Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Canis Lupus (talk | contribs) at 00:32, 10 January 2009 (→‎RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages: archive to make more usable). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Straw poll to see where we stand

Several ideas have been proposed above with many people claiming consensus. It doesn't appear so concrete to me, but I've been wrong before in my life (but just once...and that was in 1985 :-)) and I'd like to see where we stand on each proposed point of view, since people's views may have changed over the course of dicussion. In order to keep it simple, please add your just your support or opposition to the following and place any comment/discussion in the discussion section. Explanations/discussion of each principle are above. This is NOT necessarily binding, but if we have 60 people agreeing where one person disagrees, we have a clear consensus. If we have 6 people on each side, we clearly don't. If it is somewhere in between, it is somewhere in between.

I think I've notified everyone on this page. If I missed anyone, it was an oversight. Please notify them as well with a neutrally phrased message. — BQZip01 — talk 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a waste of time. I don't understand why this is still going on. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are lots of reasons. I'm waiting to specifically respond below but ratios for opposition are approximately 1:1 or greater, there clearly isn't a consensus (that doesn't mean either side is right or wrong, but merely that a consensus opinion does not exist). It also implies nothing directly about which actions should be taken or specific examples within these criteria. What should we do about extremely notable individual games [and of course what does "extremely notable" mean?], what about teams that have pictures of each year's team and should we use them [or are we trading one fair use image for another?], is there a preferred image to be used in certain conditions? etc. Please don't be so condescending and please use the sections below for discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 22:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will use this section for discussion when I am criticising your decision to start this poll. Alternatively, you're welcome to remove my comments from this section if you also remove your own- it's not fair that you're "allowed" to post here but that I am not. I'll leave the sections below for discussion of the logos. J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was a request, not a demand; WP:IAR applies...and seeing how this isn't even a "rule" it applies even more...
The only comments I had up here were to introduce the rationale of this straw poll and why I did it. I think it has been quite enlightening as have the discussions below each section. I think it illustrates the general feelings of people (no matter if you think others are right or wrong) on Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — talk 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussions below are essentially a rehashing of the discussions above. We spent 240kb discussing things above. There's little new below. We already were trying to determine consensus. We didn't need a straw poll to do so. This poll is repetitive and unneeded. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. We didn't need to have this entire page in the first place much as the same way we don't need Wikipedia to exist either. We didn't need to have a straw poll either. Yes, almost all of this is indeed a rehash of the upper page, but it is organized much better with each general issue and not scattered amongst 240KB. As has been demonstrated, there is a wide variety of opinions on the issues below and there is not yet a consensus on many of the issues presented here, despite claims to the contrary and actions based on those claims. — BQZip01 — talk 22:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove team logo images from individual game articles

Support

  1. Canis Lupus 23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Garion96 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. B (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ViperSnake151 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Sherool (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Geni 02:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Dynaflow babble 03:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Black Kite 07:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – PeeJay 09:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Nanonic (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cmadler (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Resolute 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Alf melmac 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Mr.Z-man 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. seresin ( ¡? )  04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. – Nurmsook! talk... 06:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Kusma (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. — Satori Son 17:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. — BQZip01 — talk 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TheMile (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bobak (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PassionoftheDamon (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Geologik (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 2008Olympianchitchat 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. VegaDark (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Falcorian (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CH52584 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. rspεεr (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. -- penubag  (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia should focus more on delivering information than worring about copyright no one cares about[reply]
  15. - auburnpilot talk 16:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. travb (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Strong oppose. As per penubag, self-proclaimed guardians of wikipedia, with little or no legal background whatsoever, need to spend more time contributing content to wikipedia, then wasting everyone's time trying to delete other editors hard work and contributions.[reply]
  17. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ↔NMajdan•talk 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Mastrchf (t/c) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rtr10 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Willking1979 (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tedmoseby (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul McDonald (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oren0 (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DHowell (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC) I don't believe they violate policy, but I'm not 100% they're needed here; though if the game logo itself incorporates the team logos, it should certainly be included.[reply]

Discussion

  • I think the "not open for discussion" option got forgotten. They fail NFC and the Foundation resolution, neither of which consensus may override, even were it to form. Going around in these continuous circles and holding meaningless votes will not change that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I call bullshit. The Foundation didn't make this rule, we did. The Foundation only required that we have a policy, and I have no patience for the practice of fabricating Foundation decisions in an attempt to shut down a discussion. Not to mention that declaring a policy immutable and immune to discussion is anti-Wiki, and the good people on the Foundation would be unlikely to do such a thing. rspεεr (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may call whatever you like, but you're fabricating a fabrication. The Foundation decision may be found at [1], and requires that use be minimal. It does allow logos, but using it once and linking it otherwise is the minimal manner in which to use logos. And Foundation policies are non-negotiable. Again, not because I say so, but because the Foundation hosts and runs this site. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That decision specifies that every site must have an EDP for their non-free content, and defines what an EDP has to do. You're taking your opinion on how to implement this resolution and treating it as equivalent. We can't change the resolution, but we can change our implementation of it. There isn't one interpretation that is set in stone. Other people have already questioned why we must read "minimal" as "once", because zero times is even more minimal than that. rspεεr (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Herein lies the problem with the argument "...using it once and linking it otherwise is the minimal manner in which to use logos." Is not policy! It just isn't. It is a prevailing attitude amongst some editors, but it isn't codified anywhere in policy or guideline. — BQZip01 — talk 06:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand the NFC and would normally be on the exclusion end of things, I can't imagine a policy more hostile to average readers and editors. We will find ourselves reverting dozens of editors who add the team logo in what they see as a reasonable edit. While this is not a compelling reason by itself, it should be considered in context. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, Protonk. Editors with insufficient experience to be familiar with Wikipedia policy are less likely to have the know-how and be comfortable with adding an image to a page. Besides, no one's asking you personally to remove these images. I'd be more likely to let someone who gets fired up about this sort of thing do it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • considered and delt with. Back when we were first cleaning up the copyright situation on en we ripped out a vast number of popular fair use images. We got by and eventualy people got used to it.Geni 14:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This policy is overly enforced by overly litigious people, which makes Wikipedia a more unpleasant place for no gain. Including two team logos on an article will not make us copyright criminals, so we have room to relax the policy, and we should. rspεεr (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy is not about something beeing illegal or not, it's about the core principles of the project itself, and to quote the Foundation policy "The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects.". There rely is not a lot of room to "relax the policy" as you put it. --Sherool (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't a proposal to circumvent, erode, or ignore the resolution. This is a proposal to make a very small change in the way we interpret it, in a way that still meets its guidelines and is more user-friendly. Our enforcement of the EDP right now gives the impression that supporting free content means you have to go through ridiculous contortions the moment anything non-free comes near. I don't think the ridiculous contortions advance our core principles. rspεεr (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acualy the "ridiculous contortions the moment anything non-free comes near" is pretty much a result of the US legal system. Free stuff is fairly easy (okey it isn't but wikipedia has people putting a lot of effort into hideing the complex stuff). Non free? Well in theory you should at least have a fairly complete understanding on US fair use statute law and a passing familarity with relivant caselaw (of course caselaw involveing sports team logos is going to be rather thin on the ground) before uploading anything.Geni 16:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a legal issue, please stop making it one. As has been said repeatedly, WP's legal counsel has said that there's likely not a legal problem with using non-free logos. Please make this about WP policy and do not speculate about legal issues that none of us fully understands. Oren0 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-minimal use, so certainly not a good precedent. Ideally, we shouldn't be using any non-free images at all. Sadly, we have some, and so the discussion "how many?" always pops up. "As little as possible" is the obvious answer. Kusma (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove team logo images from individual season articles

Support

  1. Canis Lupus 23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. B (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ViperSnake151 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sherool (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Geni 02:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Dynaflow babble 03:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Black Kite 07:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – PeeJay 09:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Nanonic (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Resolute 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Alf melmac 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Garion96 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mr.Z-man 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. seresin ( ¡? )  04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. – Nurmsook! talk... 06:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Kusma (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. howcheng {chat} 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. — BQZip01 — talk 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mastrchf (t/c) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TheMile (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bobak (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strikehold (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PassionoftheDamon (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Geologik (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Rtr10 (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 2008Olympianchitchat 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Falcorian (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Tedmoseby (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. CH52584 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Paul McDonald (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oren0 (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. -- penubag  (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Cmadler (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. - auburnpilot talk 16:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. ↔NMajdan•talk 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. DHowell (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Unless the logo was not actually the one used for that season—there certainly should be no copyrighted logos being used in any articles on U.S. team seasons before 1923.[reply]

Neutral

  1. VegaDark (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Willking1979 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • I dunno, B. Without a caption, a photo of a play or stadium doesn't have any meaning. Logos are specifically designed to have a direct association with these subjects. They don't need a caption or any other explanation to be associated with the subject. In addition, for seasons older than say 1995, it's going to be virtually impossible to find any sort of free-use alternative. If you can tell me where to find a free-use image for the 1947 Sun Bowl, I'll eat a shoe. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFCC however, basically has nothing to do with how good images look in a particular article, but how necessary they are and how they fit with Wikipedia's goals of quality and free content. Mr.Z-man 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely right. But logo usage does comply with NFCC. It's not reproducible by free content, we're repeating the use of a single or, (in the case of a changed logo), a limited number of images, and the use of a logo increases the understanding of the subject for a reader. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, logo usage does not automatically comply with NFCC. You only mention 3 or the criteria and only the first one is really universally true for non-free logos. Many organizations only have 1 main logo, so the "limited number" argument really doesn't work. We might be using 100% of the organization's logos when we use 1. Using a logo doesn't automatically increase readers' understanding, especially when the logo is just used in place of the name of the organization. Using the Boeing logo on the article for cheddar cheese wouldn't increase the reader's understanding of anything. Mr.Z-man 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He never said it automatically complied with anything. I think he meant (and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that logos in general on Wikipedia and those within the articles in question already have rationales to keep them regardless of where they are used. Using the Boeing logo for cheddar cheese is a straw man argument since cheese and Boeing have nothing in common whatsoever. However, you have interestingly, and probably unwittingly, brought up a perfect example outside of sports which may serve to illustrate the points many people are making here. Boeing's image is used for each of its divisions because each division still uses the corporate logo:
  • Okay, so it seems that subsidiaries are in pretty common practice elsewhere - so things like Texas Tech Red Raiders football would be analogous to that. However, season articles are more like individual company products, and we don't use the logo on Boeing 777. Game articles are about one-shot events, but we don't use Boeing's logo on articles such as 1977 Dan-Air Boeing 707 crash. If you want to view Boeing's logo usage as the ideal in Wikipedia, then you have a couple of !votes to change in this conversation... (ESkog)(Talk) 22:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is possible under Fair Use. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A team photo would be best of all, when we can find one. (With the exception of the current season, we should allow non-free team photos... it's not possible for me to go back in time and take a photo of my alma mater's 1988 football team.) When a sports team has had multiple logos over history, the logos should be on the seasons where it changed. — PyTom (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles are about the season, not a team. So use for identification alone is not apropriate. The team logo identifies the team organization as a whole, not each individial seasons (otherwise there would have been a new logo every season). As a rule a logo is also not nessesary for a reader to properly understand any information provided in these kinds of artiles either (with the possible rare exception if the apperance of the logo itself is subject to non-trivial coverage that can't be explained by text alone). --Sherool (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot the "not up for discussion" option again. I'm really intrigued; are people are going to use this straw poll to rewrite Foundation policy, or just to ignore it? And who's going to tell the Foundation? I'm looking forward to this. (And I really do need to register my amazement at the number of admins in the oppose column here). Black Kite 07:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't exaggerate. Nobody is proposing to rewrite the Foundation policy. This is an issue that is entirely within the English Wikipedia's discretion, and we will be in compliance with the Foundation's licensing resolution either way. On this issue, I don't even care, but I do care about inappropriately trying to shut down a discussion. rspεεr (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to be confused. If you allow this overuse of images, you are going to need to rewrite WP:NFCC, because currently it disallows it. At this point everyone else who has had images removed per WP:NFCC is going to replace them in their articles - after all, you're doing it, why shouldn't they? WP:NFCC will be a lame duck and ignored, and all the articles will be in direct contravention of Foundation policy. It really is that serious. Black Kite 11:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • *sigh*. Maybe the "number of admins in the oppose column" could tell you that they don't believe this is a violation of the foundation or of WP:NFCC. For the eight-millionth time, the foundation's licensing policy does not say, nor does it imply, that the use of logos should be minimized. The only hurdle here is NFCC, and again, for the eight-millionth time, whether use is "minimal" is a subjective matter that by definition can only be decided by community consensus. Which is more likely: 1) Several administrators know that this is a violation of unchangeable core Wikipedia policies but support it anyway because they really like sports; 2) These admins have never read or cannot comprehend these policies; 3) These admins believe that this use fits under policy because your interpretation of it is not the only correct one. Oren0 (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If those admins can provide a policy-solid reason why such overuse fits WP:NFCC then I'd be as happy as anyone else. Unfortunately, no-one, throughout the entire tedious re-hashing of all these arguments, has been able to do so. All we have seen is vague hand-waving and wikilawyering. I'm not going to be as presumptuous as to say that those admins "cannot comprehend those policies" but I'd certainly be confident that their interpretation is wrong. Black Kite 18:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • What strikes me as hand-waving is declaring any use you don't like to be "overuse". The Foundation did not resolve to ban "all uses of non-free content that are overuses according to Black Kite". The only way we can determine what an overuse is is through consensus. rspεεr (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is not up to me to prove overuse. It is up to those who wish to include multiple uses to prove that it isn't. So far, I don't see that. I'm quite happy to accept a good solid argument here, but all I see - as usual - is vagueness and attacking those who disagree. Black Kite 21:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're happy to accept a good solid argument? That is somewhat the change in perspective I was looking for. Previously, you were telling people making an argument that they were not allowed to, because the issue was "not up for discussion". Hopefully now you can argue the merits of your position, and your opposition can argue the merits of theirs, and nobody will resort to exaggerated claims about the Foundation to bludgeon their opposition into silence. rspεεr (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You appear to be confused, too. You're confusing two very different things. Do you see how "changing the implementation of the English Wikipedia's NFC policy" and "rewriting a Foundation resolution" are extremely different things? For example, the first is within the realm of community consensus, and the second is an absurd straw man that nobody is talking about? rspεεr (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you can't see how re-writing WP:NFCC to say that a particular niche case is exempt from it would be a slippery slope to rewriting Foundation policy, then I can't help you. Black Kite 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh no! The straw man is sliding down a slippery slope! Somebody catch it! rspεεr (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah, and sarcasm really helps us out here. Black Kite 20:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, I'll say it straight, then. Have you noticed that your entire argument is made of fallacies such as the straw man and the slippery slope? rspεεr (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, all I've noticed is that you haven't yet addressed how you're going to re-write WP:NFCC for one minor exception without it forming a precedent. At some point you're going to need to actually start answering the difficult questions, now would be a good time. Black Kite 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, the false assumptions in there include the words "you" (remember when I said I didn't care about this particular case), "rewrite" (all that's being discussed is the changing consensus on what constitutes minimal fair use), and "exception" (the proposal doesn't contradict any of the written NFCC). My main objection is to trying to shut down a valid discussion by claiming that every detail of the policy, including the current idiosyncratic standards for which uses are acceptable, were carved in stone by the Foundation. They weren't. rspεεr (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Fair points, but the problem remains that NFCC would have to be altered - and that's incredibly difficult - you only have to look at the raging argument about the inclusion of a seemingly unimportant clause in WP:NFCC#8 to see that. So making a huge change like this - and it is a huge change, because you'd one would completely have redefine this new definition of "minimal", and do it so in a completely watertight fashion - is going to be much harder. How is this new definition of "minimal" going to be written? Indeed, can you even use the word "minimal" when it's being redefined as something that clearly isn't minimal? How relevant to an article would an image have to be before it meets this new definition? It's nowhere near as simple as you've made it out to be. Black Kite 23:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent) This is probably moot, as there's clearly not a consensus developing anyway, but... As soon as you say "I interpret..." you define the problem. If such a change was to be made, the definition of "minimal" would have to be solidly defined in WP:NFCC - you can't just say "well, I was using this definition of minimal" if the word has multiple interpretations, because then there would be nothing to stop people saying "well, my definition is different to yours". Policies need to be tightly defined. Black Kite 07:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-minimal use, so certainly not a good precedent. Ideally, we shouldn't be using any non-free images at all. Sadly, we have some, and so the discussion "how many?" always pops up. "As little as possible" is the obvious answer. Kusma (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question for those opposing the use of logos here: If there were a free-licensed photograph of the team that had the team logo prominently displayed on their uniforms, would this be acceptable to you? DHowell (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I don't think would be an issue as long as the focus was on the team rather than the logo. We have plenty of other free photos of sports people with logos and advertising sponsorship visible in the photos and no-one has yet claimed them to be derivative works. Black Kite 10:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove team logo images from school sports team articles

Support

  1. B (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Alf melmac 18:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kusma (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. — BQZip01 — talk 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Canis Lupus 23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mastrchf (t/c) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TheMile (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bobak (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strikehold (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ViperSnake151 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. PassionoftheDamon (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Geologik (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Rtr10 (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 2008Olympianchitchat 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. — PyTom (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. VegaDark (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Falcorian (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Tedmoseby (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. CH52584 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Paul McDonald (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Dynaflow babble 03:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oren0 (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. – PeeJay 09:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Cmadler (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. - auburnpilot talk 16:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. DeMoN2009 16:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. matt91486 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. – Nurmsook! talk... 06:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. ↔NMajdan•talk 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. DHowell (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Isn't this the use that was "presumed" to be "not in question"?[reply]
  36. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Willking1979 (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • This doesn't seem to add much to the above discussion, other than canvassing a lot of the college football project folks again. Remember that, even if something looks like a vote, Wikipedia's policies are not up to a majority vote... (ESkog)(Talk) 23:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eskog. Please read WP:VOTE. I specifically stated that this is NOT a vote, but simply a poll to see where we stand. Its outcome is not binding on anyone or anything.
If you are going to accuse me of canvassing, please understand what you are accusing me of. I have done NOTHING of the sort and request you strike said accusation. — BQZip01 — talk 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, except perhaps the first user who broadcast messages to the members of the involved WikiProject (and those messages were very misleading and skewed). However, by posting a message to everyone who was brought here by those comments, the effect is to generate the same skewed subset of editors. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...canvassing a lot of the college football project folks again." Hard to see how you aren't accusing me of something. Notifying members of a WikiProject about something that will affect a large number of articles under said WikiProject isn't canvassing in the first place. — BQZip01 — talk 06:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to take every comment by anyone who disagrees with you as a personal attack, there's nothing I can do to help you. I have explained, above, why the original problematic canvassing by biased editors would cause any re-notification to also be problematic, even if that canvassing was done in good faith. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ESKog, please stop trying to distort things...again. The only users with whom I have a personal issue with are you and Hammersoft. Many people have disagreed with me and many people will continue to do so. It's the American way! Personally, I have taken an oath to preserve such a society and "am prepared to give my life in their defense." I take no issue with disagreement. I do take issue with the tone presented by both of you. Condescension, demeaning others, and using false/distorted/out-of-context quotes and paraphrases of others violates WP:CIVIL. Please realize "canvass" is a loaded term on Wikipedia and implies wrongdoing. Informing groups for which massive changes to articles under their influence may occur is prudent and is not "canvassing", though I wish a notice had simply been put on the page. — BQZip01 — talk 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the straw poll is a good idea to see where we stand right now, which reading through the discussion is not really clear. In fact the only thing clear when reading through the discussion is that we are all just going in a giant circle multiple times. And for the record BQZip01's request for this straw poll was very neutral and the intent of the poll was made pretty clear. Rtr10 (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a straw poll a vote? Well, that depends on what your definition of duck is. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few of you need to look up the definition of straw poll. By definition it is a vote with nonbinding results, it was made pretty clear by BQZip01 that this was not a vote, just a poll to see where we stand. Not meant to be a resolution or an "alright there you have it, end of discussion" type deal. As stated above, I personally believe it is very helpful to be able to just look and see where things stand. Rtr10 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a swan a duck isn't accurate. :-) — BQZip01 — talk 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've already done this. I appreciate you taking the effort BQZ, but we ALREADY did this. Re-canvassing to vote again is counter productive. This is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a vote. Even if every editor here said "Hell yes it's ok to use a logo a thousand times over again!" it still violates core Foundation principles. Those principles can NOT be eroded, and no argument can be made that using a logo several hundred times counts as "minimal" use. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have to agree with Hammersoft - there is no way this is justifiable under NFCC#3 for minimal use (which applies to the total sum of all image use on WP, not just per article), and yet to show a valid justification for NFCC#8. The fact that only the college football team editors are seeking this despite no other sport using it implies they are in the minority in the first place in this !vote. --MASEM 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tch! You can't argue principle on your side and then wave off the college football guys as only fighting on the basis of a narrow issue. You know full well that whatever happens will be used by the "winning" side to have their way with the wiki - so there's principle on both sides. And as for #8 - flimsy. Just waaay too subjective. Wiggy! (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nowhere does it say that NFCC#3 applies to the total sum of all images on WP: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." These articles only use one item each. 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." Those that are in favor if inclusion feel that they significantly identify the subject if the article in manner that their exclusion would detrimentally affect the reader's understanding. That's what this whole discussion is about: whether the use of these logos meet these criteria. Those that are opposed act as if those that are in favor are arguing something else. Quit being so insulting. If they do meet these criteria, then they are NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT in violation of core Foundation principles.--2008Olympianchitchat 03:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • One use of the team's logo on their non-season page is exactly the case that replaces multiple uses on their season pages per #3. Otherwise, your arguemen basically allows for using non-free images everyone once one use has been justified. This is obviously not acceptable for a free content encyclopedia. The fact that every other professional sports team season page works without the team logo implies that #8 is not met by these images as well. If we didn't have a free content mission, I wouldn't be questioning the use of these images, but these are simply incompatible with the free content goals, regardless of what consensus may say. --MASEM 03:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the results aren't binding. <cough> <cough> (and before I get reported for another Wikiquette violation that never happened, I'm not referring to any one person) Watch what happens when each point has a majority in favor of retention. I will guarantee that the people who want to use images in this way will point to this and claim they are right and supported by consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you just make up your own policy out of thin air, so I wouldn't be trash talking contributing editors if I were you. And no real policy has changed, so why anyone would be referring to this right now is odd. Rtr10 (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to make sure I got this clear, while there is a lot of people supporting keeping "team logo images from school sports team articles" does this mean we will keep the logo of team X on the article of X school? I ask because I don't think it is a good idea to use this and support the putting of logo Y, Z, A, B, etc on the article about team X. Also, for the other sports, keep in mind that there might be logos of the specific sport or we can use free photos if possible. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft, 31-2 is a consensus no matter how you count it. Oren0 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This here is why votes really aren't all that informative, as this is not a simple "yes/no" issue in all cases. Use in a sports team article is acceptable if and only if there is no parent article containing the logo that could be linked to. Many schools have a single name and logo for all their sports organizations. If that is the case, there is generally a parent article containing the main organization (see for example Auburn Tigers). In that case, each individual team article would link to the parent, and the parent would have the logo. On the other hand, some sports teams may have their own unique logos specific to that team. In that case, it would be acceptable to use such a logo in the team article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that "this is an okay use" was in response to logos on team pages, not the use of straw polls. ViperSnake151 16:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any case where there's a sport article (e.g. Auburn Tigers football) but not a school athletics article (Auburn Tigers). If such a case exists, it is in the extreme minority. Oren0 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone made the comment that only college football guys are worried about this; this is not really true, just that other applicable wikiprojects were never informed about the debate in general. I think it's completely acceptable to use images in team articles, because they are all essentially expanded subpages of the main athletic team. This does not violate any policy and qualifies under fair use. As for seasons and games, I personally could care less, but could see both sides of it. I think teams in general are pretty clearly subpages. It seems inherently obvious to me that Minnesota Golden Gophers men's basketball is a subpage of Minnesota Golden Gophers. matt91486 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seraphimblade has it right here. This is a pointless "vote" because some of these uses are acceptable and some aren't. You can't vaguely wave an "every use is OK" magic wand over this one. Black Kite 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A big part of the problem with this is that there are too many players who think they need to "win". There are extreme interpretations on both sides and no genuine spirit of compromise. The only reason I'm here is that as an average, reasonable user I'm tired of having to defend against extreme interpretations that unremittingly identify non-free content of any sort as "bad" and insist that minimal always means "zero" (or damn near) and persistent efforts to unreasonably extend that approach. This "vote" is just an expression of frustration by both sides. Wiggy! (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The one use that needs to be addressed most significantly is the use of the team logo on their season pages. There is no compromise position for this - either they can be used or they can't be. True, there are other aspects of team logo usage that can be discussed (the use of a logo shared by all a school's teams on each team's page, for example, seems to be acceptable), but the one that represents 10,000s of images is the per-season use. --MASEM 18:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "the one that represents 10,000s of images is the per-season use" - I'm not sure why these numbers keep going up at such rates. Next time I check we'll be talking about a million articles (perhaps I'm speaking too soon based on the discussion below). Template:NCAATeamSeason is used in pretty much every "team/year" article we're talking about and it's used in about 1200 articles. This season, there are ~120 college football articles and ~70 college basketball articles. There are not, nor will there likely ever be, anywhere near 10,000 articles of this type. Oren0 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the consensus determines that the logos are fine to use for college football and basketball season, then there is no barrier for any other professional or college sport team-by-season article to use those logos, and in fact will likely encourage them to be added. Yes, the current issue is limited to college football, but this is deciding on a whole class of articles. --MASEM 06:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Never mind sport, you would effectively be saying that any logo could be used on any article that's linked to the main subject (for example, that a manufacturer's logo could be used on every article about one of their products). Black Kite 07:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Masem: That 1200 figure I quoted is for all college sports. There are about 300 NBA seasons and about 750 MLB seasons, for example. The numbers don't balloon nearly as much as you think. @Black Kite: Please mind both the slippery slope and the ever-recurring strawman. iPod will never need the Apple logo because it has its own logo, just like roughly every product on the globe. On the contrary, the 2008 Michigan Wolverines football team also has a logo, it just happens to be the same as the logo for the Michigan Wolverines. Oren0 (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • To paraphrase yourself below, just calling something a strawman doesn't make it so. Altering the basic method by which we use non-free logos would have a knock-on effect on other articles. Black Kite 07:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Remember that the US is not the only place in the world with significant professional/collegiate sports. International football, rugby, etc, would all be fall out of this use. And while some products will have their own logo, people will still be able to use this to include them on those products (the issue we had with the Trinity Broadcasting Network affiliates) and use them on any product that doesn't have a logo. It is a door that cannot be opened. --MASEM 14:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-free images shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. The policies currently probably allow this use, but it is still a bad idea. Kusma (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current policies clearly allow this within specific limits, so an argument that boils down to no images is not rooted in policy and just gives the wheel another spin. Wiggy! (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course. My vote is about what I think should be done, not about how to interpret the current policy. Current policy clearly allows the use of non-free logos in the main article about the organisation represented by the logo. Kusma (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use logos on each game page: Scale issue

I want to break out this discussion point because it's quite significant and shows a very serious scale issue. WikiProject College Football claims all college football games for each season are notable. They also claim putting the team's sports logos on each game page is acceptable. This creates a real scale of use issue that dwarfs the per season use. Please discuss. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd see that the individual game articles using general sports team logos is more of a problem than seasons. I think bowl games using the bowl logos is fine, but I think that's pushing it further. Seasons are probably a stretch as well. I think that rivalries and general team articles would be a good compromise, but that's me personally. matt91486 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • <STUNNED AWE> So the same project that wants to include the logos on every game article wants to have articles on every game played in college football??? Thats' 100,000 logo uses. What about college basketball? There's 300+ teams in Division 1 for that. Let's say it's 200 teams, 50 seasons, 25 games a season, divide by two. That's another 125,000 articles. 250,000 logo uses. 350,000 already. Soccer? Women's basketball? Every varsity sport? We'll clear a million fair use image uses easy. Where does this madness end? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-starter. No way are individual regular season games individually notable, and would fail at AfD every time. This is a really nice article, but it's individually non-notable subject means it shouldn't really exist. There are a lot of sources, but that's the nature of sport - I could probably find ten sources on the game my local football (soccer) team played last weekend, and they're not even a professional club. Black Kite 21:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...there are many individual games which are notable in and of themselves, not to mention Wikipedia's notability standards (which many college football games have in spades). National Championships, bowl games, rivalry games, are all notable games, but when you throw in Wikipedia's standards, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", most football games meet the criteria for an article. It really is that simple. That you personally don't feel the game is notable is irrelevant. The particular game cited was between #1 and #2 and was extremely relevant that year since the winner likely (and did) play for the national championship. If you find that a paper has written about your local soccer team, that's great, but it isn't notable because no one else wrote about it ("reliable sources"). If newspapers and sports journals wrote all about the game and it was featured on ESPN, I would say it was indeed notable.
  • "Obviously, you are not a golfer."-The Dude, The Big Lebowski Bad choice of games to pick on. I disagree that every NCAA and NAIA regular-season game is notable. But this game was covered in every sports page in the nation, and I don't just mean in a run-down of sports boxscores, I mean with a separate article. This game is a perfect example of what should be required to be a notable game.--2008Olympianchitchat 07:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, this RfC is about image use, not whether or not certain articles should exist or not per notability standards. You are welcome to start an RfC about that or discuss it on the WP:N talk page (probably a better place for it, IMHO), but this issue is quite a bit of a sidetrack, though not completely unrelated. I will be happy to discuss this further, but I think we should go somewhere else to talk about it. — BQZip01 — talk 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole section is a strawman. Nobody is suggesting that there would be an article on every game. Hell, only about 1/4 of D1 college basketball teams have articles about this season. The actual number of game articles we're likely to see here is on the order of 30 per season for football (because of bowls) and 10 per season for all other college sports combined. Oren0 (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, why does Wikipedia:CFBGAME#Single_Games exist? Not only does it claim notability for every regular season game, but suggests arguments to be used in deletion discussions for those articles (ones which show a poor understanding of WP:N and WP:NOT, but still). It's only today that BQZ has added the sentence "Realize that every article must still meet WP:N notability standards." to it... Black Kite 08:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Black Kite, not just in this response but in earlier ones. An entire class of usage is being decided here, not just college football. Professional hockey, football (American), football (don't forget all those world cup games either), basketball, olympic team sports, baseball, Canadian football, ...the list goes on for a long, long time. Regardless of how one wants to minimize the numbers, the reality is we're talking about hundreds of thousands of articles here, with associated fair use image use. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking about a few thousand articles, not a hundred times more than that. Please stop exaggerating. — BQZip01 — talk 22:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with the "must meet WP:N standards" doesn't change anything - nearly every major college football game with teams in the BCS running is covered by sources - not necessary in a fashion to describe why they're notable, just to report on the game. WP:N doesn't make that distinction, only WP:NOT#NEWS assists here. But this thread is seriously off track - if further discussion on game notability is needed, lets start something at WT:N. --MASEM 14:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOT#IINFO is also relevant. But yeah, WT:N. Black Kite 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. Multiply as many numbers together as you want but that doesn't change the fact that there are currently 62 regular season games under Category:College football games and most of them are extraordinary (championship games, The Miracle at Michigan, etc.). Oren0 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought... if you are interested in discussing the notability of college football games, why not go to the college football notability essay? That would be a good place to discuss, hm?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bots are evil...

<Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Bots_are_evil...>

Straw Poll Results

Ok, I think we've given this straw poll a decent 3 day run. Here are the results of this nonbinding straw poll (Support/Oppose/Neutral) as of 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

Remove team logo images from individual game articles (26/18/8)
Approximately a (notable) 3:2 ratio of support with a strong neutral contingent. Ultimately, I would say we don't yet have consensus on the subject (not even a supermajority), but it is notable that the support is a decent majority. Phrasing on a guideline (see below) could bump this into a clearer consensus.
Remove team logo images from individual season articles (23/26/2)
Approximately a 1:1 ratio of of support/opposition favoring opposition ultimately showing no consensus on the matter.
Remove team logo images from school sports team articles (4/36/2)
Approximately 9:1 ratio of opposition. I was personally quite surprised this poll turned out so heavily against the basic premise. I think everyone will agree this idea comes the closest to finding consensus on any particular issue raised here.
The poll is not "closed" in any way and neither is discussion on the matter. Feel free to continue such discussion and/or add to the !votes. — BQZip01 — talk 23:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, now what?!?

So, where do we go from here? We've had a good discussion with many valid points being made. I think the best thing we can do as a group is to come up with some guidelines to help guide users in proper image use within sporting articles. I think if we can come up with phrasing that the good majority of people like, we can come up with an effective guideline by which we can all work within. There's also no reason that we can't come up with a partial solution now and figure out the rest later.

Please read WP:VOTE and understand that this is not a vote, it is merely a format in which we can more clearly express views and show whether or not certain phrasing for a guideline has consensus support. This entire format is completely useless without discussion.

To that end, here are my suggestions starting with the least contentious to the most contentious. If your don't like it or feel you have a better idea on how to phrase it, feel free to add your own suggestions using the same format (for consistency). For the sake of brevity and simplicity, please confine comments/discussion to the "discussion" section and update the tallies when you post a !vote. I request that only a support or opposition !vote be recorded. You do not need to record an opinion on the matter to participate in the discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 23:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the format in parenthesis below is (Support/Oppose) so we can all see a basic summary of support/opposition in the table of contents for simplcity (those who comment but do not record opposition or support will be assumed to be neutral). Sorry, I wasn't clearer about that. — BQZip01 — talk 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team logo images on sports team articles

Team Article Option 1 (1/0)

Submitted by — BQZip01 — talk

The preferred lead image for a sports team is the team's current logo (example). Images of current players are not preferred as the members can change and the image may quickly become dated (this does not preclude use of the image in the article itself). If a school has a specific logo for a sport (example), it is preferred to use that image. In the absence of a specific sport's logo, the athletic department logo may be used (example). If such an image is copyrighted or trademarked (as most are), a fair use rationale must be included for each iteration.
Support
  1. — BQZip01 — talk 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Team logo images on individual season articles

Season Article Option 1 (1/0)

Submitted by — BQZip01 — talk

The preferred lead image for a sports team season is the team photo for the associated season. If a team photo is not available, an image from the season is preferred. If these options are not available, use the sport's logo for that school (preferred) or the school's athletics logo. If such an image is copyrighted or trademarked (as most are), a fair use rationale must be included for each iteration.
Support
  1. — BQZip01 — talk 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Many of these images are copyrighted and higher resolution images for larger teams (enough to tell players apart) may not be able to meet fair use criteria (namely low-res) and still show anything of significance. Additionally a photo during the season may not be appropriate or representative of the season. — BQZip01 — talk 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season Article Option 2 (1/0)

Submitted by — BQZip01 — talk

The preferred lead image for a sports team season is the team photo. If a team photo is not available, use the sport's logo for that school (preferred) or the school's athletics logo. If such an image is copyrighted or trademarked (as most are), a fair use rationale must be included for each iteration.
Support
  1. — BQZip01 — talk 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Many of these images are copyrighted and higher resolution images for larger teams (enough to tell players apart) may not be able to meet fair use criteria (namely low-res). — BQZip01 — talk 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season Article Option 3 (1/0)

Submitted by — BQZip01 — talk

The preferred lead image for a sports team season is the sport's logo for that school (preferred) or the school's athletics logo. If such an image is copyrighted or trademarked (as most are), a fair use rationale must be included for each iteration.
Support

— BQZip01 — talk 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Discussion

Team logo images on individual game articles

Game Article Option 1 (1/0)

Submitted by — BQZip01 — talk

The preferred lead image for a sporting event is that event's logo. Should the contest be an annual event with differing teams each year, the event's logo should be followed by the logos of the visiting team and then the home team to make it clear which teams played in the athletic event. If the event does not have a logo, the lead image should be the logos of each of the teams in the previously specified order. If any such images are copyrighted or trademarked (as most are), a fair use rationale must be included for each iteration.
Support
  1. — BQZip01 — talk 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. It is not necessary to use the teams' logos to "make it clear which teams played in the athletic event". The same encyclopedic purpose can be served by the use of teams' names as text. NFCC criterion 1 - Replaceablity. CIreland (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Game Article Option 2 (1/0)

Submitted by — BQZip01 — talk

The preferred lead image for a sporting event is that event's logo. If the event does not have a logo, the lead image should be the logos of the visiting team and then the home team to make it clear which teams played in the athletic event. If any such images are copyrighted or trademarked (as most are), a fair use rationale must be included for each iteration.
Support
  1. — BQZip01 — talk 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. It is not necessary to use the teams' logos to "make it clear which teams played in the athletic event". The same encyclopedic purpose can be served by the use of teams' names as text. NFCC criterion 1 - Replaceablity. CIreland (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Game Article Option 3 (1/0)

Submitted by — BQZip01 — talk

The preferred lead image for a sporting event is that event's logo. Another option is an image of the event itself. If the event does not have a logo, the lead image should be the logos of the visiting team and then the home team to make it clear which teams played in the athletic event. If any such images are copyrighted or trademarked (as most are), a fair use rationale must be included for each iteration.
Support
  1. — BQZip01 — talk 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. It is not necessary to use the teams' logos to "make it clear which teams played in the athletic event". The same encyclopedic purpose can be served by the use of teams' names as text. NFCC criterion 1 - Replaceablity. CIreland (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Major drawback: A photo during the game may not be appropriate or representative. — BQZip01 — talk 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos&oldid=263082671"