 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- While a per-season logo would be exceptionable based on what I've checked (most duplicate the current logo), I'd consider that an appropriate use if it was more than just plopping the season numbers on the existing logo. --MASEM 19:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Because if there is a special single season logo it is reasonable that the article might disscuss that. For logos that don't change much year to year they are unlikely to be discussed outside of the the centeral article on the team.Geni 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- The question, as Seraphimblade says above (and I pointed out as well), is why are we we having this pointless "vote"? It doesn't matter if you have a thousand names in the Support section above, the use of logos in anything but the main team articles still doesn't pass WP:NFCC#3a. The only way it's ever going to be appropriate is by changing the policy, and that's unlikely to happen. (Not to mention that most of the Support votes indicate that they don't understand why there's actually a problem - what's the point in indicating your position on something you don't understand?). Black Kite 10:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. How exactly do we define "minimal"? NFCC#3a does not limit us to only using a given non-free item once, nor does it limit each page to one non-free item. It says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Can non-free items adequately convey the same information? Many of us say no. We're not trying to rewrite the policy, we're trying to determine how we believe this type of usage fits into the policy. NFCC cannot be interpreted robotically; it needs people to decide what does and doesn't follow it, and that's exactly what we're trying to do here. To claim that this is such a cut-and-dried violation of NFCC that we can't even discuss it is insulting to the many experienced editors here who disagree with you. And the contention that "most of the Support votes indicate they don't understand why there's a problem" when only one of the 16 supports has indicated that is also insulting. Show me at least nine of the 16 current supports that claim anything like this and I'll eat my hat. Oren0 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly
- "WP:NFC#3a- This policy refers to the use of multipe images, not how many times an image is used.." (wrong)
- "The current system in place does not break any policy..." (yes it does)
- "The quantity of use is irrelevant..." (no it's not)
- "frequency of use is wholly irrelevant..." (er, no)
- "I don't see anything objectionable or problematic here...." (apart from ignoring a policy, of course)
- "There is no conflict with the way WP policy currently is and the use of these types of logos as long as it is a proper article ..." (wrong)
- "I don't see where a free alternative could be used to replace a logo; we can't just go out and make one; that would be the same thing as just using the original..." (missing the point)
- "A valid Ole Miss logo with a valid Fair Use Rationale, as an example, would be just as appropriate to Ole Miss Rebels football, 2008 Ole Miss Rebels football team, 2009 Cotton Bowl and Ole Miss - Mississippi State rivalry (all articles featuring Ole Miss football) as it would be to Ole Miss Rebels..." (well no, because apart from the overuse issues, a logo in a sub-article for a team clearly doesn't increase the reader's understanding (#8))
- "'m afraid that the outcome of an oppose here would simply be that a small group of POV editors would take the decision as license and use it to beat down everyone else...." (no, I think you'll find that NFCC already gives license to remove overuse - this "vote" is an attempt to end-run round policy)
- "Their use in season articles and the like does not constitute advertising..." (not the point either)
- " If it's ok to use an fair-use image in one article, it's ok to use it in 100 articles or 1,000 articles if there's a reasonable reason why it should be there." (well no under minimal use, but even so most of these logos have no "reasonable reason")
- All of these comments show a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of non-free images in Wikipedia (Edit: understandably so, as they were mostly canvassed - see below). This is just an attempt to short-circut the perfectly good policy we have at NFCC, and I've seen absolutely no reason given why this particular group of items should be given license to trample over it. such a discussion should be a discussion to change WP:NFCC itself, not attempt to wikilawyer round it for a small group of interested parties. Black Kite 13:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- You say: "...the use of logos in anything but the main team articles still doesn't pass WP:NFCC#3a."
- Well, let's see what 3a says: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."
- Multiple items. That means separate images. Not instances of use.
- Users do not always go directly from a main article to a season. A separate article is a separate entity. Each article is upheld to the same standards of notability and prose, so why would you uphold them to the different standards for image usage. That is nonsensical. Strikehold (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's a very good reason we ask for a FUR for every use of an image, not just for WP in general. Each use of the image has to be justified on the page it is being used on, and while an image may be completely valid on one page, it is not automatically valid for others (eg, we include pictures of live-actor characters from TV shows and movies, but in the rare instance when these are iconic, they are never used on the living actor's actual page, since they can be replaced via free images.) "Minimal use" is the total number of non-free image "hooks" across all articles, not just in one article; an non-free image used 100 times is 100 instances of non-free use. --MASEM 17:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, of course a FUR rationale for every instance of use, but still the same standard that applies. Black Kite cited 3a as a justification for minimal instances of use of a single non-free item, and neither 3a, nor 3b, say anything of the sort. If anything, 3b, is a better argument as it addresses "minimal extent of use", but even it 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). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace."
- That says nothing of the instances of use across WP, but rather the quality or portion of the image used. Strikehold (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're missing the reference to WP:NFCC#8. Does a logo of a team in a season page add to the reader's understanding? No. (It could even be argued that it doesn't even do that in a main team page, but my opinion is that's a - single - reasonable use). Black Kite 17:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of your saying no the most popular description of the image's perpose is functionaly identical to the page title which the pages in question appear to have and is freely licensed.Geni 12:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Section break the 1st
- Can we close this pointless RfC now? - not only is it irrelevant as I have mentioned above, but it has also been heavily and misleadingly canvassed by User:Rtr10 who has posted such as "As I am sure you know our current standard/system of using logos legitimately with fair use rationales do not violate any wikipedia policy..." on various user talk pages, most of whom make up the Support votes above (and which probably explains why most of the Supports don't address the actual problem). I have warned Rtr10 and asked him to revert himself. Black Kite 15:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight, you want users to comment on this, but if they are users of the College Football Project who vote Support they should not be commenting. Seems to me you don't want a Request for Comment, you want comments that support your own ideology on this matter. No one was ever asked to come and give a vote of support here, they were asked to come and give their opinion. No matter what that opinion is. I never said "please come and support this", or "vote support or don't vote." For you to try to imply that and threaten me is simply inexcusable. All that was being done was making active contributers of the College Football Project (which is what this discussion centers around) that on RfC on this topic had been started. Your practices all through out this discussion and joke of an RfC are laughable and really quite sad. Rtr10 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly people who are members of that Wikiproject can contribute, we just want to make sure they know what they're !voting on, because on some of the rationales given above from people you canvassed, it's fairly obvious that they don't. This was clearly due to the biased nature of your message - just read WP:CANVASS, please. And I'd suggest that backing up canvassing with civility problems doesn't help you either. Black Kite 08:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Given that I started this yet strongly believe in the opposition ("the logos are not fair use"), I think the only way to resolve this is via wider input. Unfortunately for those of us that are seeking to keep nonfree use to a minimum, there is no specific wording in any policy or guideline that explicitly disallows this use despite the weight of past cases and and current status quo in every other area of logo use including professional sports. If this RFC closes appropriate with the logos being deemed unusable, then we can write a better statement in the guidelines about logo use to avoid future problems. --MASEM 17:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any way that the "result" of an RfC in which most of the !votes on one side are canvassed and/or clearly not focussed on the actual question can be taken as valid. The only way to "resolve" this is to discuss a change in WP:NFCC#3a / WP:NFCC#8 - a discussion at WP:CENT may be useful though. Meanwhile, the multiple use of logos clearly is disallowed per the above two clauses. I understand why you've started the RfC, and if it is intended to make it clear to a very small subset of vocal users that what they're doing is wrong - and has no precedence - that's fine, but I believe it's counter-productive here. uBlack Kite 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call 6 out of 18 (if my mathematical skills haven't left me) "most".... Mastrchf (t/c) 17:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Refactored accordingly - the "and" should've been "and/or" - it's still a major problem though. Black Kite 17:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It appears that one particular editor wants to shut down discussion and ramrod everyone into accepting his rather strained interpretation of WP:NFCC#3a & WP:NFCC#8 as gospel. Sorry, but as has been pointed out by numerous editors above (some of whom who are actually in the oppose camp), there is nothing in either policy that expressly disallows what is under discussion. Those who support the use of logos in this instance may be proven wrong and those who oppose may be proven right, but the issue is at least colorable. It is rather arrogant and imperious on your part to seek to circumvent the process and suppress the opposition. Instead of making mere conclusory statements to validate your position, perhaps you'd be wise to construct a logical argument aimed at swaying minds.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I'm not the one that's trying to "fix" an RfC by canvassing votes or posting Support votes that don't actually address the issue. Strangely enough, I prefer that such discussions are held properly and in the correct venue on Wikipedia, and when they aren't, I'm hardly going to ignore it. If others regard that as arrogance, then that's their problem. Black Kite 18:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Canvassing notwithstanding, he does have a few good points. Black Kite, you haven't really stated a true reason that you believe the images should be removed, other than your opinion on an interpretation of a policy. Mastrchf (t/c) 18:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've said it numerous times above. A combination of NFCC 3a, 8, m:mission and previous weight of past cases are clearly all against the overuse of such logos. I'm unable to work out what it is about the concept of "minimal use" that certain users find difficult to comprehend, to be honest Black Kite 18:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have said it numerous times above. Your interpretation of the policies is your opinion, not fact. Obviously many editors disagree with you. But rather than try to discuss it, it's probably just easier to dismiss the opinions of the entire support group. Obviously none of us, including at least five administrators, know anything about Wikipedia policy. Of course, I could begin to criticize the oppose group, such as individuals who obviously are trying to remove all non-free content, or those who just say that this is "obvious" and offer no reasoning. I could attack their intelligence, try to tell them that they have no right to disagree with my interpretation of the rules, or try to throw out this entire RfC if it doesn't go my way. But instead I think I'll try taking a different approach and respecting the points of view of others while trying to work towards a consensus and compromise. You should really try it some time. Oren0 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- What, like [25] this? Right. The supporters of this move don't realise I'm actually trying to help them; I am not trying to throw this RFC out because "it's not going my way" (clearly there is no consensus to include such images against policy) but because proposing s change to policy (and that's what this is) needs to be done with a more visible and centralized discussion. Black Kite 08:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have said it numerous times above. Your interpretation of the policies is your opinion, not fact. Obviously many editors disagree with you. But rather than try to discuss it, it's probably just easier to dismiss the opinions of the entire support group. Obviously none of us, including at least five administrators, know anything about Wikipedia policy. Of course, I could begin to criticize the oppose group, such as individuals who obviously are trying to remove all non-free content, or those who just say that this is "obvious" and offer no reasoning. I could attack their intelligence, try to tell them that they have no right to disagree with my interpretation of the rules, or try to throw out this entire RfC if it doesn't go my way. But instead I think I'll try taking a different approach and respecting the points of view of others while trying to work towards a consensus and compromise. You should really try it some time. Oren0 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've said it numerous times above. A combination of NFCC 3a, 8, m:mission and previous weight of past cases are clearly all against the overuse of such logos. I'm unable to work out what it is about the concept of "minimal use" that certain users find difficult to comprehend, to be honest Black Kite 18:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Canvassing notwithstanding, he does have a few good points. Black Kite, you haven't really stated a true reason that you believe the images should be removed, other than your opinion on an interpretation of a policy. Mastrchf (t/c) 18:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I'm not the one that's trying to "fix" an RfC by canvassing votes or posting Support votes that don't actually address the issue. Strangely enough, I prefer that such discussions are held properly and in the correct venue on Wikipedia, and when they aren't, I'm hardly going to ignore it. If others regard that as arrogance, then that's their problem. Black Kite 18:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call 6 out of 18 (if my mathematical skills haven't left me) "most".... Mastrchf (t/c) 17:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any way that the "result" of an RfC in which most of the !votes on one side are canvassed and/or clearly not focussed on the actual question can be taken as valid. The only way to "resolve" this is to discuss a change in WP:NFCC#3a / WP:NFCC#8 - a discussion at WP:CENT may be useful though. Meanwhile, the multiple use of logos clearly is disallowed per the above two clauses. I understand why you've started the RfC, and if it is intended to make it clear to a very small subset of vocal users that what they're doing is wrong - and has no precedence - that's fine, but I believe it's counter-productive here. uBlack Kite 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Given that I started this yet strongly believe in the opposition ("the logos are not fair use"), I think the only way to resolve this is via wider input. Unfortunately for those of us that are seeking to keep nonfree use to a minimum, there is no specific wording in any policy or guideline that explicitly disallows this use despite the weight of past cases and and current status quo in every other area of logo use including professional sports. If this RFC closes appropriate with the logos being deemed unusable, then we can write a better statement in the guidelines about logo use to avoid future problems. --MASEM 17:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- But yet, those are your interpretation on the policies. What would your definition of "minimal" be? I would, and I think others would, define minimal use as "The amount of use from which the removal of any more would take away from the article." Using simple common sense, I can promise you that 99/100, adding the image to a page is going to aid it incredibly. As long as the image isn't used excessively, it should be fine. I'm all for free images, and using them in any location we can get them, but some things are simply impossible to get a free image for. I would just like to ask, if we're going to use the image once, and if valid case can be made for each use, what does it matter if the image is used once, twice, or a hundred times? It certainly isn't hurting the encyclopedia any more for each use, and even if it helps in the most minute way, that's still a, I guess "net gain", to use RfA terms. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and even if it's a free encyclopedia, going all towards the "free" part will undoubtedly take away from the "encyclopedia" part. And yes, wall of text hits you, crits for 900000. Mastrchf (t/c) 18:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#8 - "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." If you can convince me that removing a logo of a team from an article about one particular season would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article then I'll agree with you. But I don't think you can do that, which makes the logos purely decorative.
- Secondly you're making a major error - You can't separate the words "Free" and "Encyclopedia" and claim that making it "less free" can make it a "better encyclopedia". The words in the top left hand corner are "The Free Encyclopedia", not "The Encyclopedia that's usually Free except when we want to make some pages look pretty". Because in reality, making it "less free" doesn't make it a "better encyclopedia" - it simply makes a worse "Free Encyclopedia". Black Kite 18:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- At the risk of sounding offensive, bullet point 1 is the first reasonable thing you've said in this comment section. You're right, if we could convince you that removing the logos would be detrimental they'd be allowable as far as you're concerned. Certainly you'd agree then that whether removing these logos would be detrimental is a matter of opinion that is best resolved via consensus, hence making this RfC perfectly reasonable. Oren0 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- You don't have to like what I say, but it isn't unreasonable to point out when an RfC is being used incorrectly, and that's without even mentioning the canvassing. Oh hang on, here's another one... Black Kite 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well Black Kite, I can't argue with you on the first count. I guess we should do away with all non-free images. No visual comprehension is better than some, right? And on the second count, please don't make what I didn't say into an entire essay. I simply stated that doing away with non-free images would hurt the encyclopedia. I didn't say that taking away free images would help it. For one to make a point of debating the topic presented, you sure didn't do a good job :D. Mastrchf (t/c) 19:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Except that's exactly what you did say. "We're here to build an encyclopedia, and even if it's a free encyclopedia, going all towards the "free" part will undoubtedly take away from the "encyclopedia" part.". Which bit of that did I misinterpret? Black Kite 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're still blinded by your opinion when trying to decipher what I said. I'll just say it plainly. Taking away non-free images will hurt the encyclopedia. Mastrchf (t/c) 19:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. That's why Wikipedia allows non-free content, when Wikimedia Commons does not. — PyTom (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're missing my equally plain point. Taking away these images will not hurt the encyclopedia. For example, here's an article I edit regularly - Leeds United A.F.C. season 2008-09. How would the reader's understanding of any part of this article be improved by having the team badge at the top of the page? Black Kite 19:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It certainly would help. I'd much rather read this: 2007 USC Trojans football team, than the Leeds article. I like images, pictures and logos. They all add a great visual element that's lacking in "your" soccer article, IMO --Geologik (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Visual appeal" is not a valid reason to use NFC, otherwise, images in discographis, episode lists, and whatnot wouldn't have been questioned. --MASEM 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why I think this whole argument is ridiculous. Regardless of the validity of "visual appeal", I think logos and the other image uses you've mention add an aesthetic that greatly enhances their respective articles. Instead of staring at a wall of text and tables, I like to have that "visual appeal" sprinkled in. --Geologik (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- A need that can be satisfied by free images, at least for more modern seasons. --MASEM 20:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think it can. That's the reason we're all here, correct? If the logos were easily replaceable by free images there wouldn't be this massively, huge, gigantic fuss. :) The great thing about college athletics, especially football, are the logos used to represent the teams. They're vibrant, colorful, and creative. There are entire websites devoted to logos and football helmets (SportsLogos, The Helmet Project, MG's Helmets). We'll just have to agree to disagree on the matter. --Geologik (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly free images are largely available for such articles. In many such articles, I've seen free images of the teams, games played in that season, all types of things. There are many free alternatives available for using the nonfree logo. We do allow it once in the team article, because it's important to the team. However, splattering it everywhere for "visual appeal" is not acceptable for nonfree content, as stated clearly by #1, #3, and #8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think it can. That's the reason we're all here, correct? If the logos were easily replaceable by free images there wouldn't be this massively, huge, gigantic fuss. :) The great thing about college athletics, especially football, are the logos used to represent the teams. They're vibrant, colorful, and creative. There are entire websites devoted to logos and football helmets (SportsLogos, The Helmet Project, MG's Helmets). We'll just have to agree to disagree on the matter. --Geologik (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- A need that can be satisfied by free images, at least for more modern seasons. --MASEM 20:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why I think this whole argument is ridiculous. Regardless of the validity of "visual appeal", I think logos and the other image uses you've mention add an aesthetic that greatly enhances their respective articles. Instead of staring at a wall of text and tables, I like to have that "visual appeal" sprinkled in. --Geologik (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Visual appeal" is not a valid reason to use NFC, otherwise, images in discographis, episode lists, and whatnot wouldn't have been questioned. --MASEM 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It certainly would help. I'd much rather read this: 2007 USC Trojans football team, than the Leeds article. I like images, pictures and logos. They all add a great visual element that's lacking in "your" soccer article, IMO --Geologik (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're still blinded by your opinion when trying to decipher what I said. I'll just say it plainly. Taking away non-free images will hurt the encyclopedia. Mastrchf (t/c) 19:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Except that's exactly what you did say. "We're here to build an encyclopedia, and even if it's a free encyclopedia, going all towards the "free" part will undoubtedly take away from the "encyclopedia" part.". Which bit of that did I misinterpret? Black Kite 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well Black Kite, I can't argue with you on the first count. I guess we should do away with all non-free images. No visual comprehension is better than some, right? And on the second count, please don't make what I didn't say into an entire essay. I simply stated that doing away with non-free images would hurt the encyclopedia. I didn't say that taking away free images would help it. For one to make a point of debating the topic presented, you sure didn't do a good job :D. Mastrchf (t/c) 19:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- No, I understand your point quite plainly. Whilst I don't find it valid, I understand it. The readers understanding can be aided in a number of ways: Visual comprehension, visual association of the team and its logo. I guess I could flesh visual comprehension out, also. Mascot's, both living and plush, and their effects on the logo image and vice versa. Mascots are frequently modeled after the image of the logo and not the image of the actual animal. I'm not going to say rare mascots and their logo counterparts as reasons to keep the logo, as I'm sure most mascots, even fictional animals, have their own article and an accompanying free picture or illustration to explain them. Now, these are all in direct correlation to the main article, as I doubt a season/rivalry article would have these. But, association and comprehension would aid the season/rivalry articles also. As long as we're using the fair use in the main article, we might as well use it in the season articles. I've really split a lot of issues on this, but to sum up, the logo helps in ways that the text couldn't possibly, and if we're going to use the logo on one page, we might as well use it on all pages. I can't think of anyway that it would hurt for more than one use, only help. Mastrchf (t/c) 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I just want to mention that the general population of Wikipedia seemed to have no problems promoting the article I did all the heavy lifting on, the aforementioned 2007 USC Trojans football team, into an FA for good reason: the one use of an FU image didn't violate the doctrine of fair use. To avoid an overly-long academic discussion of what is a logo and what they represent (that's what the exams were for, back in the day), the concept of having a logo on the top of a relevant pages in an encyclopedia is completely within the purpose of fair use doctrine. What has apparently surprised some users is that we have so many topics on these subjects; but, given the size and capacity of this project, there really shouldn't be such a surprise. The argument that "this isn't about what's legal" (which has been made above) is a bit silly --then what is the point of being over-restrictive? Wikipedia is not a straightjacket. This is getting rather heated, eh? --Bobak (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Until I hear a valid reason to remove those that isn't opinion fueled, I see no reason not to include these images. Mastrchf (t/c) 21:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c) Fair-use discussion does get heated; those defending the concept of a Free Encyclopedia probably come under (quite virulent) attack more often than anyone else. Hence why we naturally tend to be defensive. The problem is that we've been here many, many times before - with discographies, "List of..." articles, logo galleries, TV screenshots, toy pictures, and many more. Each time, some editors have believed that their articles really, really, needed those non-free images, and the policy that they come into conflict with is something that needs to be attacked. The fact that it's a large WikiProject involved this time doesn't make it any different, to be honest. Black Kite 21:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that those trying to protect fair use images here are on the defensive. I'm biased of course, but were it not for Hammer ruthlessly removing all of these images, this issue would've never been started, so these "many, many times" would seem to be caused by those trying to remove the images. Maybe there's a reason that all of these different groups are looking toward the vague policies, and realizing that there's no reason whatsoever that should prevent a fair use image from being used in an article. Mastrchf (t/c) 22:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you mean to imply that those seeking to minimize our usage of non-free content do so out of some slavish unthinking adherence to policy, nothing could be further from the truth. I think, if you ask them, you may find that most people that believe in Wikipedia's primary goal would say that they do so for essentially ethical reasons. CIreland (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. No one is attacking fair use, that's why the legal question of whether these images are allowed or not is not an issue here. However, those looking to keep as many instances of these pictures need to understand what the philosophical goals of WP's "free content mission" is. There is nothing stopping us from including these images save for the fact that each use weakens us from that mission, and thus we need exceptional reason to use them. --MASEM 22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you mean to imply that those seeking to minimize our usage of non-free content do so out of some slavish unthinking adherence to policy, nothing could be further from the truth. I think, if you ask them, you may find that most people that believe in Wikipedia's primary goal would say that they do so for essentially ethical reasons. CIreland (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that those trying to protect fair use images here are on the defensive. I'm biased of course, but were it not for Hammer ruthlessly removing all of these images, this issue would've never been started, so these "many, many times" would seem to be caused by those trying to remove the images. Maybe there's a reason that all of these different groups are looking toward the vague policies, and realizing that there's no reason whatsoever that should prevent a fair use image from being used in an article. Mastrchf (t/c) 22:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see why this argument is now getting rehashed in the comments section. Haas anyone been unable to express their opinion in the support or oppose sections? I was able to do so pretty easily. The comment about canvassing is appropriate here (and seems to have been dealt with appropriately), but not all of this regurgitation: please post your interpretations of the policy in the above discussion sections. If this RfC needs to be taken to any other forum, then let's please get this done. And I would point out that it would be inappropriate to close this RfC before 30 days.--2008Olympianchitchat 22:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why has Seraphimblade gone on a deletion of content spree before the issue is resolved in his favor? Cardsplayer4life (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- What has he deleted? Removing images is not the same as deleting them. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Deleting images from articles is what I meant. ("removing", whatever, haha) You can look at his edit history to see what he removed; I am not going to list them all here, sorry. I just found it odd he would take it into his own hands after the trouble we saw caused by people doing just that when there isn't a clear decision one way or the other. (ok, I do think the decision is pretty clear, but I am trying to be impartial here, haha) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Longstanding procedure and practice referenced to policy trumps some kind of localised consensus regarding a specific type of image and a specific type of article. Frankly, a "consensus" here can't override policy- as has been said by numerous people, this RfC is pointless. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not to mention that there clearly isn't even any consensus here that the policy should be modified. Black Kite 17:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Black Kite is quite correct, and that's the answer. There is no consensus either to modify the policy or to permit an exception. This is true in spite of the wide canvassing that took place. In the absence of consensus, we can't change policy or allow exceptions to it, especially when it comes to core mission policies such as free content. And even if we did get consensus to change this policy, we'd have to get permission from WMF as well, as their resolution currently specifies minimal use. I don't think there's much chance they'd change that, but without consensus we even want such a change, they absolutely won't. Hence, after plenty of time for discussion and understanding here, the cleanup has gotten started. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm also a bit curious...some of the logos are claimed as PD-ineligible, but they sure don't appear to be. Take File:UGA$!logo.png for example, it's not a simple typeface as it's circled and part of it's colored. It doesn't take a whole lot of art to break the eligibility barrier, and this seems like it would. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually have had a look here, and it does appear that the ones like Georgia Tech's that are just letters (stylized or not) or simple geometric shapes are indeed not copyrightable. That's excellent and solves the problem in a lot of cases, if the logos are free we don't have to worry how widely they're used. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- While this is completely true that some of the logos cannot be copyrighted and thus will be free, I point to our policy on the use of flag icons (all which are free) at WP:MOSICON and note that we don't use these willy-nilly. I'd say for purposes of being consistent across articles of the same type, if only a portion of the images can qualify for free-ness, we shouldn't encourage more use of the free, as this will encourage newer editors unaware of the details of the NFC policy to use the non-frees as extensively. --MASEM 20:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not to mention that there clearly isn't even any consensus here that the policy should be modified. Black Kite 17:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Longstanding procedure and practice referenced to policy trumps some kind of localised consensus regarding a specific type of image and a specific type of article. Frankly, a "consensus" here can't override policy- as has been said by numerous people, this RfC is pointless. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Deleting images from articles is what I meant. ("removing", whatever, haha) You can look at his edit history to see what he removed; I am not going to list them all here, sorry. I just found it odd he would take it into his own hands after the trouble we saw caused by people doing just that when there isn't a clear decision one way or the other. (ok, I do think the decision is pretty clear, but I am trying to be impartial here, haha) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- What has he deleted? Removing images is not the same as deleting them. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
From some of the comments of the people who are opposed, it sounds like they are not accepting the good faith of the support people. I keep reading comments that "they're not worthwhile because their canvassed" --despite the article-space records of those they are dismissing. While this is still an active discussion, the actions of Seraphimblade are provoking to those on the support side. I advise both sides to "chill", and let this work its way through. Because the existing policy (that is under discussion) was to allow season articles to have the FU logo of the subject team (hence the two FAs under this model), I recommend not altering these articles to the oppose view until we have some kind of consensus (or, move up to the next level of dispute resolution for a more final opinion, more on that below). Please, I realize everyone wants to believe their the only way to do things, but you must accept that rationale, intelligent users with strong records of contribution to the article-space on this Project can disagree and support the use of fair use images in the current minimal, but not excessive, restriction that has guided the FAs of such articles as 2005 Texas Longhorns football and 2007 USC Trojans football. If disrespectful behavior continues (on both sides), this should probably go up further in the dispute resolution process. We're probably at that point now. --Bobak (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree there are editors taking actions that should wait on the resolution of this, the FA examples are not appropriate as "examples". As I've described before, FA nominations only look at the images strictly only as part of the article for consideration, and not any other further use of that image. A logo would make sense there, and if there were no other Longhorn or Trojan articles, there'd be no issue about the logo. But when you look at the logo's use throughout WP , there's a problem that FA will not be able to address. Thus, we should not look to the FAs as examples, but instead how all sports-related articles of the same type deal with the logos. --MASEM 21:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could you point us to the "existing policy" that allowed season articles to use the FU logo of the subject team? I would be extremely interested to see it. Black Kite 21:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Question regarding image placement
In the article Tiny Thompson, an image has been uploaded under a claim of fair use to help explain Thompson's playing style. Two users—me and Giants2008—believe that the image must be in "playing style" section, because of the image's purpose and it being included under a claim of fair use. Three other users—Kingturtle, Juliancolton, and Wizardman—believe that it is more logical to place it in the infobox. I personally disagree, since the image in that case is illustrating the subject more than the playing style, for which fair use is being claimed. I'm interested in some other, more uninvolved, opinions. Maxim(talk) 13:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's serving both purposes, to illustrate the playing style as well as the deceased person's image - technically, either location is ok. Given that you also have a good facial shot and thus no need for a second NFC to just illustrate the person (though you should try to see if there's any free images -- though given the date of death, I'm not expecting much). The infobox caption, appropriately, is helping to connect that image to the playing style section, so I think all is ok with the infobox placement. --MASEM 13:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- We (Moni3 has been a huge help) have tried basically everything, and we've gone as far as contacting a higher-up in the Hockey Hall of Fame. I'm afraid we'll have to wait a few decades before copyright on an image expires before a free one can be found... :( Maxim(talk) 14:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't expect that a free picture is going to be easy, but its good to try anyway. I'm just saying that you have a single image that works (with valid rationales) either way as a picture of the person, or as a demonstration of his stance; neither use invalidates the NFC aspects of the image. Since we prefer an image at the top to establish context, I think the infobox image works fine here; the placement itself in either location is not going to make it fail NFC policy. --MASEM 14:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)