Talk:Ateneo Blue Eagles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

--Rmcsamson 10:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Juniors Basketball[edit]

Just to keep track, the Blue Eaglets' records are as follows: 17 championships, 12 runners-up finishes, 4 3rd place finishes and Champions in 1978, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010. Second place in 1981, 1982, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2007. Third in 1987, 1988, 1993, 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.243.115 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC) [1]

Football[edit]

The recent edits made to this article are inconsistent with this: UAAP Football Championship.Rmcsamson 10:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


RFC[edit]

I don't get it why Rmcsamson keeps on removing the athletic logo since it is used by a lot of Ateneo's athletic programs. Even though it is "unofficial," it still merits mentioned or at least displayed in the article. --Howard the Duck 11:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, the image posted isn't official, as there are numerous variations of the aforementioned "logotype" across various teams across various units. Howard has also been unable to establish any official source or reference for the image posted. There are a variety of things that can be brought up, if one chooses to nitpick: is the font even exactly correct? Is the rendering correct? Is the color correct? Things like these. Until an official source is cited, it will be prudent to refrain from calling anything a "logotype," especially if one doesn't have any way to back it up. This is especially true if we do not wish to be misleading. If you want to display things in the article, or this particular instance, you may want to consider simply showing an Ateneo (basketball or whatever) player wearing a jersey.Rmcsamson 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not call it the logotype used by the basketball and volleyball teams? As I've said, anybody can edit and upload every variation of the logotype since there isn't an official one. The fact that it is used by the official basketball teams on their basketball jerseys matters. --Howard the Duck 02:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If you can prove that it's official, there will be no problem. That's the only way it won't be misleading. Like I said, the only acceptable compromise, barring that, is to show a jersey worn by a player. Oh, and why not call it the logotype used by the basketball and volleyball teams? Aside from that particular proposition being rather desperate, it will be prudent to note that our basketball team has jerseys with different versions, and they use these jerseys depending on where they're playing or what they'll be doing (playing in the UAAP, playing in some minor league, practice, etc.), and the "logotypes" in each one have differences from the image you insist on uploading. The same thing goes for the volleyball team. And these are just the college teams. Anyone probably CAN upload anything they want to Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean that one should, especially when the material proposed has no basis and is patently misleading.Rmcsamson 04:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ever played NBA Live? The starting jersets show different designs (including retro uniforms), including those which are for practice, for the NBA Europe Live tour, etc., but the present logo is always displayed on the official home and away uniforms which are used on official NBA games. Same thing here. The logotype you've removed is that one being used in the official basketball uniforms in the UAAP. We don't have to display the logo used for practice and off-season tourneys, that'll be overkill, what we can do is to display historical logos and the ones used b other varsity teams. Being official isn't the issue; there are lots of unofficial things displayed on Wikipedia, what Wikipedia is for notability, and the logotype you've removed is notable since it is used by the basketball and volleyball teams, which are the two most popular sports in the UAAP. --Howard the Duck 08:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've played NBA live, and yes, I know what you're talking about. The problem with your NBA Live comparison is that unlike the Ateneo "logotype" you insist on using, the jersey designs used in both home and away jerseys are recognized as insignia of the corresponding teams. Those are designs which are copyrighted, and which have particular standards by which they are rendered. Those are, for all intents and purposes, official. The comparison you wish to make with regard to that, therefore, is untenable. The image I've removed (and will continue removing unless there is some solid basis for its appearance) is misleading (if not patently wrong) because it was, as you described, an "athletic logo" when there is no official Ateneo athletic logo that exists. There's no basis for the image. It is also misleading because the reproduction of a particular rendering on some Ateneo jerseys may or may not be accurate. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dump of information. The only way the defective image can be cured is if it is replaced through the acceptable compromise which I described (which is actually so much simpler, I can imagine, than arguing with me on this), or by finding an official, verifiable basis for the image. Rmcsamson 11:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
So you mean the Ateneo jersey is not copyrighted? But that's beside the point, the fact that it is used in Ateneo basketball and volleyball jerseys makes it notable, if not suitable for Wikipedia. Since there's no official athletic logo, and the logotype used on the Ateneo jerseys is one and the same as the ones that you've removed, ergo, it is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, perhaps a caption saying "This is the logotype currently used on the Ateneo basketball and volleyball teams." If the logotype is wrong (w/c btw, almost clearly resembles the font used on the jerseys), it can be corrected. --Howard the Duck 14:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The Ateneo jersey designs are owned by Adidas, the current manufacturer of our athletic jerseys. And there's some sort of arrangement regarding replica jerseys sold by one of the campus stores. You say, "the logotype used on the Ateneo jerseys is one and the same as the ones that you've removed." How this conclusion is reached with accuracy is a matter of opinion, not fact, unless properly established. This assertion , if not patently false, is misleading, because it would lead a reader to believe that this is something "official" when there is, in fact, no official Ateneo "athletic logo." Again, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information. Accuracy should be the norm, not the possibility. Again, I reiterate: The only way the defective image can be cured is if it is replaced through the acceptable compromise is that of showing an image wherein an Ateneo jersey is used, which I described earlier (and which is actually so much simpler, I can imagine, than arguing with me on this), or by finding an official, verifiable basis for the image of this so-called "logotype." Rmcsamson 14:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree of having a pic of an Ateneo player would be better since it would give the impression that the logotype, although not the de jure, is the de facto logotype used by the Eagles basketball and volleyball teams, with emphasis on de facto. --Howard the Duck 14:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Now we can go hair-splitting over definitions of what's "de facto" and what's "de jure." If you can get your hands on a copy of either the 2005 or 2006 Ateneo section of the Philippine Star or Philippine Daily Inquirer, you'll get to see what the "de jure" logo of the Ateneo is. It uses a font which was custom made for the Ateneo, and features the Ateneo seal. That's the Ateneo logo. And the most officially-accepted use of the font is the "Ateneo 150 in 2009" logo, which is seen in both instances. You can also see the font on the masthead of the Ateneo website. You'll see that it looks nothing like the font used on the jerseys, or the version of that "logotype" as that you wanted to put. It's "de jure" because it's been approved by the Ateneo's Board of Trustees (the highest policy-making body in the University). Now, of course, they never sent a memo out, so even if their records show that it's been met with BOT approval, but since there's no propagation, is this binding on any of us? See, more hair-splitting. So I guess we've reached some consensus about putting an image of the jerseys in use instead. Rmcsamson 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably confused with the school logotype and the athletic logotype. Example: this image is the official logotype of UCLA. This one, on the other hand, is the athletic logotype. The one you're describing is Ateneo's school logotype, the one you've removed is the athletic logotype used in basketball and volleyball jerseys. --Howard the Duck 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That much has always been pretty clear. The clear difference is, there's an official Ateneo logo, but no an official athletic logo. My position with regard to placing just this alleged "logotype" hasn't changed. Rmcsamson 17:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no official athletic logotype so the caption says the logotype used by the basketball and the volleyball teams. --Howard the Duck 03:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The most non-misleading course of action is to depict the jersey as jersey. Any reference to any "logotype" whether "official" or "unofficial" or whatever will only lead to the discussion above. Rmcsamson 05:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
We're going round in circles; I concede that it's "unofficial," but it is used by the basketball and volleyball teams, ergo it is notable., the two most prominent varsity teams. I'll not be placing it at the infobox anymore, just along the text, with proper caption "This is the logotype used by the Ateneo's basketball and volleyball teams." How easy is that to understand? --Howard the Duck 09:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It has yet to be established how this is more appropriate and neutral compared to an unlabeled depiction, by use of appropriate photographs, of the jersey in use. As I said earlier, the proposed usage is misleading because there is no official basis for its construction. I suppose that isn't very hard to understand. Rmcsamson 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't insult my intelligence, Atenean; it's not also that hard to understand thew caption isn't it? --Howard the Duck 07:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Sophomoric attempts at ad hominems or other similar comments as the one posted by Howard above don't establish how an amateur graphic rendition with no official basis is more appropriate and neutral compared to an unlabled depiction, by use of appropriate photographs, of the jersey in use. Rmcsamson 08:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Every article about sport club has a logo. Not every article about a sport club as a picture however. If you can have a freely-licensed photo of JC Intal firing blanks in Game 3 (or any other Blue Eagle), I'll be happy to oblige; but answer my question (you're having a sophomoric attempy of evading the issue): how hard is it to understand my proposed caption? --Howard the Duck 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The argument made is untenable. The caption isn't the problem. It's the amateur reconstruction of a so-called, yet nonexistent, athletic logo/"logotype." The caption, no matter how properly phrased will be pointing to something that is misleading because it is without basis. The argument about "every article about a sports club" fails because of a significant distinction. In the articles about sports clubs you refer to, more often than not, the depictions of their logos are those issued by the sports club, that is, they are official depictions. They're not amateur reconstructions of how a body of letters appears on a jersey. With regard to posting a free-license picture, the burden is on you, since you're the one who insists that every page must have a logo of sorts. It's either that, or you must find some official basis for the reconstruction you insist on using. Rmcsamson 08:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the above, Howard would be prudent to note that his statement, "Every article about sport club has a logo" requires revision. Note that other athletic teams in schools have articles with no "athletic logo," as in the case of the Columbia University Lions, the Indiana Hoosiers, and even the North Carolina Tar Heels.Rmcsamson 09:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, those had logos before, but an overzealous editor got them deleted. On the other hand, an amateur reconstruction can be remedied; there seems to be no construction guide anywhere (unless someone has it); it can easily be replaced, anyway. --Howard the Duck 10:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
On "those had logos before".That these allegedly "had logos before, but an overzealous editor got them deleted" does not change the fact that these run as counterexamples to the statement, "Every article about sport club has a logo," stripping it of any persuasive force with regard to this discussion.
On"amateur reconstruction can be remedied; there seems to be...": This argument is likewise untenable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information. Accuracy is the norm, not the exception. To countenance placing an amateur construction of a so-called "logotype" created without any conclusive or official basis is tantamount to placing a baseless entry of text with some slight hope that the text will eventually be corrected or cured. This is to place unencyclopedic content in Wikipedia. This also fails to squarely address the point I raised earlier about how an amateur graphic rendition with no official basis can be more appropriate and neutral compared to an unlabled depiction, by use of appropriate photographs, of the jersey in use. And regarding the latter, I reiterate: With regard to posting a free-license picture, the burden is on you, since you're the one who insists that every page must have a logo of sorts. It's either that, or you must find some official basis for the reconstruction you insist on using. Rmcsamson 10:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
They have logos, only that someone removed them, this was on fair use claims, on that logos were used as a gallery. But that's not the question around here...
So prove to me that they're wrong, the fact that there is no official version means there's no right or wrong version. --Howard the Duck 10:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The retort misses the point. Whether or not there's a right or wrong version is not the question here. The sticking point is that there was an image purported to be an "athletic logo." This allegation is problematic, because the Ateneo does not have an official athletic logo. There was also no basis for the amateur construction. The problem is accuracy. The fact that there's no official version does not mean that there's no right or wrong version. To extend that idea would mean to say that even the most patently unrepresentative, if not downright misleading version, would be correct. It simply means that there is no basis for the proposed amateur construction. A proposal to place an image in lieu of the problematic amateur graphic was made. It appears from the foregoing that there is insistence by Howard on placing an amateur graphic. And again, this also fails to squarely address the point I raised earlier about how an amateur graphic rendition with no official basis can be more appropriate and neutral compared to an unlabled depiction, by use of appropriate photographs, of the jersey in use. And regarding the latter, I reiterate: The burden is on you, since you're the one who insists that every page must have a logo of sorts. It's either that, or you must find some official basis for the reconstruction you insist on using. Rmcsamson 10:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
So if I can find a JC Intal photo, and compare it to the amateurish logo, and they look patently the same, would that count? --Howard the Duck 10:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You can save the comparison for yourself, and post a JC Intal photo (in conformity with free use guidelines and Wikipedia policy) in the article. And yes, that would at least show a copy of the "logo" as it is used, not as how some Wikipedia user has imagined it to be. In that regard, it will be the most accurate representation, without a tendency to mislead. Note that I am referring here to the image. Rmcsamson 10:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The thing is a photo of a living person is hard to produce; a representation of logo, however, is relatively easy, so I'd ask my question again, if I can find a JC Intal photo, and compare it to the amateurish logo, and they look patently the same, would that count? --Howard the Duck 10:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
That the photograph of a living person is hard to produce is irrelevant with regard to overcoming the lack of basis. The problem with your proposed solution is that it, again, requires the exercise of your opinion in determining whether or not a logo in a photograph and the amateur construction are "patently the same," with "patently the same" being a vague, non-objective standard. Besides, if you were to strive for the highest degree of accuracy, assuming the comparison is limited to a visual one, then it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to be able to recreate the logo on the jersey unless the source image portrays the jersey as perfectly flat. This would never be the case in a "JC Intal photo." It will be highly unlikely that there will be an accurate reproduction of the letterforms, the spaces between characters, etc. It is for this reason that the image of someone wearing the jersey was proposed as an alternative in the first place.Rmcsamson 11:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Reindent: You said it best, it is tough to do both ends, but IMHO, it is easier to do the logo, since there is no official source, what we can do is to use the official sources that we have (the jerseys) and apply that to the logo. It can't be perfectly correct, other wise, you might as well delete the speed of light article, since it can be perfectly measured. What we can do at best is by approximation; and you haven't answeed my question yet on pointing out what wrong with the amateurish logo. --Howard the Duck 11:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You're free to take your time looking for the picture or looking for an official source which can be used as basis for an amateur construction, if you can find one. This page doesn't need the images in question. I'm not even asking for perfection, what I'm asking for is accuracy and the absence of a tendency to mislead. The example of the speed of light article is a flawed one: there are mathematical means of approximating the speed of light, and these means have scientific basis. The question about what's wrong with the amateur construction is irrelevant. The question at hand is accuracy, and if accuracy is so alleged, on what basis this accuracy is founded on. Again: Take your time looking for the pictures or sources you need. This page will be perfectly fine without them. Rmcsamson 12:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The speed of light can't be measured definetly (that's why it's a definition, not a measurement); which is the same here, all we can do is approximation. There are hundreds of UBelt pics of Ateneo players wearing the uniforms with the amateurish logo, does that count? 07:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
About your comment on the speed of light.Yes, and the definition is based on? There's still some sort of basis, right?
About photos on Ubelt. They count as what? And by their wearing the uniforms with the amateur construction, do you mean to say that they're wearing the construction you posted? Of course not. If you mean by "count" that they serve as a better alternative to the amateur construction that has been properly removed, then perhaps they are so, if you can work out the fair-use issues. They're better representation than any "approximation." Rmcsamson 18:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The speed of light is based on approximation? Like the amateurish logo? Many things are based on approximation, the eagle logo might have a missing feather, or it has the wrong hues; the football kits on football team pages are all approximations. Copyrighted pictures of living people are a no-no on Wikipedia, while logos which are mostly copyrighted are legit for fair use since you can't make a free one. --Howard the Duck 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The comparison to the speed of light fails to persuade. The speed of light, or at least its current definition, is still based on reasonable mathematical extrapolation, not aesthetic approximation based on opinion or good/bad taste. Unlike the amateur construction, the eagle logo was among the team logos used in broadcasts of the UAAP. It will be prudent to investigate if that particular logo came from the Ateneo, or if it was simply an unofficial mock-up. I doubt the eagle has a set number of feathers, and if you insist on it being applicable to this example, I'll gladly delete it as well. If copyrighted pictures will be a problem, then look for non-copyrighted ones. Like I said, the burden is on you, and you're free to take your time.Rmcsamson 02:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
So how can you quantify art? Now you tell me.
I wouldn't have to search for noncopyrighted free pics since we can already use a copyrighted logo with a source; as for UAAP broadcasts, the font that they do for the opening credits changes every year, don't tell me they're official (you're telling me the images used on TV is more "official" than the one found on the uniform, despite it's amateurish construction?) And you haven't told me what's wrong with so that I can correct it.... oh yeah, you don't have sources to say that I'm wrong. --Howard the Duck 02:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You want to talk about quantifying art now? You might want to define "art" first, and maybe then you can talk about quantification. Or you can perhaps talk about "works" or "pieces" of art, which you can count. How is this relevant to the posting of a misleading amateur construction again?
The contentions you presented are the product of an obvious misreading. I was referring to "team logos used in broadcasts of the UAAP." These are images which you will see on team paraphernalia, or in the case of the Blue Eagle, on the edifice of the Blue Eagle Gym (again, I did say that you may wish to "investigate if that particular logo came from the Ateneo, or if it was simply an unofficial mock-up").
"you're telling me the images used on TV is more "official" than the one found on the uniform, despite it's amateurish construction?" -- Again, the product of an obvious misreading. The statement regarding the eagle (it's not even a "logo" in the strictest sense) that you made in your bringing it up was problematic, for the simple reason that you say it's based on an approximation. Careful reading would have shown you that these things were used by a television broadcast, featuring logos of various teams, which, in an above paragraph, I said were found on team paraphernalia, or in the case of the Blue Eagle, on the edifice of the Blue Eagle Gym, a statement which I qualified with bringing up the possible need for investigation if they're official or not. In any case, these were things which were used in the media, and not the product of the efforts of a Wikipedia user.
I've already addressed the question about what's wrong with the amateur construction. To wit: "The question about what's wrong with the amateur construction is irrelevant. The question at hand is accuracy, and if accuracy is so alleged, on what basis this accuracy is founded on. Again: Take your time looking for the pictures or sources you need. This page will be perfectly fine without them." That I have no sources to tell you what's wrong about what you did does not change the fact that what you did has no official basis except your personal conjecture and imagination. And as I've pointed out earlier, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information. The burden of proof to assert that what you did had some basis other than your personal take on the appearance of a set of letters which you have, by your own admission, merely approximated (without basis), is on you. All the responses from Howard in response to these queries have been responses like "a photo of a living person is hard to produce," "Copyrighted pictures of living people are a no-no on Wikipedia," "I wouldn't have to search for noncopyrighted free pics." Those about the difficulty of pictures and fair use have been responded to. The last one, about not needing to search for noncopyrighted pictures, "since we can already use a copyrighted logo with a source," is inconsistent with all other previously made statements by Howard, such as "I concede that it's 'unofficial,'" "official isn't the issue;" and even "There is no official athletic logotype." What source is Howard talking about here? How can he say it's copyrighted? If he is referring to the source images of the jerseys which he used as reference for his amateur construction, then why hasn't he just looked for and posted such an image which complies with fair use rules? This source will far outweigh a misleading "approximation" that has no basis for its validity other than the unreliable perception of its creator. The arguments presented by Howard thus far have failed to satisfy that point. Arguments about the speed of light, the yearly change of fonts used in UAAP broadcasts, etc. also fail to address squarely a point I have raised earlier on "how an amateur graphic rendition with no official basis can be more appropriate and neutral compared to an unlabled depiction, by use of appropriate photographs, of the jersey in use. And regarding the latter, I reiterate: The burden is on you, since you're the one who insists that every page must have a logo of sorts. It's either that, or you must find some official basis for the reconstruction you insist on using."Rmcsamson 17:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Reindent: Question, does the Ateneo sell its jerseys, if they do, then the jersey, and everything in it, is official, since it is sold at the school, nothing can be more official than that.
What you may be saying might be true, but if you can't prove that it's true, the long litany you've just said will nust be an extra load to Wikipedia's servers. So tell me what's inaccurate with the logo, do it. --Howard the Duck 07:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The Ateneo sells replica jerseys, which have some variations from the jerseys which the basketball team uses. The differences include differences in material and markings. The original jersey designs are presumably owned by Adidas, the sponsor of most of the Ateneo's athletic teams. The replica jerseys are sold through the A-Shop, a souveneir shop which works with the University's Office of University Development and Alumni Relations. The A-Shop in itself is NOT an official Ateneo souveneir store, because it's not owned nor run by the University. The University has simply given it space wherein it can sell its products. So are these "official?" Arguably, they aren't, because they're not strictly owned by the University (much like other local replica makers like Unibersidad). Arguably, they are, because they're the only ones that are sold in a campus store permitted by the University (although there were some sales by some parties selling replica jerseys of older designs from the 1980s to as recent as 2000). Unfortunately, this rather long "treatise" of a paragraph is a response to a point by Howard that once again, fails to address the issue squarely (contributing to "extra load to (sic) Wikipedia's servers."
The burden of proof of accuracy is on Howard. If there's one thing that's been repeated here over and over again, it's that Howard has yet to prove accuracy based on a source that's more reliable than Howard's own imagination. The use of WP:Ver underscores this point, and only serves to further undermine Howard's arguments, since he has been unable to prove the accuracy of what he posted. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dump of information. The point is accuracy and reliability. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. The introduction of a user-created image, and amateur construction with no basis that can vouch for its accuracy, constitutes the problem which is defined in the immediately preceeding link.
In an attempt to reach some consensus, I've made the simple proposal that a picture of the jersey in use will be better. It will contain the image that Howard wanted to create in its original and actual form. However, Howard, in response, has raised the tenuous contention that looking for images which comply with fair use standards will be "difficult." And in doing so, and in the immediately preceeding comment, Howard has yet to establish "how an amateur graphic rendition with no official basis can be more appropriate and neutral compared to an unlabled depiction, by use of appropriate photographs, of the jersey in use. And regarding the latter, I reiterate: The burden is on you, since you're the one who insists that every page must have a logo of sorts. It's either that, or you must find some official basis for the reconstruction you insist on using." Rmcsamson 14:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me reiterate my points:
  • A picture of a player wearing a jersey is always better than a logo.
  • Sadly, Wikipedia prohibits fair use photos of living people when they can be created freely.
  • Third, since we don't have a free photo, a logo will suffice. Logos can easily be fairly used.
  • Although Rmcsamson insists the amateurish logo is inaccurate, he has failed to point out the inaccuracies. Come on, do it.
  • I have verified the photo, and even included the source on where I've adopted it from. It's an adoptation, for Pete's sake. It can't be that accurate. Point out the inaccuracies so I can correct it.
  • If Rmcsamson insists on the total removal of the photo, I persuade him to list the image at WP:IFD.
--Howard the Duck 15:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Finally, Howard has acknowledged that a picture of a player wearing a jersey is better than a logo. However, Howard insists on the use of a product of his original research and creation, the accuracy of which is predicated on nothing more than his personal opinion of things being "patently the same," whatever that's supposed to mean. In doing so, Howard insists on a violation of WP:NOR, WP:VER, and since he has attempted to offer the possible that "it can be remedied anyway" even if Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dump of information, of WP:Not. His contention that "a logo will suffice" is tenuous, since he has failed to establish using sufficient basis that what he has created is, in fact, a team logo. It has been submitted that there is no official Ateneo team logo, and that the "logotype" he insists on using is not used by all Ateneo athletic teams, unlike those of teams whose materials (and Wikipedia articles) actually use an official logo. He has also failed to satisfy the burden incumbent on him, which is to prove his submission's accuracy. He instead posits that there is no free photo available, and that it will be "difficult" to produce. However, the burden is his to prove, as has been repeated again and again.
Simple prudence would have led a cautious Wikipedia user to consult Wikipedia:Logos, which states several policies: (a) "Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. For example, parodies of logos may be carefully used under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign"; (b)"Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. Common sense says that a logo displayed prominently on the logo owner's own website should be OK to use, because it represents their wishes about how the logo is presented on computer screens at typical screen resolutions. Avoid resizing a logo—try to find one that is a suitable size. Do not use a resized logo if it doesn't look good. Overly high-resolution versions of logos should be avoided, however, as they are less likely to be fair use." The policy denounces defaced logos. It also calls for reasonable diligence to ensure that the logos are accurate. In the case of this article, Howard has yet to show basis that the amateur construction he created is (a)in fact, a logo, and (b)that his creation satisfies the need for accuracy. In the case of this article, it would have been very simple to realize that of all Ateneo marks and images, the most constant image which has appeared on practically all Ateneo jerseys is the Shield of Loyola, taken either on its own, or in the context of the Ateneo seal, of which the official (full-color) version has already been uploaded to Wikipedia and is used in numerous articles. The image creator, User:Alifigueroa, has stated in the discussion page of the Ateneo de Manila University article that the seal image which he created for the university is "open source." Howard's insistence on a "logotype" has sorely overlooked these facts.
With regard to the photograph, a reading of WP:FUC and WP:IUP show that reasonable use of an image even without the permission of its copyright holder is permitted, should there be an exhaustion of resourcefulness on the part of a person looking for a free image.
The contention, "It's an adoptation, for Pete's sake" has been shown above to have failed to meet criteria in Wikipedia policy.
The foregoing considered, Howard's arguments fail to persuade. Rmcsamson 14:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It can't be a discriminate source of information since it is sourced. It is adapted. Your insistence that it is wrong can't be backed up since you can't find a source, ergo it's your POV that it's wrong (ergo, it's my POV too that its adapted, but I can't find inaccuracies, even when zoomed in between the UBelt photo and the amateurish logo, perhaps the spacing between the letters). Since RFC is crap, I suggest to bring the amateurish logo to WP:IFD. --Howard the Duck 14:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right. It can't possibly be a discriminate source of information. It's an indiscriminate addition which asserts that there is an "athletic logo" when there is none, and whose accuracy is predicated on nothing more than Howard's personal perception and nothing else. Howard's argument once again fails to persuade, based on the above. Rmcsamson 14:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is no athletic logo (I've already conceded that, you're just going round in circles, I've even proposed a nifty caption), but this is found on an official uniform, ergo this is official, or a part of an official thing. Again bring the image to IFD and see how it works out from there. --Howard the Duck 14:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You have yet to provide any basis that what you created has accuracy based on anything other than your own imagination. You have also yet to satisfy how what you did complies with aforecited Wikipedia policy. So if there's no official athletic logo, then what is the significance of putting this amateur construction? Rmcsamson 15:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You have yet yo provide any basis on why its wrong other than your own imagination that there is no official logo.
Significance? For one, this appears on the official uniform of Ateneo's basketball, volleyball and football teams. To tell that it is not significant is saying FC Barcelona's unuforms aren't significant because they don't have sponsors on it. To tell that it is not official is like saying the color blue is not the school colors of Ateneo. I've provided the source, and it appears the same (point out what's wrong, I'm begging already). And I just recently found this logotype on the 2005 UAAP-NCAA Live game! lol). Again, for the third time, you should submit this to WP:IFD since this RFC is going nowhere (there should be a third party but no one came). As for inaccuracies, you might as well remove the kits on FC Barcelona since it has three stripes, not two, lol. --Howard the Duck 15:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not an imagined thing that there's no official logo. Otherwise you would have been able to find an official source for it, right? There is, however, an official Ateneo seal, which appears on Ateneo jerseys. Now THAT's official, and it has an official source, unlike the amateur construction which you insist on using in spite its lack of basis for accuracy except your own imagination.
This thing you created, exactly, appears on the official uniform? I know that something appears on the Ateneo uniforms, but you've yet to establish that it is exactly what you created. The one found in the UAAP-NCAA Live game, is it also exactly the one that appears on the jerseys? Of course not. It is very easy take any Roman typeface, and render the word "Ateneo" in all capitals, and then engage in an endless discussion about it being what appears on the jerseys, but that will never make that something produced and verifiable by some official source, simply because there's no official Ateneo athletic logo (which you've conceded, unless you want to become inconsistent with what you've been saying all of a sudden). The comparison with saying that blue is not the official color of the Ateneo is illogical. In this instance, the amateur construction is obviously not official, and is does not share the official status that blue has as a school color. The argument regarding FC Barcelona fails to persuade. Its relevance to this discussion has yet to be established.
Again, your points fail to squarely address the following, which I reiterate: "However, Howard insists on the use of a product of his original research and creation, the accuracy of which is predicated on nothing more than his personal opinion of things being "patently the same," whatever that's supposed to mean. In doing so, Howard insists on a violation of WP:NOR, WP:VER, and since he has attempted to offer the possible that "it can be remedied anyway" even if Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dump of information, of WP:Not. His contention that "a logo will suffice" is tenuous, since he has failed to establish using sufficient basis that what he has created is, in fact, a team logo. It has been submitted that there is no official Ateneo team logo, and that the "logotype" he insists on using is not used by all Ateneo athletic teams, unlike those of teams whose materials (and Wikipedia articles) actually use an official logo. He has also failed to satisfy the burden incumbent on him, which is to prove his submission's accuracy. He instead posits that there is no free photo available, and that it will be "difficult" to produce. However, the burden is his to prove, as has been repeated again and again." "Simple prudence would have led a cautious Wikipedia user to consult Wikipedia:Logos, which states several policies: (a) "Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. For example, parodies of logos may be carefully used under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign"; (b)"Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. Common sense says that a logo displayed prominently on the logo owner's own website should be OK to use, because it represents their wishes about how the logo is presented on computer screens at typical screen resolutions. Avoid resizing a logo—try to find one that is a suitable size. Do not use a resized logo if it doesn't look good. Overly high-resolution versions of logos should be avoided, however, as they are less likely to be fair use." The policy denounces defaced logos. It also calls for reasonable diligence to ensure that the logos are accurate. In the case of this article, Howard has yet to show basis that the amateur construction he created is (a)in fact, a logo, and (b)that his creation satisfies the need for accuracy. In the case of this article, it would have been very simple to realize that of all Ateneo marks and images, the most constant image which has appeared on practically all Ateneo jerseys is the Shield of Loyola, taken either on its own, or in the context of the Ateneo seal, of which the official (full-color) version has already been uploaded to Wikipedia and is used in numerous articles." "With regard to the photograph, a reading of WP:FUC and WP:IUP show that reasonable use of an image even without the permission of its copyright holder is permitted, should there be an exhaustion of resourcefulness on the part of a person looking for a free image." In short, Howard's arguments have once again sidestepped addressing concerns with regard to reliability, being original research and not something with official basis, and even Wikipedia policy. Howard's contentions fail to persuade. Rmcsamson 16:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Bring it to WP:IFD and we'll take it from there. --Howard the Duck 01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not concerned with the deletion of the image. What I am against is its use in Ateneo articles like this one. But if there comes a time when there's a page on, say, Ateneo fan art, this image can actually be added.
Again: Howard's latest reply, which calls for a new discussion altogether where his discussion here has failed, fails to squarely address the following, which I reiterate: "However, Howard insists on the use of a product of his original research and creation, the accuracy of which is predicated on nothing more than his personal opinion of things being "patently the same," whatever that's supposed to mean. In doing so, Howard insists on a violation of WP:NOR, WP:VER, and since he has attempted to offer the possible that "it can be remedied anyway" even if Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dump of information, of WP:Not. His contention that "a logo will suffice" is tenuous, since he has failed to establish using sufficient basis that what he has created is, in fact, a team logo. It has been submitted that there is no official Ateneo team logo, and that the "logotype" he insists on using is not used by all Ateneo athletic teams, unlike those of teams whose materials (and Wikipedia articles) actually use an official logo. He has also failed to satisfy the burden incumbent on him, which is to prove his submission's accuracy. He instead posits that there is no free photo available, and that it will be "difficult" to produce. However, the burden is his to prove, as has been repeated again and again." "Simple prudence would have led a cautious Wikipedia user to consult Wikipedia:Logos, which states several policies: (a) "Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. For example, parodies of logos may be carefully used under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign"; (b)"Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. Common sense says that a logo displayed prominently on the logo owner's own website should be OK to use, because it represents their wishes about how the logo is presented on computer screens at typical screen resolutions. Avoid resizing a logo—try to find one that is a suitable size. Do not use a resized logo if it doesn't look good. Overly high-resolution versions of logos should be avoided, however, as they are less likely to be fair use." The policy denounces defaced logos. It also calls for reasonable diligence to ensure that the logos are accurate. In the case of this article, Howard has yet to show basis that the amateur construction he created is (a)in fact, a logo, and (b)that his creation satisfies the need for accuracy. In the case of this article, it would have been very simple to realize that of all Ateneo marks and images, the most constant image which has appeared on practically all Ateneo jerseys is the Shield of Loyola, taken either on its own, or in the context of the Ateneo seal, of which the official (full-color) version has already been uploaded to Wikipedia and is used in numerous articles." "With regard to the photograph, a reading of WP:FUC and WP:IUP show that reasonable use of an image even without the permission of its copyright holder is permitted, should there be an exhaustion of resourcefulness on the part of a person looking for a free image." In short, Howard, in seeking to change discussions, has once again attempted to sidestep addressing concerns with regard to reliability, original research and being not something with official basis, and even Wikipedia policy. Rmcsamson 02:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't say I'm changing discussions since and I'm not; I'm asking for you to put it to deletion since it is under fair use, ergo, it should be used in articles. Currently it's orphaned (not used), so a deletion template is tagged. SInce this RFC isn't having anybody else but the 2 of us, I suggest to bring it to IFD to have a wider audience. --Howard the Duck 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, deletion isn't my concern. Misuse is. That this RFC has only two participants is the least of my problems also.
Again: "Howard's latest reply, which calls for a new discussion altogether where his discussion here has failed, fails to squarely address the following, which I reiterate: "However, Howard insists on the use of a product of his original research and creation, the accuracy of which is predicated on nothing more than his personal opinion of things being "patently the same," whatever that's supposed to mean. In doing so, Howard insists on a violation of WP:NOR, WP:VER, and since he has attempted to offer the possible that "it can be remedied anyway" even if Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dump of information, of WP:Not. His contention that "a logo will suffice" is tenuous, since he has failed to establish using sufficient basis that what he has created is, in fact, a team logo. It has been submitted that there is no official Ateneo team logo, and that the "logotype" he insists on using is not used by all Ateneo athletic teams, unlike those of teams whose materials (and Wikipedia articles) actually use an official logo. He has also failed to satisfy the burden incumbent on him, which is to prove his submission's accuracy. He instead posits that there is no free photo available, and that it will be "difficult" to produce. However, the burden is his to prove, as has been repeated again and again." "Simple prudence would have led a cautious Wikipedia user to consult Wikipedia:Logos, which states several policies: (a) "Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. For example, parodies of logos may be carefully used under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign"; (b)"Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. Common sense says that a logo displayed prominently on the logo owner's own website should be OK to use, because it represents their wishes about how the logo is presented on computer screens at typical screen resolutions. Avoid resizing a logo—try to find one that is a suitable size. Do not use a resized logo if it doesn't look good. Overly high-resolution versions of logos should be avoided, however, as they are less likely to be fair use." The policy denounces defaced logos. It also calls for reasonable diligence to ensure that the logos are accurate. In the case of this article, Howard has yet to show basis that the amateur construction he created is (a)in fact, a logo, and (b)that his creation satisfies the need for accuracy. In the case of this article, it would have been very simple to realize that of all Ateneo marks and images, the most constant image which has appeared on practically all Ateneo jerseys is the Shield of Loyola, taken either on its own, or in the context of the Ateneo seal, of which the official (full-color) version has already been uploaded to Wikipedia and is used in numerous articles." "With regard to the photograph, a reading of WP:FUC and WP:IUP show that reasonable use of an image even without the permission of its copyright holder is permitted, should there be an exhaustion of resourcefulness on the part of a person looking for a free image." In short, Howard, in seeking to change discussions, has once again attempted to sidestep addressing concerns with regard to reliability, original research and being not something with official basis, and even Wikipedia policy."Rmcsamson 03:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
(Reindent) So how I'm changing the discussion? It's like bringing this up to a higher court, like from RTC to the CA. I'm saying you should nominate it for deletion since that could bring other opinions to the matter. And since it's not used in any articles, and we have an ongoing RFC, it can't be deleted by means of fair use orphanage.As far I'm concerned, I'm not at all persuaded how this violates all of those policies when it clearly has a source. It's not discriminate since it has a source, I might as well fill the image description page with sources. It's an adaptation, a derivative work. It's not a parody, a a defacement, etc. Or might changing the tag will work, just like what is found on the De La Salle logotypes?
Again, for the fifth time, I request for you to bring this to WP:IFD since:
  • This RFC is going nowhere. You proclaim its defaced etc., but you can't pinpoint what's defaced in the image.
  • IFD will bring this to a wider audience the RFC has failed to produce.
  • Two people can't have consensus, especially on cases like this one.
--Howard the Duck 03:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is being changed from one concerning a matter of misuse of a user-created image because it fails to meet standards, as outlined above, to one about the deletion of the image altogether. The difference is substantial.
As I have said, deletion isn't my concern. If you want to put it up on WP:IFD, go right ahead. Nor is it my problem that the RFC has failed to produce the audience size you wanted.
I have not categorically stated that the image is a defaced logo. Nor have I categorically called it a parody. I have simply quoted the entire policy paragraph.
Re the De La Salle logotypes, there are official standards for its use.
Again: "Howard's latest reply, which calls for a new discussion altogether where his discussion here has failed, fails to squarely address the following, which I reiterate: "However, Howard insists on the use of a product of his original research and creation, the accuracy of which is predicated on nothing more than his personal opinion of things being "patently the same," whatever that's supposed to mean. In doing so, Howard insists on a violation of WP:NOR, WP:VER, and since he has attempted to offer the possible that "it can be remedied anyway" even if Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dump of information, of WP:Not. His contention that "a logo will suffice" is tenuous, since he has failed to establish using sufficient basis that what he has created is, in fact, a team logo. It has been submitted that there is no official Ateneo team logo, and that the "logotype" he insists on using is not used by all Ateneo athletic teams, unlike those of teams whose materials (and Wikipedia articles) actually use an official logo. He has also failed to satisfy the burden incumbent on him, which is to prove his submission's accuracy. He instead posits that there is no free photo available, and that it will be "difficult" to produce. However, the burden is his to prove, as has been repeated again and again." "Simple prudence would have led a cautious Wikipedia user to consult Wikipedia:Logos, which states several policies: (a) "Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. For example, parodies of logos may be carefully used under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign"; (b)"Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. Common sense says that a logo displayed prominently on the logo owner's own website should be OK to use, because it represents their wishes about how the logo is presented on computer screens at typical screen resolutions. Avoid resizing a logo—try to find one that is a suitable size. Do not use a resized logo if it doesn't look good. Overly high-resolution versions of logos should be avoided, however, as they are less likely to be fair use." The policy denounces defaced logos. It also calls for reasonable diligence to ensure that the logos are accurate. In the case of this article, Howard has yet to show basis that the amateur construction he created is (a)in fact, a logo, and (b)that his creation satisfies the need for accuracy. In the case of this article, it would have been very simple to realize that of all Ateneo marks and images, the most constant image which has appeared on practically all Ateneo jerseys is the Shield of Loyola, taken either on its own, or in the context of the Ateneo seal, of which the official (full-color) version has already been uploaded to Wikipedia and is used in numerous articles." "With regard to the photograph, a reading of WP:FUC and WP:IUP show that reasonable use of an image even without the permission of its copyright holder is permitted, should there be an exhaustion of resourcefulness on the part of a person looking for a free image." In short, Howard, in seeking to change discussions, has once again attempted to sidestep addressing concerns with regard to reliability, original research and being not something with official basis, and even Wikipedia policy."Rmcsamson 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Japeth Aguilar[edit]

I am editing an article on Japeth Aguilar, a former Blue Eagle. I need help. Leoisiah (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

I have trimmed the various lists of "notable players". If the entries don't have articles, they're not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Moreover, there is a serious lack of sourcing, and in many cases those entries were BLP violations. Please add only people with articles on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)