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 05:59, 12 January 2009 (→Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages

Template:RFCpolicy Note that this discussion has also been added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex. Oren0 (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the recent previous discussion for more details. Prior discussions from August of 2006 and October of 2007 are also available.

It has been found that for several college football articles that the team logo(s) are being used on, generally, two classes of articles:

The use of the logos are not limited to these two (for example, The University of Texas Longhorn Band using the Longhorn logo), but the bulk of the images in question fall into the first two categories.

It is presumed that the logo is appropriate on the articles that are directly about the team, e.g. USC Trojans football, and thus these are not in question.

As a result, there are some team logos that are being used more than 100 times across the various per-year and rivalry pages. There is an issue that some of these uses lack fair-use rationales for specific pages, but this is a solvable aspect and not a question in this RFC.

Instead, the RFC is seeking more input on whether the use of these logos in these articles are appropriate per the non-free content policy. Those that are concerned about their use cite three primary aspects of the NFC policy:

  • WP:NFC#1, the name of the team in text is a free content replacement for the logo image that conveys the same meaning.
  • WP:NFC#3a, Minimal use - the reuse of the same logo 100+ times cannot be considered minimal use
  • WP:NFC#8, Significance - the logos are only used to help identify the teams but otherwise receive no other treatment in the article, and thus do not serve to increase the reader's understanding.

These users also point out that the logos are not reused for similar purposes for other sports (such as professional football, baseball, or the like). Also, a recent case involving the logo for the Trinity Broadcasting Network had the logo removed from all the networks subsidiaries (100+ uses) for similar concerns.

Those that wish to retain the logos note that their rationales are complete (barring the technical note above), that logos are an allowance per the WP:NFC policy, and that they are significant for the page for helping the reader identify the team(s) the page is about.

The discussion with involved parties has come to an impasse, thus this RFC seeks wider input to resolve the issue. The question that is asked is:

Is the use of the non-free logo of a sports team on an article that significantly involves the team (such as an article about a single season for the team, or a team's rivalry with another team) but otherwise not the article about the team an appropriate use of the logo per our non-free content policy?

Please provide your response and comments below.

Addendum: There is no legal question in regards to these images: if we were exceeding fair use allowances by US law or being sued by the copyright owner of the logos, Mike Godwin (WP's lawyer) would have made this clear. Thus, the use of such images being legal or illegal is not a question to be considered here. The focus is on the images in conjunction with non-free criteria. --MASEM 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: the logos are permissible

Please note - if you were canvassed to add your opinion here by means such as this, please read WP:NFCC, especially WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 to ensure you know what you are commenting on

  • Support. While I understand that the goal is to avoid free-use images whenever possible, in these cases, no image has the visual connection with the subject that a logo does. Their use in season articles and the like does not constitute advertising, and because they are the image most commonly associated with the subject, their status as fair-use images should not deter their use in a justified and sparse manner. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly support. I realize I am relatively liberal on this issue, but generally I look at each article individually and ask what is the most appropriate way to visually represent the key thing (or things) being discussed. For something like an article on the sports team of a particular year, that is often (but not always) through the use of a logo. Similarly for rivalries and key games, I would imagine team logos are often the best visual representation unless their is more suitable imagery or iconography associated with that specific event. If that leads to a particular icon appearing in 100 articles, then so be it. That doesn't bother me so long as consensus can agree that the icon is appropriate to each article taken individually and considered in isolation. I have always considered the "minimal use" rule as applying to the amount of non-free content used per article, and don't consider the question of how many articles it is used in to be relevant. Or put another way, I believe these issues should be handled on a case-by-case basis and not through blanket rules about how many articles can use an image or whether subtopics (e.g. year articles, rivalries, etc.) can use the same identifying images as the parent. Dragons flight (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Too much rule creep happening. Above anything else, I'm afraid that the outcome of an oppose here would simply be that a small group of POV editors would take the decision as license and use it to beat down everyone else. I'm happy to wander around here and quietly do my thing inside the rules as best I can, but I am extremely tired of having to face down zealots. Wiggy! (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, rules creep would be to allow a specific type of non-free image in a specific type of article, which is what this RfC seems to be about. If we don't want rules creep, the articles should be treated like, well, every other article on the encyclopedia and have the images removed. J Milburn (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified Support This is more of a question of what the guidelines should say more than what they do say - it may be time to revise the guidelines if the results of this discussion conflict with the current guideline, as consensus can change. When it comes to using logos to identify entities on article pages, my "what I would do in the absence of established consensus" rule of thumb: 1) is it legally permitted? (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy) 2) is it helpful to the understanding of the article, and 3) does it come across as advertising or otherwise make the article or entire project less encyclopedic? If the answers are yes, yes, and no, then I'm generally for it. #3 is the big one. I'd say if an article has more than 2 team logos, it's probably violating this. This means articles like "1999 team" or articles about a particular match are probably okay, but not articles about entire leagues or lists of winners of a championship over time. A comparison would be with national flags in some other sports-related articles, with the major exception that national flags don't present legal issues and do not come across as a commercial advertisement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC) updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish we would've split this into whether they're acceptable for seasons and whether they're acceptable for other things. As it stands, Support the use of logos in individual team seasons, neutral on the inclusion in rivalries. Oren0 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The question being asked is Is the use of the non-free logo of a sports team on an article that significantly involves the team (such as an article about a single season for the team, or a team's rivalry with another team) but otherwise not the article about the team an appropriate use of the logo per our non-free content policy? Yes, definitely. A valid Ole Miss logo with a valid Fair Use Rationale, as an example, would be just as appropriate to Ole Miss Rebels football, 2008 Ole Miss Rebels football team, 2009 Cotton Bowl and Ole Miss - Mississippi State rivalry (all articles featuring Ole Miss football) as it would be to Ole Miss Rebels (the main Ole Miss sports article). Why? Obvious. An Ole Miss logo on an article about quantum physics? Of course not. This whole support/oppose thing is ridiculous since it's so obvious but since it's here, there you go. Support fully the inclusion of non-free logos of sports teams in articles that significantly involves the teams. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 20:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see where a free alternative could be used to replace a logo; we can't just go out and make one; that would be the same thing as just using the original. I don't see where text is itself a valid alternative, I don't see where if its allowed in the main article about the team, it would then be arbitrarily disallowed in places where the team needs identification elsewhere at Wikipedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis of common sense- If an article includes the team in a reasonable manner, I.E. the team page or a rivalry page, it should be included. Rather non-concerned with season pages as of now. Mastrchf (t/c) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I would like to first point out that we are way more conservative then we need to be. That said, a number of the logos we use are not copyrightable or already in the public domain. Arizona_Cardinals, for example, has used the same logo for long enough for it to have falling in the public domain. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The point here is wether the use of logos that are non-free on every article a team is mentioned is apropriate per the policy. That some logos are not copyrighted is irrelevant here since public domain logos are not affected by this policy. Assuming that is that it is actualy identified as public domain along adequate sources/information to back up the claim that it's copyright have explired or never existed in the first place naturaly (this is importnat because while no team is likely to complain over fair use of their logo they might object to a unfounded claim that they have no copyright to their logo). All the logos in the article you point out is tagged as non-free as far as I can tell for example. --Sherool (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current standard and practices do not violate current policy. WP:NFC#1- As stated in every single rationale I have ever seen in the College Football Project the use of the logo cannot be replaced with free content that adequately conveys the same message. WP:NFC#3a- This policy refers to the use of multipe images, not how many times an image is used. WP:NFC#8- Each rationale clearly states the significance of each logo. It pretty clearly increases readers' understanding of the topic. As stated in the policy. This has all become overblown and a few specific users have went way over board and have totally forgotten to use common sense. Rtr10 (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no conflict with the way WP policy currently is and the use of these types of logos as long as it is a proper article and there is a proper image justification used for each page that it is present on. In addition, these images provide a great addition to many pages and the efforts of wikipedia would overall be set back if it were to disallow them. I also agree with what many of the supporters have stated above me. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassed !vote ([1]).
  • Support strongly – There is no legal, moral, or policy issue here. It's that simple. As for the allegation of "overuse": It is either appropriately used, or it is inappropriately used. And it is either acceptable to use them, or it is unacceptable to use them. Using these images once, to give a strong (and irreplaceable) visual cue, on a directly related article is appropriate (page count is patently, and ridiculously irrelevant – of course the University of Texas athletics logo is going to see more use on articles than, say, Wesleyan, UT is more notable in the field of sports!). The fundamental question is "Are non-free images appropriate for any purpose on Wikipedia?" Because either they have one, or they do not, and frequency of use is wholly irrelevant. Strikehold (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassed !vote ([2]).
I think not. I was directed here because I am a contributor in an affected area to this discussion. I clearly have addressed the issues at hand here. And what happened to "it's not a vote"? Strikehold (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no legal issue in play here. While the goal is to make Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, the fact that we allow non-free images means we are going to have them. Anyone who wishes to change that consensus is welcome to do so, but that is not the issue at hand. These logos are used for the purposes of identification and are being used appropriately for the subject matter in which they relate. The quantity of use is irrelevant as long as the use is appropriate and is done IAW policy. If the images are being used on a person's user page, that isn't appropriate. If the logo is being used on the football team's annual page, there is no reason it can't be used each year, especially if the logo changes. — BQZip01 — talk 06:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As for the use of logos in rivalry articles and specific-game articles, as I have pointed out before, the head-to-head juxtaposition of logos or helmets between two opposing teams has reached a level in our society to become an expression in and of itself. Just see the myriad of individual Bowl logos that feature both teams' helmets or any episode of ESPN Gameday to see how common this type of juxtaposition has become, conveying a meaning that fulfills what is asked of by NFCC#8. As for the use in specific-season articles, considering that the logo and/or helmet can change over time--many schools have changed their logos/helmets several times--I think that a concrete message that is not adequately conveyed by words is also expressed by such fair-use images in these articles as well.--2008Olympianchitchat 07:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Come on people, use some freakin common sense. The current system in place does not break any policy and has been the standard for as long as I can remember. Just don't see what the issue is here. Do you people have nothing better to do than sit around and rile up people who actually contribute real content to Wiki? As one of my favorite commercial's say "Come on man, it's the holidays!" RammaJammaYellaHamma (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This whole issue has taken wikilawyering to the extreme. If it's ok to use an fair-use image in one article, it's ok to use it in 100 articles or 1,000 articles if there's a reasonable reason why it should be there. There is absolutely no reason why the discussion should have gotten this far. Common sense, people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CH52584 (talk • contribs)
  • Canvassed !vote ([3]).
  • Support per Allstar, Jayron32, etc. - One other thing to think about is the common sense aspect for this. These are sports teams, THEY WANT THEIR LOGO ON OUR ARTICLES! The main reason for us having to come up with fair use rationales is so we won't get sued if someone complains and asks us to take it down, and we refuse. This, frankly, will never happen for a sports team. They want us to write about them. They want us to write about seasons they have had, or rivalries. They want their logo on these pages for brand recognition. We could probably put the logos on each individual player's page without any complaints. Was this discussion prompted by an actual fair use complaint? I highly doubt it. VegaDark (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • VegaDark, you are an administrator and should know better. We restrict nonfree content far more than the law requires, not because we're going to get sued, but because this is a free content project. We don't allow nonfree content anywhere the law would permit it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say it was the only reason we have fair use rationales, just the main one. And I don't think the goal of having a 100% free content project should overshadow the quality of the encyclopedia, which IMO is exactly what restricting this is doing. Personally, I would go to the extent of what the law allows in terms of images, or at least close to it. VegaDark (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ammendum: I think we need to balance the goal of having free content with the bounds of what the law allows. Do I think we need to have the logo on every season page? Not really. I don't think it should be restricted to just the main Oregon State Beavers page and not allowing it on, say Oregon State Beavers baseball, though. It seemed like some were supporting that in my onceover of this discussion. I'd also probably support it on rivalry articles. I don't consider that excessive since there aren't nearly as many of those in comparison to season articles. Whatever happened to the idea that season articles were being replaced with decade articles, too? VegaDark (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per m:Resolution:Licensing Policy, which specifically allows us to "include identifying protected works such as logos". While that could perhaps be worded more clearly, it seems like it allows a logo to be used in an identifying role, which is what is happening in all the articles in question. Perhaps the NFCC should be updated to allow this usage. — PyTom (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: we've had appropriate push/pull before, resulting in the previous agreement that only one logo is appropriate per season page (and that's the team which the article's about). That made sense. This does not. I appear to be one of two IRL lawyers floating around in this discussion, and I don't see how this usage is excessive in any sense: every individual use has been appropriate, and has not taken advantage of the rule --it just happens that there are a lot of football seasons, that's how things are. Meanwhile, I can't even fathom how the use of fair use images would harm the addition of free content --the very notion is laughable: I've probably uploaded a hundred fair use logos, but that hasn't harmed my personal output. There were good intentions here, but they are ultimately flawed. Too bad. Perhaps we can get back to constructively working on Wikipedia? Nothing here, either way, will ultimately have any significant impact IRL, at all --it will only mess up this Project. --Bobak (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassed. ([4]).
  • True, but this user also contributed very much to the sections above without being canvassed. There's no reason to assume they wouldn't have contributed here as well. Oren0 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Black Kite has proved he doesn't actually pay attention to the conversation. As Oren0 pointed out, I'm an admin that's participated in this discussion already. Please try not to lose sight of the forest from these trees. Support Wikipedia, create and improve articles. --Bobak (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just pointing out which users were canvassed. However, since I'm assuming good faith (unlike some of those that have responded to me below), I'll remove those that contributed previously. How's that? Black Kite 21:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, this is not a !vote... unless the outcome is how certain people want it.. then it will become the be-all, end-all because more people voted, err, consensused it so! ;] - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 17:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveats though. The team logos are generally used across the board by a school, so if there is a standard one in use, it makes a degree of sense that it would appear in multiple articles. The caveats though:
    • If there is a specific variation for a particular team or organization, that logo should be used in the appropriate article. that is, if the marching band and basketball team have their own logos, then the football logo shouldn't be in the article even if the band only plays at the football games or the football logo is the default for the athletics department.
    • Rivalries... again, if there is a specific, "special", logo the schools use, then that should be used for the articles, not the team logos. This is especially true if the article on the rivalry expands beyond a single sport.
    • By year... I can see the preference for a team photo, I would even go so far as to say that a team for to should be incorporated into the article. But the team logo is still as valid. However, it should be the logo in use for that year/season. A 2009 logo may have very little relevance to a team that played in the 1940s.
    • Specific games... Again, if the game has it's own logo, that should be used. It may be reasonable for the team logos to be present, but not as primary images.
    • Fair use rationales should be updated to cover all articles that use a particular logo.
- J Greb (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I believe that the use of collegiate athletic logos are appropriate with regard to yearly team pages (i.e. 2008 Florida Gators football team) and rivalry pages (i.e. Michigan-Ohio State rivalry). With respect to yearly team pages, these articles cover the current incarnation of that sports team or organization. These articles are often the primary page most people read on Wikipedia, even more so than the main team pages. As others have stated, nothing sums up a visual representation of that team more than the sports logo. The goal of Wikipedia should not be strictly confined to free content, especially if a fair use image of appropriate low quality can enhance the quality of an article, as I believe logos do. As for rivalry pages, these pages are far less numerous and thus there is no threat of "spreading the logo around" too much. In fact, I don't think the argument of overuse applies because the image exists only in one location. The image may be applied to multiple pages, but it is the same exact image that exists in only one place in Wikipedia or Wikipedia commons. As long as the logo is of low resolution, there is no impropriety or legal issue. Finally, before removing the image from the page, the removing editor should make a good faith effort to contact another editor to give them a chance to find a free image to upload. Several editors have been removing images at their whim. I believe they are violating good-faith standards of Wikipedia and are assuming an impropriety that is really their own POV. By removing the image, they imposing their own POV upon other editors. This last point is especially important considering the issue is not yet resolved. Tedmoseby (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per above arguments. TheMile (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was asked to comment here, and 1) I likely would have made it over here anyway, and 2) I felt that being asked was appropriate. That said, I would personally support the use of team logos under the fair use rationale with team pages. Of course, because it is normally copyrighted material, then consensus... really doesn't matter. What matters would be where do we land on WP:COPYVIO or not. Of note, please remember that some college logos are not copyrighted (see the College Football project image essay).--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment With respect, you seem to be missing the point here. It is not enough that a logo is not a copyright violation (they rarenly would be unless there was a falce claim of free content release or something), it has to comply with every aspect of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Also the use of non-copyrighted logos are in no way shape or form in question here. The question beeing asked is simply if using a non-free logo on every page that involve the team but is not about the team can be said to comply with the non-free content policy, notably the parts about non-free content beeing used as little as possible and that is must significantly increase the understanding of the article. --Sherool (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Oh, I get the point. I was just reminding that what we're discussing here does not apply accross the board with all college football teams. Some, namely those who use logos that are not copyrighted, would be excluded. To clarify, I'm in favor of using the logos on any team-related article that makes sense (such as 2008 univeristy football team) but we should be careful of over-use (like team vs team rivalry or head coach of team).--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the logos are legally permissible so there is no problem there. The logos are allowed by the Foundation mission so there is no problem there either. The logos are not replaceable since there is no free-use alternative to a logo. Anything substantially similar would still be covered by the trademark/copyright holder. Anything sufficiently different would no longer be recognizable as a logo. They do not do anything to hamper adding free content. Take a look at some of the better-written articles such as 2005 Texas Longhorn football team or 2007 USC Trojans football team. They both have the relevant team logo and they both have plenty of free-use images as well. Also, they have passed the highly rigorous process to be considered Featured Articles. That would not have been possible if the logos violated any Foundation policy.
  • Support - Nowhere does the current NFC policy take into consideration usage across the whole project. It only applies on an article-by-article basis, so logo usage throughout many articles is irrelevant. Many hours will be spent arguing the many different facets of NFC that could be better spent working on articles until the Board/Foundation releases a concrete stance on NFCs. The Foundation needs to step up.↔NMajdan•talk 22:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I was asked to comment, but wasn't going to, until I grew tired of seeing a certain editor in the oppose section continuously pop up on my watchlist, revert warring to remove these images. As has been stated above, in more articulate and precise ways than I will attempt, having the logo of a sports team on an article about that sports team is a perfectly acceptable claim of fair use. - auburnpilot talk 03:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I won't go into my reasons why because (a) they've been expressed by others above (for example, JKBrooks85, Dragons flight, Jayron32); (b) I'm likely to slip into language some might perceive as a personal attack (e.g., "those who oppose the current usage appear to be enforcing political correctness on the rest of us"); & (c) reviewing the arguments in the "Oppose" column, a recurring theme is that they understand "minimal use" to mean at most use only one time in the entire English Wikipedia. If they believe that the wiggle-room provided by this wording is being abused, they should provide examples: there is no one-size-fits-all interpretation here. -- llywrch (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It is hard to identify some teams without logos, even in some images. DeMoN2009 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly support. I believe having a logo for a team on an article which contains significant information about the team to be a reasonable use of the logo. I do not believe such uses violate any policy, foundation resolutions, the mission statement, or copyright law. To address each of these:
    1. The use of logos as described here does not violate fair use copyright law. There appears to be a consensus here that such use falls squarely within legal fair use, so I don't think I need to address this issue any further than that.
    2. The use of logos as described here is not in conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation mission. Quoting from the mission: "...to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Including copyrighted logos under fair use does not detract from this mission. Contrary to what many seem to be asserting, fair use images do not make free content any less free—anyone wishing to distribute is free to remove the fair use image, leaving only the "pure" free content—it is thus exactly as free with the fair use image as it is without it. On the other hand, it does make the copyrighted content more free—by providing a free-content context in which the copyrighted image may be used under fair use, the copyrighted image may be distributed under a free-content license! I can't think of how this could be more in line with the mission!
    3. The use of logos as being described here does not violate the Foundation resolution licensing policy. Here is where we see the use of the word "minimal". But it doesn't stop there. If the word "minimal" were unqualified and only meant "as little as possible", it would be meaningless, as it could very well be interpreted to mean "zero". Since other language Wikipedias prove that it is "possible" to produce an encyclopedia without fair use images, "as little as possible" means exactly "zero". Anything else would be completely arbitrary. But if "zero" was what they meant, "zero" is what they would have said. But they didn't mean "minimal" to mean "as little as possible". Instead they go on to explain "minimal" and say that the use of non-free content, among other things, should be "to include identifying protected works such as logos". By the resolution's own definition, using logos as identification is minimal use—the resolution says nothing about each logo only being allowed on one article or any other such ad hoc definitions of "minimal".
    4. The use of logos as being described here does not violate the non-free content criteria. It is said that the NFCC are purposely more restrictive than fair use law, and while this is true, it is not true that each criterion is necessarily more restrictive than fair use law. For example, #1 and #9 are clearly more restrictive than fair use law, but criteria such as #3 and #8 mimic the language of fair use law and were put in place specifically to ensure compliance with fair use law. While being a bit more restrictive than the law in interpreting these criteria is understandable, it does not mean we have to be unnecessarily restrictive. As #3 and #8 should not be interpreted to be much more restrictive than fair use law, one logo per article which contains significant information about a team is "minimal" enough coverage, and does "significantly" contribute to the article. Now while #1 is more restrictive, the purpose of #1 is to encourage the creation and location of free content, which is why we restrict the use of non-free images of living people (since it is usually possible to create a free alternative). But logos do not have a free alternative; the text name of the team is no more an alternative to the logo, than saying "Mona Lisa" is an alternative to a displaying an image of the painting itself. Disallowing a logo does not encourage the creation of free-content alternatives, so #1 should not apply here.
  • On the other hand, I see no rational reason to use a copyrighted logo in an article such as 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team. Any logo used in 1901 should no longer be under copyright, and if it wasn't the logo used in 1901 it is not relevant to that article. But if they were using the same logo in 1901 as they are today, the logo would be in the public domain and thus not subject to non-free content criteria. DHowell (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally agree with many of your points, however, as I pointed out above, there's not just copyright to deal with. Even in cases where copyright has expired (or is not an issue because characters from a typeface are not copyrightable in the US), logos are often trademarked, which has no expiration. So although a logo used in 1901 wouldn't be under copyright today (if it ever was), it may still be trademarked, and so subject to non-free content criteria. Cmadler (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn. Cmadler (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actualy no. Public domain images with trademarks attached are still considered free enough to be on Commons, so they are clearly not subject to the restrictiosn of WP:NFCC, see for example File:FOX_wordmark-orange.svg. The only potential issue is MOS:ICON#Do not use too many icons, but a single logo is unlikely to violate that. As mentioned earlier, let's not confuse the isse, if a logo is PD then make sure it's not tagged as non-free otherwise people tend to treat it as such, but if it rely is no longer copyrighed then this policy no longer apply to it and using such logos as an example in a discussion about the use of logos that are non-free is not relevant. --Sherool (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the logos are not permissible

  • Oppose: The use is only identifying in nature. This is appropriate for main articles about a team, and was the intent of the policy/guideline. It is not appropriate to spread the logos around every time the team is mentioned as a participant in XYZ season, game, rivalry, etc. The teams can be identified by text, such as Texas Longhorns football, making the logo images replaceable by free content and thus the use of the logos fails WP:NFCC #1. The use of the images in this way scales to a use that is approximately 2.7 times the amount of usage if used just for main articles. See the table I generated which shows the uses of the current top ten college football team logos. This breaks minimal use standards, thus failed WP:NFCC #3. The use of the logos as identifying a team is not a credible reason that significantly increases reader's understanding. The name of a team is considerably more well known than any logo works of a team. If we flipped the argument to we're deleting the names of the team and only using the logos, there'd be no way we would agree to remove the names. With logos, it's a superfluous usage; the team name is readily sufficient to identify the team in question. If logos were such a necessity to identify teams that readers would get lost without them, then sports radio would never have gotten off the ground since nobody would know what teams they are talking about. Therefore, the usage fails WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should really check your math on that table (specifically, why none of the sums are right or why Texas Tech counts as 12 for one column but blank for the other). Oren0 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected. Thanks for the heads up! The page had been left in an incomplete state, which can be seen from my notes on the bottom of the page. It's still incomplete for the purpose I wanted it for, but the table is at least accurate now. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I could accept non-free sports logos in articles about the sports logos (and possibly in an article about the team if the logo is mentioned), but any other use seems mostly decorative and certainly not minimal. But anyway, I fundamentally oppose per WP:VEGAN. Kusma (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the main team articles (New York Giants, the articles on the Superbowls they've been, and perhaps for the "active" players at most) should be allowed. I'm torn on the actual individual game articles, but that is the most. Anything else, nope. rootology (C)(T) 17:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Team logos should only appear in articles where the article either talks about the logo or where there can be a reasonable expectation that once it is complete it will do so.Geni 17:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose although the logos may be acceptable in certain (likely many) main team articles, other uses are contrary to the letter and spirit of the EDP. Moreover, it's worth remembering that the application of WP:NFCC cannot be set aside even if there is consensus to do so; the only issue for consensus is interpretation of the criteria. CIreland (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Fair use is strictly for limited use for a very specific topic, not to use willy nilly for no good reason. No point to even holding a vote on this, as any number of people voting to break the law doesn't mean we can. DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly recommend we don't bring "legal" into this; until Mike Godwin says otherwise, let's assume that their usage falls into fair use law for the US. This is strictly on whether these fall into our non-free content policy. --MASEM 20:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're asking us to assume something that is almost certainly wrong? Talk about completely the wrong attitude to take. Fair Use is not something we assume, it's something we establish, otherwise all of our bility to proclaim ny potential error was made in good faith goes out the window. DreamGuy (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, I'm not trying to diminish your opposition - as I agree with the stance. All I'm saying is that in previous cases dealing with large #s of logo uses such as the Trinity Network, Mike Godwin has been asked if there's a legal concern, and his answer was no. We should not limit fair use content for the reason of copyright paranoia. We should however limit its use for free content concerns. There is no legal argument that we should worry about here. --MASEM 00:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is one thing that is certain, I oppose the idea of adding the logos to articles such as Michigan–Ohio State rivalry. As for pages related to a specific team, I am also leaning towards the side of no, except the main article. In my personal view, we should try and limit the number of total uses of a specific image. For example, I feel it is not a good idea to use the Michigan logo on an article of the 1901 football team. Works published in the US before 1923 are no longer protected by copyright, so finding a team photo, or just a photo from that year, will suffice. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We do RfCs on whether small subgroups of articles should be allowed to ignore a core policy (in this case WP:NFCC#3a and to a limited extent WP:NFCC#8) now? News to me. No. Black Kite 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Obvious. Garion96 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose of course. What part of "minimal use" is not understood? howcheng {chat} 23:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't like the instruction creepiness that this is sneaking towards: this is the rule, except for this...and this...and this kind of fits. For me, the use fails WP:NFC#8. Although, I'm inclined to agree with Cmadler's comment below [5] --maclean 23:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Howcheng and per Kusma. Also, it quite simply makes no sense to me that minimal use in this case is considered to be 15, rather than the obvious once or even not-at-all. --Izno (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not up for discussion, splattering logos all over articles for which the teams are clearly identified is in no meaningful way minimal use. Logos are allowed for use once in the main organization article so that they may be seen by someone looking for information on the organization. For anything else, a link to that article is sufficient. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and further qualify that Seraphimblade is correct that this is not really a matter of a vote. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the logos have (supposedly) an informative function in the coverage of the team, but that's once, in the main article. Everywhere else is just eye-candy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There is a point at which the encyclopedic value of including a non-free image gives way to it merely being decoration, and this is that point. --Dynaflow babble 07:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - the logos are clearly adding little to the articles. I think people are more inclined to support the use here because the logos are already elsewhere- frankly, that doesn't matter. Each use should be judged on its own merits- an image is permissable or it is not, there is no "well, it's already uploaded, what harm could there be?". These images should have been removed on sight, this RfC is a joke. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Logos should only be used to identify a team. You look up the team, and you see the logo and think, "yes, that's the team I saw." There doesn't seem to be much need for this sort of identification on the more specific articles. -Freekee (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unless these rivalries actually have a dedicated logo, there should not be a logo there. ViperSnake151 17:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose the current usage of File:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png (on 4 pages) is well within policy. rationales need to be provided prior to having that image 100% compliant. any more usage of that logo is just decorative. such usage violates the core philosophy of our non-free content policies of minimal usage and importance. βcommand 18:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quibbling point... how would swapping File:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png for File:Ohio State Buckeyes logo.png (this is assuming the 2 debated uses are dropped) make the one "decorative" by adding 1 more use? Especially since the use in the article on the basketball team would be the same as the ones for the baseball and football teams. Further more, where is the quantification that "After X uses, find another image even if this one is the best fit and a valid FUR can be provided"? - J Greb (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There, it could be used in the university article and link there, I don't see that the different teams have differing logos. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • To a degree, that's the point. The file that Betacommand pointed to is used in the infoboxes for the University, its athletics department, the baseball team and the football team. B's comment implies that those usages live within NFCC guides and policy but 2 of them really need FURs to be 100% compliant. But additional uses of the file would only be decorative. The second one is used in 3 places, the article for OSU men's basketball team, the 2000 football team, and the OSU-MSU rivalry. Would unifying the files (since they are essentially identical images) automatically make all uses of the logo decorative because it's used in more than 4 articles?
          And, yes, OSU is one of the cases where the university has basically branded everything with one logo. So it is a good example of the pertinent image likely going onto a large number of articles. - J Greb (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see an issues with usage on Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball. its decorative as its is covered under Ohio State Buckeyes baseball. if the parent article did not exist then their may be a claim for usage their. βcommand 19:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • PS just like most thing related to non-free content we cannot set a hard number as situations are unique. 4 usages are sometimes well within bounds and other times a single usage is out of bounds. βcommand 19:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • um... Beta, you are aware that "baseball" is the game played outside with the small white ball and the wooden stick and "basketball" is played indoors with a large orange ball? The only relationship between Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball and Ohio State Buckeyes baseball is the athletic department.
              And I do take you point, and appreciate the clarification that closely related parent/child articles, such as "University basketball", "University men's basketball", and "University women's basketball", shouldn't see the infobox image repeated. The question then becomes "How close is to close?" - J Greb (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Damit, thats what I get for using categories for looking for something. sorry about that. In that case I dont see any major issue with its usage in that article. (I was just doing a quick check and that was a mis type/read). (note you had a grammar issue above too.close is to close?" should be close is too close?" :P ). A rule of thumb that can be used is the subject of the article independently notable or is it only notable as part of a larger group. 2008 Ohio State Buckeyes football team is not notable except as part of the Ohio State Buckeyes football. But Ohio State Buckeyes football is stand alone notable as they are a professional sports team. you dont have to know about the school to know about the football team. (I hope Im making my point clear enough). βcommand 22:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)2008 Ohio State Buckeyes football team IS notable; it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for article inclusion. If it was ONLY notable as part of a larger group, it shouldn't have its own article. Cmadler (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is only known as part of a larger entity, it is not independently notable, without the primary organization this sub-organization could not exist. βcommand 14:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I am the support category, I think that with the yearly team pages, Logo use should be minimal, meaning that if the team won a national title(making the subject extremely notable and thus people would navigate to that specific page first), a logo would be appropriate, but otherwise the logos should be limited to rivalries (often the opposing logos lend a necessary and appropriate visual representation of the rivalry when there is not a specific logo, such as the Red River Shootout), main sport pages (i.e. Ohio State Buckeyes football, Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball, and pages that discuss the logo itself Notre Dame Leprechaun. I and others interpret main sport pages to be "main pages"(especially since there are dedicated wikiprojects to each sport) because unlike NFL pages, colleges have more than one sport, and people often navigate to a specific sport page instead of the "main page(Ohio State Buckeyes). Also, in many cases these athletic pages are not as developed as the main sporting pages, unlike in other logo scenarios such as products or albums or movies. I know that when I want to look up something about a football team, I type "Notre Dame Football (and get redirected)," not, "Notre Dame Fighting Irish." I believe this final point is what distinguishes this situation from previous ones. For instance, Most people type in "Ipod" not "Ipod Nano" (even though the nano image is used twice!!) Tedmoseby (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sorta agree with you and disagree at the same time. usage on year and rival pages is not needed. however usage on the main article(s) should be well within policy. See for example the OSU example that I provided. however the 102 usages when I first looked at the image is out of the question abuse. please note that your example with IPods is faulty, its a free image. The examples that you gave could have a strong defense if you actually took some time and instead of copy/pasting rationales stated a solid defense for its usage most would be hard pressed to challenge them (referring to the main article(s)) but every usage after the primary article needs to have a dam good reason for including it. if you can make that statement in rationale that is not generic (IE could be copy/pasted and reused) you will find less resistance. but for the 100 usages it was generic usage. which fail NFCC#8. When adding a non-free image always ask yourself why must this particular article have this particular image? if you cannot find something unique in that reason do you really need that image? βcommand 15:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well just to note, personally I don't really take much time with images, I just edit a lot of these articles that have them. I only add them if they are free and still where I think they are appropriate. My concern with the rivalry articles are the holes that will start appearing in the articles, since the free images will stay but the non-frees will be riffed. And in the absence of a special logo like Red River Shootout I think the visual representation of two are appropriate, especially since there are not yearly pages on rivalries like there are on teams. In other words the image is being used for a purpose and only once, not in yearly iterations. Also, which logos are being used 102 times? I believe you should look at the free image usage to see that even those images are not abused. I keep seeing this argument popping up that there will be a flood of non-free images posted in every absurd nook and cranny of Wikipedia if you guys don't put an end to it right now, but I really think if these images were simply removed from yearly pages there wouldn't be such an opposition in the first place. For instance, an example Hammersoft used was that 1977 college football season will be the next article to be plastered with images. It hasn't happened, nor do I think it will because Wikiproject Collegefootball would never let it happen, non-free image or free image. My other concern is that some editors are taking "main page" to the extreme, meaning that the image will only be allowed to be used once and will fail NFCC#8 in every other use. But it seems that at least you would agree that main sport pages would constitute a main page. I really believe this to be true since there are dedicated Wikiprojects for those sports. Tedmoseby (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose as how we deal with even free icons for "visual identification" is spelled out to use as minimal as possible (also already has existing advice at WP:MOSLOGO). --MASEM 19:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first let me qualify what my view here is. My interpretation of this debate is that the question is not so much wether or not a team logo could ever be used in a season or rivalry article or simmilar. Clearly we could make no such blanket statement, as there might well be cases where the logo would in fact be apropriate to use in such articles per the WP:NFCC (if for example a season article discuss a logo re-design that occured that year or things like that). Rater my understanding is that the argument is over wether or not the use of a team logo, for purposes of identification only, across multiple artiles (in extreme cases hundreds) can be said to meet the requirement for minimal use and significantly increasing the readers understandign of each one of those articles. For that use I would say no, using the logo over and over for the same purpose (identifying the team) in multiple articles is clearly not minimal use. Identification of the subject is in my view pretty much a "one shot" rationale for use in the main article about the subject (team in this case), no need to repeat it in every article about a season in the team's history, or every game the team played in or for every league/conference/whatever the team is a member of or things like that. Just link to the main article there the logo is used to identify the team, that is the minimum use nessesary for identification purposes. There might be reasons other than identification to include the logo in a few other articles as well, and that's fine, but there are no acceptable blanket rationales for putting a logo (or any other non-free image) uniformly across every related article, there needs to be a spesific reason for why a non-free image needs to be in each and every article, for the main article you have a strong reason for using the logo, everywhere else, not so much. If you include the same non-free image in two or more articles for the exact same reason then chances are all but one of them violate the minimal use and/or significance clauses of the policy. --Sherool (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Team logos should only be permissible on the team's article and articles about any subsidiary teams. For example, the Manchester United logo should only be used on Manchester United F.C. and Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy. Any other uses of the logo would not qualify as Fair Use, as the logo can easily be replaced by text on other articles (such as Manchester United F.C. season 2008–09, Liverpool F.C. and Manchester United F.C. rivalry or 1999 UEFA Champions League Final). – PeeJay 09:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should only be used in the team's article, rather than being spammed on every match they play. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose And the question itself is comical per current policy. WP:NFCC says that fair use images are not to be used as decoration. For the most part, using such logos on season and game pages does not qualify as anything else but decoration. The logos add nothing to such articles. In terms of WP:HOCKEY's articles, at least, the only time we re-use a team logo in a season article is when critical commentary related to that logo is included (i.e.: a season in which a team introducses a new logo, or an anniversary logo). Resolute 17:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We shouldn't be using non-free images as what's basically pure decoration. I see no convincing reason why these logos should be an exception to the rules that thousands of other images that have the same potential decorative uses have to follow. Mr.Z-man 00:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I fail to see how we are better informing readers by showing the logo in multiple different places. The best arguments I can see for inclusion are that the page looks slightly better and that readers may be able able to skim the article more quickly, but those are not informative purposes. Clearly, on an article about the sports team (i.e. New York Giants), the logo does inform the readers and should be displayed. Ancillary articles about rivalries or seasons or whatnot are no more informative with such logos, so they should not be used. Croctotheface (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • WP:LOGO says that The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative. For a general article about a team (e.g. Michigan Wolverines and Michigan Wolverines football) this is clearly applicable. For an article about an instance of a team (e.g. 2008 Michigan Wolverines football team), a photograph of the team (even a non-free official team photograph) is preferable to a logo as this better fulfills the intent; however, when a photograph is not available (e.g. 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team) use of the logo is acceptable. Team logos should not be used in articles about rivalries except to the extent that the rivalry has a logo which incorporates the team logos. Likewise, team logos should not be used in articles about bowl games except to the extent that team logos are incorporated into the bowl game logo. Likewise, team logos should not be used in articles about individual games except to the extent that the individual game has a logo incorporating the team logos. Cmadler (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The question has too many parts to allow a simple support/oppose. I suggest that it be broken apart into component questions:
  1. Is logo use appropriate in single-season articles?
  2. Is logo use appropriate in rivalry articles?
  3. Is logo use appropriate in single-game articles?

This allows better differentiation of what is considered acceptable or unacceptable. Cmadler (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I for one would support the logo in a rivalry article and a single-game article, but not a season article. The RfC should be dissected. Mastrchf (t/c) 01:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The usage is the same; it's being used for identifying the team outside of the team's main article. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The usage is not the same. That arguement could be reasonably extended to say that, since the "block M" logo is used by all University of Michigan teams, the logo can only be used on the main article, Michigan Wolverines but not on the articles for individual teams such as Michigan Wolverines football, Michigan Wolverines men's basketball, Michigan Wolverines baseball, etc. In fact, since in that case it is the logo of the university rather than a specifically athletic logo, the main article is University of Michigan, and even use on Michigan Wolverines is prohibited. However, it is the logo of the University AND the logo of the university's athletics AND the logo of the football team AND the logo of the 2008 football team, and can appear on each of those pages. They all happen to have the same logo in that case, but not always. It is NOT, however, the logo of the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry, or the 2007 Rose Bowl, or the 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game and can't be used on those pages. Cmadler (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, assessing the overall use of logos (of any type) across WP as neutral evaluated as possible, that a logo's use presently is only allowable on the organization's page in question, then it's not a question of which types of other articles can a logo be used, but whether they can be used on those articles at all. If there's a clear concern that these cases need to be considered separately with more input, expansion can then be done. --MASEM

I would ask two questions:

  1. If the 2008-09 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team had it's own logo, specific to this season, would we allow its inclusion on that page?
  2. If yes, why does the fact that the 08-09 logo and the North Carolina Tar Heels basketball logo are the same exclude the logo from appearing on one of the pages?

I don't think anyone here argues no to question 1. If the logos were different, there would be two non-free logos on the two pages, which is the same as if the logo is the same and included on both pages. So it's unclear that minimizing use is the argument because the use is the same in both cases. The only logical argument I can see for this distinction is the argument that the UNC logo is not the logo of the 08-09 team and therefore shouldn't be included. But that can be easily refuted by looking at literature released by the school. So I ask, simply, why is there a distinction between two entities with different logos and two entities with the same logo? Or is there a problem with one of my assumptions? Oren0 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know myself and I think Hammersoft would argue that the answer to the first question is "no", that logos on per-season team pages is inappropriate. "Minimal use" not only applies to the number of different images in (say) the Image:/File: name space, but also the number of times those images are used - that's the reason that each use of an image requires a FUR. And at least myself, I don't see the "08-09" version of a team to be a different entity from the overall team; the players and coaches may change, but the organization running and managing from the financial side remains the same year after year (in this case generally being the school's athletic department). --MASEM 19:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because if there is a special single season logo it is reasonable that the article might disscuss that. For logos that don't change much year to year they are unlikely to be discussed outside of the the centeral article on the team.Geni 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While a per-season logo would be exceptionable based on what I've checked (most duplicate the current logo), I'd consider that an appropriate use if it was more than just plopping the season numbers on the existing logo. --MASEM 19:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Geni: is there a guideline that says logos must be discussed (or even have the possibility of being discussed) in an article to merit inclusion?
@Masem: OK, so if you would accept a logo that was substantively different on a season page, why is it that when the logo is the same you oppose the logo? What is different from the point of view of policy, the mission, whatever, in the two cases? Oren0 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mixture of 5 and 8. If the article can't or won't discuss it it is a bit hard to justify it being encyclopedic.Geni 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the purpose of a logo may be for reader identification. Many companies have logos on their pages but there's nothing particularly interesting about them so they're not discussed on those pages. Would you advocate removing those logos from those pages or forcing a discussion of them? Oren0 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No because I would considered it not unreasonable to expect the article to one day discuss them.Geni 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...Seriously? You really think most company or brand logos are noteworthy enough for discussion in an encyclopedia? Strikehold (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are usualy part of the public face of the company so yes.Geni 19:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question, as Seraphimblade says above (and I pointed out as well), is why are we we having this pointless "vote"? It doesn't matter if you have a thousand names in the Support section above, the use of logos in anything but the main team articles still doesn't pass WP:NFCC#3a. The only way it's ever going to be appropriate is by changing the policy, and that's unlikely to happen. (Not to mention that most of the Support votes indicate that they don't understand why there's actually a problem - what's the point in indicating your position on something you don't understand?). Black Kite 10:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's your opinion. How exactly do we define "minimal"? NFCC#3a does not limit us to only using a given non-free item once, nor does it limit each page to one non-free item. It says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Can non-free items adequately convey the same information? Many of us say no. We're not trying to rewrite the policy, we're trying to determine how we believe this type of usage fits into the policy. NFCC cannot be interpreted robotically; it needs people to decide what does and doesn't follow it, and that's exactly what we're trying to do here. To claim that this is such a cut-and-dried violation of NFCC that we can't even discuss it is insulting to the many experienced editors here who disagree with you. And the contention that "most of the Support votes indicate they don't understand why there's a problem" when only one of the 16 supports has indicated that is also insulting. Show me at least nine of the 16 current supports that claim anything like this and I'll eat my hat. Oren0 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly
  • "WP:NFC#3a- This policy refers to the use of multipe images, not how many times an image is used.." (wrong)
  • "The current system in place does not break any policy..." (yes it does)
  • "The quantity of use is irrelevant..." (no it's not)
  • "frequency of use is wholly irrelevant..." (er, no)
  • "I don't see anything objectionable or problematic here...." (apart from ignoring a policy, of course)
  • "There is no conflict with the way WP policy currently is and the use of these types of logos as long as it is a proper article ..." (wrong)
  • "I don't see where a free alternative could be used to replace a logo; we can't just go out and make one; that would be the same thing as just using the original..." (missing the point)
  • "A valid Ole Miss logo with a valid Fair Use Rationale, as an example, would be just as appropriate to Ole Miss Rebels football, 2008 Ole Miss Rebels football team, 2009 Cotton Bowl and Ole Miss - Mississippi State rivalry (all articles featuring Ole Miss football) as it would be to Ole Miss Rebels..." (well no, because apart from the overuse issues, a logo in a sub-article for a team clearly doesn't increase the reader's understanding (#8))
  • "'m afraid that the outcome of an oppose here would simply be that a small group of POV editors would take the decision as license and use it to beat down everyone else...." (no, I think you'll find that NFCC already gives license to remove overuse - this "vote" is an attempt to end-run round policy)
  • "Their use in season articles and the like does not constitute advertising..." (not the point either)
  • " If it's ok to use an fair-use image in one article, it's ok to use it in 100 articles or 1,000 articles if there's a reasonable reason why it should be there." (well no under minimal use, but even so most of these logos have no "reasonable reason")
All of these comments show a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of non-free images in Wikipedia (Edit: understandably so, as they were mostly canvassed - see below). This is just an attempt to short-circut the perfectly good policy we have at NFCC, and I've seen absolutely no reason given why this particular group of items should be given license to trample over it. such a discussion should be a discussion to change WP:NFCC itself, not attempt to wikilawyer round it for a small group of interested parties. Black Kite 13:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say: "...the use of logos in anything but the main team articles still doesn't pass WP:NFCC#3a."
Well, let's see what 3a says: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."
Multiple items. That means separate images. Not instances of use.
Users do not always go directly from a main article to a season. A separate article is a separate entity. Each article is upheld to the same standards of notability and prose, so why would you uphold them to the different standards for image usage. That is nonsensical. Strikehold (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a very good reason we ask for a FUR for every use of an image, not just for WP in general. Each use of the image has to be justified on the page it is being used on, and while an image may be completely valid on one page, it is not automatically valid for others (eg, we include pictures of live-actor characters from TV shows and movies, but in the rare instance when these are iconic, they are never used on the living actor's actual page, since they can be replaced via free images.) "Minimal use" is the total number of non-free image "hooks" across all articles, not just in one article; an non-free image used 100 times is 100 instances of non-free use. --MASEM 17:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course a FUR rationale for every instance of use, but still the same standard that applies. Black Kite cited 3a as a justification for minimal instances of use of a single non-free item, and neither 3a, nor 3b, say anything of the sort. If anything, 3b, is a better argument as it addresses "minimal extent of use", but even it says:
"An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace."
That says nothing of the instances of use across WP, but rather the quality or portion of the image used. Strikehold (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the reference to WP:NFCC#8. Does a logo of a team in a season page add to the reader's understanding? No. (It could even be argued that it doesn't even do that in a main team page, but my opinion is that's a - single - reasonable use). Black Kite 17:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of your saying no the most popular description of the image's perpose is functionaly identical to the page title which the pages in question appear to have and is freely licensed.Geni 12:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break the 1st

  • Can we close this pointless RfC now? - not only is it irrelevant as I have mentioned above, but it has also been heavily and misleadingly canvassed by User:Rtr10 who has posted such as "As I am sure you know our current standard/system of using logos legitimately with fair use rationales do not violate any wikipedia policy..." on various user talk pages, most of whom make up the Support votes above (and which probably explains why most of the Supports don't address the actual problem). I have warned Rtr10 and asked him to revert himself. Black Kite 15:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So let me get this straight, you want users to comment on this, but if they are users of the College Football Project who vote Support they should not be commenting. Seems to me you don't want a Request for Comment, you want comments that support your own ideology on this matter. No one was ever asked to come and give a vote of support here, they were asked to come and give their opinion. No matter what that opinion is. I never said "please come and support this", or "vote support or don't vote." For you to try to imply that and threaten me is simply inexcusable. All that was being done was making active contributers of the College Football Project (which is what this discussion centers around) that on RfC on this topic had been started. Your practices all through out this discussion and joke of an RfC are laughable and really quite sad. Rtr10 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly people who are members of that Wikiproject can contribute, we just want to make sure they know what they're !voting on, because on some of the rationales given above from people you canvassed, it's fairly obvious that they don't. This was clearly due to the biased nature of your message - just read WP:CANVASS, please. And I'd suggest that backing up canvassing with civility problems doesn't help you either. Black Kite 08:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated above, my notification of fellow members of the project was not bias. It stated that the current standard/system does not violate current policy, which is true (which is why it has been the standard/system for years). No one was ever asked to vote "support", just simply notified and asked to voice their opinions on the project. These are all users who contribute to pages that would be effectived, yet those of you who started this RfC went out of your way to try to see that their opinions are not counted or somehow counted as a lesser opinion than that of your own. That is simply unacceptable and totally against the community spirit of Wikipedia. Rtr10 (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that I started this yet strongly believe in the opposition ("the logos are not fair use"), I think the only way to resolve this is via wider input. Unfortunately for those of us that are seeking to keep nonfree use to a minimum, there is no specific wording in any policy or guideline that explicitly disallows this use despite the weight of past cases and and current status quo in every other area of logo use including professional sports. If this RFC closes appropriate with the logos being deemed unusable, then we can write a better statement in the guidelines about logo use to avoid future problems. --MASEM 17:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any way that the "result" of an RfC in which most of the !votes on one side are canvassed and/or clearly not focussed on the actual question can be taken as valid. The only way to "resolve" this is to discuss a change in WP:NFCC#3a / WP:NFCC#8 - a discussion at WP:CENT may be useful though. Meanwhile, the multiple use of logos clearly is disallowed per the above two clauses. I understand why you've started the RfC, and if it is intended to make it clear to a very small subset of vocal users that what they're doing is wrong - and has no precedence - that's fine, but I believe it's counter-productive here. uBlack Kite 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't call 6 out of 18 (if my mathematical skills haven't left me) "most".... Mastrchf (t/c) 17:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It appears that one particular editor wants to shut down discussion and ramrod everyone into accepting his rather strained interpretation of WP:NFCC#3a & WP:NFCC#8 as gospel. Sorry, but as has been pointed out by numerous editors above (some of whom who are actually in the oppose camp), there is nothing in either policy that expressly disallows what is under discussion. Those who support the use of logos in this instance may be proven wrong and those who oppose may be proven right, but the issue is at least colorable. It is rather arrogant and imperious on your part to seek to circumvent the process and suppress the opposition. Instead of making mere conclusory statements to validate your position, perhaps you'd be wise to construct a logical argument aimed at swaying minds.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the other hand, I'm not the one that's trying to "fix" an RfC by canvassing votes or posting Support votes that don't actually address the issue. Strangely enough, I prefer that such discussions are held properly and in the correct venue on Wikipedia, and when they aren't, I'm hardly going to ignore it. If others regard that as arrogance, then that's their problem. Black Kite 18:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Canvassing notwithstanding, he does have a few good points. Black Kite, you haven't really stated a true reason that you believe the images should be removed, other than your opinion on an interpretation of a policy. Mastrchf (t/c) 18:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've said it numerous times above. A combination of NFCC 3a, 8, m:mission and previous weight of past cases are clearly all against the overuse of such logos. I'm unable to work out what it is about the concept of "minimal use" that certain users find difficult to comprehend, to be honest Black Kite 18:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have said it numerous times above. Your interpretation of the policies is your opinion, not fact. Obviously many editors disagree with you. But rather than try to discuss it, it's probably just easier to dismiss the opinions of the entire support group. Obviously none of us, including at least five administrators, know anything about Wikipedia policy. Of course, I could begin to criticize the oppose group, such as individuals who obviously are trying to remove all non-free content, or those who just say that this is "obvious" and offer no reasoning. I could attack their intelligence, try to tell them that they have no right to disagree with my interpretation of the rules, or try to throw out this entire RfC if it doesn't go my way. But instead I think I'll try taking a different approach and respecting the points of view of others while trying to work towards a consensus and compromise. You should really try it some time. Oren0 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • What, like [6] this? Right. The supporters of this move don't realise I'm actually trying to help them; I am not trying to throw this RFC out because "it's not going my way" (clearly there is no consensus to include such images against policy) but because proposing s change to policy (and that's what this is) needs to be done with a more visible and centralized discussion. Black Kite 08:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- But yet, those are your interpretation on the policies. What would your definition of "minimal" be? I would, and I think others would, define minimal use as "The amount of use from which the removal of any more would take away from the article." Using simple common sense, I can promise you that 99/100, adding the image to a page is going to aid it incredibly. As long as the image isn't used excessively, it should be fine. I'm all for free images, and using them in any location we can get them, but some things are simply impossible to get a free image for. I would just like to ask, if we're going to use the image once, and if valid case can be made for each use, what does it matter if the image is used once, twice, or a hundred times? It certainly isn't hurting the encyclopedia any more for each use, and even if it helps in the most minute way, that's still a, I guess "net gain", to use RfA terms. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and even if it's a free encyclopedia, going all towards the "free" part will undoubtedly take away from the "encyclopedia" part. And yes, wall of text hits you, crits for 900000. Mastrchf (t/c) 18:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you can convince me that removing a logo of a team from an article about one particular season would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article then I'll agree with you. But I don't think you can do that, which makes the logos purely decorative.
  • Secondly you're making a major error - You can't separate the words "Free" and "Encyclopedia" and claim that making it "less free" can make it a "better encyclopedia". The words in the top left hand corner are "The Free Encyclopedia", not "The Encyclopedia that's usually Free except when we want to make some pages look pretty". Because in reality, making it "less free" doesn't make it a "better encyclopedia" - it simply makes a worse "Free Encyclopedia". Black Kite 18:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of sounding offensive, bullet point 1 is the first reasonable thing you've said in this comment section. You're right, if we could convince you that removing the logos would be detrimental they'd be allowable as far as you're concerned. Certainly you'd agree then that whether removing these logos would be detrimental is a matter of opinion that is best resolved via consensus, hence making this RfC perfectly reasonable. Oren0 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't have to like what I say, but it isn't unreasonable to point out when an RfC is being used incorrectly, and that's without even mentioning the canvassing. Oh hang on, here's another one... Black Kite 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well Black Kite, I can't argue with you on the first count. I guess we should do away with all non-free images. No visual comprehension is better than some, right? And on the second count, please don't make what I didn't say into an entire essay. I simply stated that doing away with non-free images would hurt the encyclopedia. I didn't say that taking away free images would help it. For one to make a point of debating the topic presented, you sure didn't do a good job :D. Mastrchf (t/c) 19:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that's exactly what you did say. "We're here to build an encyclopedia, and even if it's a free encyclopedia, going all towards the "free" part will undoubtedly take away from the "encyclopedia" part.". Which bit of that did I misinterpret? Black Kite 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're still blinded by your opinion when trying to decipher what I said. I'll just say it plainly. Taking away non-free images will hurt the encyclopedia. Mastrchf (t/c) 19:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed. That's why Wikipedia allows non-free content, when Wikimedia Commons does not. — PyTom (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're missing my equally plain point. Taking away these images will not hurt the encyclopedia. For example, here's an article I edit regularly - Leeds United A.F.C. season 2008-09. How would the reader's understanding of any part of this article be improved by having the team badge at the top of the page? Black Kite 19:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It certainly would help. I'd much rather read this: 2007 USC Trojans football team, than the Leeds article. I like images, pictures and logos. They all add a great visual element that's lacking in "your" soccer article, IMO --Geologik (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Visual appeal" is not a valid reason to use NFC, otherwise, images in discographis, episode lists, and whatnot wouldn't have been questioned. --MASEM 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Which is exactly why I think this whole argument is ridiculous. Regardless of the validity of "visual appeal", I think logos and the other image uses you've mention add an aesthetic that greatly enhances their respective articles. Instead of staring at a wall of text and tables, I like to have that "visual appeal" sprinkled in. --Geologik (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A need that can be satisfied by free images, at least for more modern seasons. --MASEM 20:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Actually, I don't think it can. That's the reason we're all here, correct? If the logos were easily replaceable by free images there wouldn't be this massively, huge, gigantic fuss. :) The great thing about college athletics, especially football, are the logos used to represent the teams. They're vibrant, colorful, and creative. There are entire websites devoted to logos and football helmets (SportsLogos, The Helmet Project, MG's Helmets). We'll just have to agree to disagree on the matter. --Geologik (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Certainly free images are largely available for such articles. In many such articles, I've seen free images of the teams, games played in that season, all types of things. There are many free alternatives available for using the nonfree logo. We do allow it once in the team article, because it's important to the team. However, splattering it everywhere for "visual appeal" is not acceptable for nonfree content, as stated clearly by #1, #3, and #8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- No, I understand your point quite plainly. Whilst I don't find it valid, I understand it. The readers understanding can be aided in a number of ways: Visual comprehension, visual association of the team and its logo. I guess I could flesh visual comprehension out, also. Mascot's, both living and plush, and their effects on the logo image and vice versa. Mascots are frequently modeled after the image of the logo and not the image of the actual animal. I'm not going to say rare mascots and their logo counterparts as reasons to keep the logo, as I'm sure most mascots, even fictional animals, have their own article and an accompanying free picture or illustration to explain them. Now, these are all in direct correlation to the main article, as I doubt a season/rivalry article would have these. But, association and comprehension would aid the season/rivalry articles also. As long as we're using the fair use in the main article, we might as well use it in the season articles. I've really split a lot of issues on this, but to sum up, the logo helps in ways that the text couldn't possibly, and if we're going to use the logo on one page, we might as well use it on all pages. I can't think of anyway that it would hurt for more than one use, only help. Mastrchf (t/c) 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to mention that the general population of Wikipedia seemed to have no problems promoting the article I did all the heavy lifting on, the aforementioned 2007 USC Trojans football team, into an FA for good reason: the one use of an FU image didn't violate the doctrine of fair use. To avoid an overly-long academic discussion of what is a logo and what they represent (that's what the exams were for, back in the day), the concept of having a logo on the top of a relevant pages in an encyclopedia is completely within the purpose of fair use doctrine. What has apparently surprised some users is that we have so many topics on these subjects; but, given the size and capacity of this project, there really shouldn't be such a surprise. The argument that "this isn't about what's legal" (which has been made above) is a bit silly --then what is the point of being over-restrictive? Wikipedia is not a straightjacket. This is getting rather heated, eh? --Bobak (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Until I hear a valid reason to remove those that isn't opinion fueled, I see no reason not to include these images. Mastrchf (t/c) 21:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Fair-use discussion does get heated; those defending the concept of a Free Encyclopedia probably come under (quite virulent) attack more often than anyone else. Hence why we naturally tend to be defensive. The problem is that we've been here many, many times before - with discographies, "List of..." articles, logo galleries, TV screenshots, toy pictures, and many more. Each time, some editors have believed that their articles really, really, needed those non-free images, and the policy that they come into conflict with is something that needs to be attacked. The fact that it's a large WikiProject involved this time doesn't make it any different, to be honest. Black Kite 21:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that those trying to protect fair use images here are on the defensive. I'm biased of course, but were it not for Hammer ruthlessly removing all of these images, this issue would've never been started, so these "many, many times" would seem to be caused by those trying to remove the images. Maybe there's a reason that all of these different groups are looking toward the vague policies, and realizing that there's no reason whatsoever that should prevent a fair use image from being used in an article. Mastrchf (t/c) 22:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean to imply that those seeking to minimize our usage of non-free content do so out of some slavish unthinking adherence to policy, nothing could be further from the truth. I think, if you ask them, you may find that most people that believe in Wikipedia's primary goal would say that they do so for essentially ethical reasons. CIreland (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. No one is attacking fair use, that's why the legal question of whether these images are allowed or not is not an issue here. However, those looking to keep as many instances of these pictures need to understand what the philosophical goals of WP's "free content mission" is. There is nothing stopping us from including these images save for the fact that each use weakens us from that mission, and thus we need exceptional reason to use them. --MASEM 22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why this argument is now getting rehashed in the comments section. Haas anyone been unable to express their opinion in the support or oppose sections? I was able to do so pretty easily. The comment about canvassing is appropriate here (and seems to have been dealt with appropriately), but not all of this regurgitation: please post your interpretations of the policy in the above discussion sections. If this RfC needs to be taken to any other forum, then let's please get this done. And I would point out that it would be inappropriate to close this RfC before 30 days.--2008Olympianchitchat 22:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has Seraphimblade gone on a deletion of content spree before the issue is resolved in his favor? Cardsplayer4life (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What has he deleted? Removing images is not the same as deleting them. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, if the images are orphaned, they get deleted automatically after seven days /9or si=ooner if an admin runs across them)--2008Olympianchitchat 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting images from articles is what I meant. ("removing", whatever, haha) You can look at his edit history to see what he removed; I am not going to list them all here, sorry. I just found it odd he would take it into his own hands after the trouble we saw caused by people doing just that when there isn't a clear decision one way or the other. (ok, I do think the decision is pretty clear, but I am trying to be impartial here, haha) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Longstanding procedure and practice referenced to policy trumps some kind of localised consensus regarding a specific type of image and a specific type of article. Frankly, a "consensus" here can't override policy- as has been said by numerous people, this RfC is pointless. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why you are participating at all if this RfC has no effect.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that there clearly isn't even any consensus here that the policy should be modified. Black Kite 17:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why you are participating at all if this RfC has no effect.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite is quite correct, and that's the answer. There is no consensus either to modify the policy or to permit an exception. This is true in spite of the wide canvassing that took place. In the absence of consensus, we can't change policy or allow exceptions to it, especially when it comes to core mission policies such as free content. And even if we did get consensus to change this policy, we'd have to get permission from WMF as well, as their resolution currently specifies minimal use. I don't think there's much chance they'd change that, but without consensus we even want such a change, they absolutely won't. Hence, after plenty of time for discussion and understanding here, the cleanup has gotten started. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why you are participating at all if this RfC has no effect.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a bit curious...some of the logos are claimed as PD-ineligible, but they sure don't appear to be. Take File:UGA$!logo.png for example, it's not a simple typeface as it's circled and part of it's colored. It doesn't take a whole lot of art to break the eligibility barrier, and this seems like it would. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually have had a look here, and it does appear that the ones like Georgia Tech's that are just letters (stylized or not) or simple geometric shapes are indeed not copyrightable. That's excellent and solves the problem in a lot of cases, if the logos are free we don't have to worry how widely they're used. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this is completely true that some of the logos cannot be copyrighted and thus will be free, I point to our policy on the use of flag icons (all which are free) at WP:MOSICON and note that we don't use these willy-nilly. I'd say for purposes of being consistent across articles of the same type, if only a portion of the images can qualify for free-ness, we shouldn't encourage more use of the free, as this will encourage newer editors unaware of the details of the NFC policy to use the non-frees as extensively. --MASEM 20:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second section break

From some of the comments of the people who are opposed, it sounds like they are not accepting the good faith of the support people. I keep reading comments that "they're not worthwhile because their canvassed" --despite the article-space records of those they are dismissing. While this is still an active discussion, the actions of Seraphimblade are provoking to those on the support side. I advise both sides to "chill", and let this work its way through. Because the existing policy (that is under discussion) was to allow season articles to have the FU logo of the subject team (hence the two FAs under this model), I recommend not altering these articles to the oppose view until we have some kind of consensus (or, move up to the next level of dispute resolution for a more final opinion, more on that below). Please, I realize everyone wants to believe their the only way to do things, but you must accept that rationale, intelligent users with strong records of contribution to the article-space on this Project can disagree and support the use of fair use images in the current minimal, but not excessive, restriction that has guided the FAs of such articles as 2005 Texas Longhorns football and 2007 USC Trojans football. If disrespectful behavior continues (on both sides), this should probably go up further in the dispute resolution process. We're probably at that point now. --Bobak (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree there are editors taking actions that should wait on the resolution of this, the FA examples are not appropriate as "examples". As I've described before, FA nominations only look at the images strictly only as part of the article for consideration, and not any other further use of that image. A logo would make sense there, and if there were no other Longhorn or Trojan articles, there'd be no issue about the logo. But when you look at the logo's use throughout WP , there's a problem that FA will not be able to address. Thus, we should not look to the FAs as examples, but instead how all sports-related articles of the same type deal with the logos. --MASEM 21:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to build on Oren0's post, WP:NFC, Acceptable use, Images, #2. WP:LOGOS, sadly, doesn't offer much guidance on this discussion. Interestingly enough, Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy represents what this discussion is about, though it was put into action on the English Wikipedia Project by Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; that's where we find 3a, which states "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." The current dispute is over whether the idea behind this rule was to prevent the proliferation of multiple logos on one page (as people like myself interpret it), or whether this is meant against separate, individual articles on the same subject (as the other side interprets it). If this were to go to ArbCom, I'd ask the following question (and I think everyone can agree on this): "Under WP:NFCC, as guided by the Wikimedia Foundation's Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP), would the use of a college sports team logo on the general team article and/or individual season page be a permissible minimal use?" --Bobak (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To respond to Oreno, of course me saying it requires consensus to include nonfree content is not what makes it so, any more than me saying "The ocean contains salt water" makes the ocean contain salt water. But the ocean still does contain salt water, and this still is a free content project, meaning that any nonfree content is by default and by definition unacceptable, and so consensus must be formed to make any exceptions. It's not me saying so that makes it so, but it still is so. As to the Foundation resolution, yes, it does permit an organization's logo on its main article. That is not in dispute. It does not, however, allow use wherever that organization is mentioned. That is why you do not, for example, see a corporation's logo on an article about a product that corporation makes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed; and the EDP is still subservient to local policy. The only issue here, I think, is one raised by Bobak - whether WP:NFCC#3a applies to multiple items on the same page, or the same item used multiple times. Since any use of a non-free image degrades the core principle of Wikipedia, and therefore should only be used if absolutely necessary, the answer would be that 3a applies in both manners. Furthermore, I would also point out regarding that the use on season/rivalry articles fails, removing the logos does not make the text of the articles any less easy to understand and such use therefore also fails WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 22:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)That's fine. I'm not asking for the Auburn Tigers logo on 2007 Auburn Tigers football team, I'm asking for the logo of that football team to appear on the page of that football team. The fact that this logo is shared among multiple teams is irrelevant. Why do Super Bowl XLI and Super Bowl XLII each contain logos even though they're individual incarnations of the Super Bowl? From the point of view of non-free content, what is the difference between five different Super Bowls which show five different non-free logos and five different football teams which show the same non-free logo (the logo that they all share, but is the logo of each) five times? Oren0 (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using a single logo, a single time, on the main article relevant to that logo (for instance in the two Superbowl articles) is not under dispute. As soon as you use the same logo again on an article which is not the main relevant article, however, you have crossed into non-minimal-use territory. To give an example from another area of non-free content, an image of the box art of a video game would be reasonable fair-use in the article about that video game, but would not be allowed in, say, all the articles about the characters from that game. Black Kite 22:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to rivalry pages, I do not see how one could argue an unnecessary proliferation of the logo. There are only a handful of these pages, not yearly incarnations. There is no rule from what I have read that says the logo can only be used once (i.e. only on the main team page). Moreover, some users have been removing images from pages for which fair-use rationale has been provided. But enforcement clearly states: An image with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the image should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added.Tedmoseby (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not addressing my point. Why do you believe that five articles each containing one non-free logo is more "minimal" than five articles each containing the same non-free logo? Either one is five instances of non-free images on pages. You still haven't demonstrated why the fact that multiple entities share the same logo is relevant to the idea of minimal use. Oren0 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because you're not comparing like with like. You need to look at the proliferation of each logo. For example, 50 sports teams logos used 50 times (once in their respective main team articles) is minimal use. 50 sports teams logos used a total of 500 times because each is used in ten articles, is not. Black Kite 22:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enforcement states: An image with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the image should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added. This means that you can use the image more than one time. You and others are claiming you can only use a non-free image once in the main article. But the enforcement rule clearly indicates a user can only remove images on those articles for which a fair-use rationale is not provided. So if the image has a fair use rationale for the page it is included on you cannot remove it in good-faith. Tedmoseby (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - this is referring only to the fact that a non-free image with a valid FUR won't be speedily deleted; it isn't referring to removing material from articles where that material fails WP:NFCC as a whole. If you look at at WP:NFC "This page in a nutshell", you will see that media has to comply with all four caveats, only one of which is a rationale. There is clearly a necessity - indeed a requirement - to remove material which fails a core Wikipedia policy from articles whether it has a rationale or not, otherwise we would be left in the ludicrous position that blatant copyright infringement couldn't be removed if it had a valid rationale. Black Kite 22:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A full rationale is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a nonfree image to be retained. In order for that to occur, the image must also: be legal to use (generally under fair use), pass the requirements set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation resolution, pass the requirements set forth by local policy (here, this policy), and have community consensus for the exception. All of these things are required, failing any given one means the image will not be retained. I would note that here, we've got enough to remove them (lack of consensus), so the rest doesn't even matter. I hope they are not reinserted the next time they are removed. In previous cases, such as episodes, album covers, and the like, the cleanup was not without incident, but it did proceed without the need for further enforcement. I hope the same will be true here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Black Kite: The rule mentions articles, as in plural, more than one. Please tell us where there is a 1:1 ratio (1 image to 1 main article) specified when using these images. I understand your concerns about using the same image 500 times, but I also think that is an exaggeration to support your position. For instance, there are only and handful of rivalry pages. @ Seraphimblade, good luck enforcing this. This is not nearly the same issue as episodes, album covers, etc. There is a Wikiproject supporting the use of these images, and there are fervent, vigilant editors, both casual and frequent, that will continue to add the images because they really do not care about policy but do care about style and overall look of the encyclopedia. This is in no way a threat, but an observation garnered from trying to edit college football articles before. There are some very stubborn individuals who really won't care to know anything about free content or fair use rationale. It's hard enough trying to clean up the articles to conform to other Wikipedia standards such as notability and verifiability. Tedmoseby (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that it'll be a challenge, as it was the previous times, but eventually it was resolved, as I said, if not without incident, without major incident. In extreme cases, invisible text notes can be left to notify casual editors that the nonfree content is gone and needs to stay gone. The Wikiproject is already aware the images are to be removed, and likely have some way to communicate that to their members, so I don't see that being an issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- I still see no reason to remove these images. Opinion and perception doesn't equal fact and policy. Mastrchf (t/c) 23:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit disingenuous to call quotations of policy "opinion." It has been explained in this thread why both the letter of the policy (WP:NFCC 3a and 8) and the practice in a wide array of other potential usages (discographies, TV episodes, products made by a company) are such that we would have to carve out a special exemption in policy for this WikiProject to get what they want in terms of non-free content usage. I am also disturbed by the number of "support" !votes which state quite clearly that they do not care whether Wikipedia maintains its commitment to free content. This is one of the most basic core values of this project. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it ultimately disgusting that Seraphimblade has violated 3RR/edit war about 15 times today alone, going so far as to leave edit summaries that say "Reinsertion will not be tolerated." It's clear that there's no consensus on this matter and it's also clear that there's no consensus that the policy is clear on this matter. But because an admin says so and threatens with "will not be tolerated", and reverts a million times thereby edit warring and gets away with it, well, quite frankly that's a load of bullshit, in the purest form and definition of the word. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if you feel that way. I would like to note that removal of inappropriate nonfree content is one of the specific exemptions from 3RR, so that doesn't hold much water. I still would like as few removals as possible to be necessary, so of course I'm going to be clear in my edit summaries. The converse isn't true—reinsertion of inappropriate nonfree material is not exempt from the 3RR. However, I think administrative enforcement is absolutely not ideal here, and I would prefer to avoid that if at all possible. I'm not unused to seeing people upset when "their" articles must have use of nonfree material curtailed, and a certain amount of pushback is to be expected. However, that doesn't mean expectations won't remain the same or won't be communicated clearly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This does not qualify as a 3RR exception. WP:3RR says that removal of material that "unquestionably violates the non-free content policy" doesn't qualify. Obviously by reading the above that's not true. If you're removing this material >3 times in 24-hours you're definitely violating WP:3RR no matter how correct you believe yourself to be. Oren0 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, doesn't work like that. We went through that on the other issues too. The fact that some people want to keep it doesn't mean there's any question whether they violate policy. They still unquestionably violate both minimal use and no use for decoration, as well as in many of the articles replaceability (with photos of the team, games, etc.). Logos may be used once and only once on the main article for what they represent, and not on subarticles for that organization. That is longstanding policy and practice in any other area we allow logos, and follows the principle of minimal use. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would disagree, but I guess my opinion doesn't matter as I'm not an admin. I once defended the validity of Wikipedia from one of my professors at Georgia Tech. This whole thing has made me rethink my views. Maybe he was right when he said that Wikipedia was "nothing more than self-righteous bastards who think they know everything about anything but instead can only see about 6 inches out their own ass." Ndenison talk 03:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec) Unquestionable - n - "Beyond question or doubt". The facts that most editors here (at least so far) disagree with your interpretation and hundreds of KB have been devoted to this discussion indicate that this use is far from "beyond doubt." The purpose of the 3RR exceptions is that no reasonable editor would disagree with you, and that therefore the probability of an edit war resulting from a 3RR exception is very low. Clearly many editors disagree with you; if you reach your 3RR limit you should stop or risk the same consequences as anyone else who edit wars. Oren0 (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, if one must remove the image more than once, it would indicate someone disagrees! If we were using "everyone agrees" as our "unquestionable" criterion here, there would be no need for the criterion. Now, of course, needing to remove it repeatedly is far less than ideal. I would much prefer that this be handled in a much better manner, that we can generate understanding here as to why they need to go and not have any issue with it. But please do be aware that if it needs removal, it will happen. Once again, I've been through these scenarios before, and "no one disagrees with you" is emphatically not the standard for the 3RR exemption on this matter. That doesn't mean that's the ideal method of this getting done, of course, and I'd prefer it not come to that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • What he means is that he is an admin and WP:3RR doesn't apply to him. Ndenison talk 03:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • (edit conflict)This whole discussion here is about whether or not there is overuse of non-free images. You, Seraphimblade, seem to think the discussion ended long ago and the policy is set in stone. So that frees you of any 3RR/Edit War liability. Again, total bullshit. You have violated 3RR all day. You have edit-warred all day. With numerous editors. Hide behind wiki-lawyering all you want. Shit still stinks no matter how deep it's buried. I'd like to see an admin that has the balls to block you. If it were a non-admin such as myself, I'd have been blocked the first 3RR infraction.. you? 15 and counting but you're scott free. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 04:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • To Ndenison, it has nothing to do with admin or non-admin, it has to do with the nature of the edit. Admins are subject to the same 3RR rules, including the same exemptions, as any other editor. Any editor removing nonfree content that breaks the nonfree content policies is exempt from 3RR, be they editor, admin, crat, arb, Jimbo (well, Jimbo can do whatever he wants), etc. It's a straw man that it has to do with some sort of "administrative privilege". Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Unquestionably non-free. You keep missing that part. That means without question. This whole discussion means that this issue is with question. What you are doing is not exempt from 3RR. Ndenison talk 04:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I have already explained that "unquestionable" does not mean "no one disagrees". In this case, it is clear that there is no consensus to include these images in this manner. In the absence of every criterion I set forth above, including but not limited to a clear consensus that the use is appropriate, the use of nonfree content is unquestionably unacceptable. It is presumed a violation of our mission until and unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. Again, if no one questioned that the use were unacceptable, a 3RR exemption would be redundant—if no one questioned such the image would never be reinserted! We've already been over this with episodes, discographies, all types of cases. Your assertion is not how it works in practice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • So now you're trying to redefine the english lanquage? If someone dissagrees, than it is infact questionable. Its just that you don't disagree. Forget it, I'm done. If I revert them, I'll be blocked. I should stop wasting my time here, it's becoming more obvious that wikipiedia is a joke. Ndenison talk 04:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-To claim that something that is argued by most of the people here is "unquestionably" wrong is, well, unquestionably wrong. I'm done arguing about 3RR with you. If you revert regarding this >3 times in 24 hours (I haven't seen that you have so far, btw, and I have no intention of edit warring with you), WP:ANI or WP:AN3 can deal with it. Oren0 (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I would like to know is where in the rules it says you can only use an image once for a main article and cannot use it for related articles. I understand (but respectfully disagree) with the desire to cut down on the proliferation of a given image that is not free, but where in the rules cited does it say there must be essentially a 1:1 ratio? You keep citing "longstanding policy," but it has also been longstanding policy to use the image multiple times, as Wikiproject:College football has done because these images are fair use and of low quality. I would like to see a clear rule stating the image can only be used once and only be used on a main article. Baring that, I don't think you can argue "long standing policy" in your favor and expect others to comply, nor can you enforce it.Tedmoseby (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already pointed out longstanding policy, in that nonfree images cannot be used more than minimally, cannot be decorative, and that logos are appropriate for use once and only once in a main organization article. For example, we would not allow the Apple logo in the Ipod article, because it is already used at Apple Inc.. Similarly, we would not allow a logo in a child article if it is available in a parent. This is not an exception to the rule, it is the rule as by both policy and practice. What we're doing here is bringing college football articles in line with logo use restrictions on everything else, not imposing special ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand all that, I would like to see the policy that says : 1 image per 1 main article. Baring that who decides what is decorative and what is not? Again, I understand the desire to not have an image on 500 pages, as Black Kite fears, but you guys aren't being clear on this. Tedmoseby (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)Just so we're clear, which policy or guideline says that "logos are appropriate for use once and only once in a main organization article"? Not which one you interpret to imply this (i.e. your definition of minimal use, which differs from the definitions of others), but which actually says this? Oren0 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your question is invalid. #3 and #8 are what say this. It's like asking "Well yes, NPOV says articles must be neutral, but what specifically says we can't say 'John Foo is the greatest guy in the world?'" #3 and #8, as well as common and longstanding practice in other areas, are what say that. There's not something else that goes into more specifics, nor is there any need for that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Seraphimblade: your explanation is not sufficient. You cite #3 and #8, but nowhere in the letter of the law of #3 or #8 does it say an image can only be used for a main article and no other article, which you and Black Kite are claiming. So again, where does this 1:1 ratio exist in the guidelines? #3 says minimal use. Who decides what is minimal? You can't just impose a 1:1 use because of a "longstanding practice", if that "longstanding practice" is not explicitly stated in Wikipedia. I have asked several times for you to provide the policy that explicitly states that minimal means: 1 image for 1 main article only. I suspect it does not exist. Further more, rule 8 is also open for interpretation. It is up to the editor to decide if an image can increase the understanding of a topic. I believe you are using that clause to say any image linked to any page that is not a main article should be removed. Rule 8 also does not say this, and you are applying your POV, or own interpretation of that rule. Finally, in the enforcement guidelines, the first rule says for some (but not all) articles. Articles, as in more than one, plural. I submit to all that this suggests that the 1 image for 1 main article policy/interpretation doesn't hold water and its practice is invalid. Thus a non-free image can be used more than once, and it is up to the editor to provide justification for inclusion (i.e. fair-use rationale). If they do, then you can't go around summarily deciding the image does or does not increase the understanding of the topic based on free-use, but must do so on the basis of the article itself. Currently your edits suggest you are simply slashing images based on free use. Nor can you enforce a "longstanding policy" to remove an image if it is not explicitly stated in the rules, which it looks like it is not, because "minimal" in #3 is not defined as 1 image to 1 main article. Tedmoseby (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not particularly relevant whether you find the explanation sufficient. This is the rule, it is the practice, and it is what will happen. It's not required that a specific rule exist for each scenario of excessive use, that is why #3 and #8 are written generally. That does not mean they have any less effect. This is not up for discussion, it's required by the WMF and in accordance with such local rules for minimal use. I would like to gain understanding here, but an important component of that understanding is that excessive use will be removed, and this is not up for debate. I'm quite open to explaining why. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm glad that this is all predetermined. It's a shame that some 50 editors have offered their opinions here, we should have just asked you what was going to happen from the beginning. Whether this use is excessive is a matter for consensus, and should this RfC end with a consensus that this use qualifies under #3 and #8 then the images are going to stay, pending further community discussion that ends otherwise. Oren0 (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm afraid the outcome is predetermined. You're welcome to approach WMF and ask them to change the nonfree content requirement of minimal use, but barring that, the outcome was always going to be the same and still is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well you're welcome to rewrite WP:LOGO and WP:CON, but until you do if a consensus exists that use does qualify as minimal and necessarily illustrative then that's what the outcome will be. If a consensus of editors believes this use fits under existing policies (not that this has happened yet, but it very well may), who are you to tell them all that they're wrong and your interpretation is the only possible one? Oren0 (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • @ seraphimblade: On the contrary, it is very relevant that your long standing practice isn't explicitly stated. It means "minimal" is open for interpretation, and that your interpretation of minimal to mean 1 image to 1 main article is not the only one and your interpretation is not the final say. You are hiding behind longstanding practice and it's nowhere to be found in the guidlines. It was a long standing practice to drain the humours to treat medical conditions. It doesn't mean it was the correct practice. Enforcement states that if you are not deleting the image, "the image should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." Which means that you are wrong in imposing your long standing practice of 1 image to 1 article. If a fair-use rationale for an image placed in an article other than a main article exists, you must honor it, and if the fair-use rationale is not present, you must give an editor time for "a suitable rationale." to be added. Currently, you are not and simply removing the images. You are right, this is not up for debate. It seems you are violating the Wikipedia:NFCC enforcement guidelines. I would also submit that "it is what will happen" (or as I read it, your will), is a clear violation of good-faith and the very nature of Wikipedia. Tedmoseby (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Again, this has nothing to do with this being my will. If that were the only justification, it would be a flimsy one indeed. However, here, we are dealing with longstanding practice of logos of all types, and a WMF resolution, not to mention every other who affirmed that this is indeed an NFC violation. That goes far beyond my will, and would override my will if I wanted it otherwise. It's the facts of the situation. I do not by any means claim to be allowed to make rules by fiat, indeed I have recently opposed other bodies doing so. But WMF can, and the community nonfree content principles are made not by fiat but by longstanding practice, agreement, and tradition. This goes far beyond me, and that is why I can say with a very high degree of certainty the outcome is not malleable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thank You for that clarification. but you still haven't answered my questions as to the nature of enforcement. It clearly states that if a fair-use rationale exists for an image, the image can stay, regardless of if the image is attached to main article or other article. Enforcement rules indicate that you are free to remove images from articles for which there are no included rationales, but that is not what many editors are doing. They are simply sweeping away all images from articles that are not main articles. It may be longstanding practice, but again, why is the longstanding practice not subject to change and if longstanding practice is so paramount why is it not written down somewhere in the guidelines? Tedmoseby (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Please see necessary and sufficient conditions, and realize that a rationale, while it is necessary, is not in any way sufficient. A rationale is one of the requirements. It is not the only requirement, nor does it provide any protection if the nonfree content is otherwise invalid or unacceptable. A rationale is the bare minimum to prevent summary deletion of the image as a whole, not a guarantee that it will be allowed anywhere one covers for any period of time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Please excuse my denseness, but you did not answer my question. Where in the guidelines, rules and regulations that govern Wikipedia does it state what you claim to be longstanding tradition that these images can only be used on the main article? And how do you and others claim this longstanding policy to start removing the images when nobody with authority has decided the matter and when there is clearly not even a consensus on this matter? Tedmoseby (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent reset) Please see the discussion and examples above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Somehow I figured you wouldn't or couldn't answer my questions, and I believe it is because the "longstanding tradition" on which you are operating is not flying this time, as there is absolutely no consensus on the matter of what constitutes "minimal." If your "long standing tradition" was valid, then why can people add fair-use rationales to these images? I think that perhaps the "longstanding tradition" is not a guideline, rule or regulation that can be found anywhere in the depths of Wikipedia and the practice of minimal use to mean 1 image to 1 main article can be changed with a consensus. It is not set in stone as you are assuming it is. But the invitation to show me where this longstanding tradition is written in a guideline, rule or regulation is still open. Until then I will be following the Wikiproject College Football recommendations and WP:RAT. Cheers. Tedmoseby (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because you can physically write a rationale does not mean that the rationale is valid. The whole point of fair use rationales has been pretty much defeated by the vague copy-paste rationales that many editors now use. No one is pretending that there is a guideline for one-image-one-article, but there is a longstanding tradition that logos can be included on the specific team/company/whatever article without any particular mention of the logo itself, but that any use elsewhere must contain commentary. This is not a case of being more draconian on related pages, but with being more leniant on the main article. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The facts are that a fair-use rationale is only one of the four caveats required to use a non-free image (listed at the top of WP:NFC) and this has been explained a number of times to you now. It has also been explained quite clearly how WP:NFCC#3a and to an extent WP:NFCC#8 govern the use of excessive non-free images. WP:NFCC is the "guideline, rule or regulation" that you are asking for above, and actually (unlike WP:LOGO, for example) it's a policy too. Black Kite 10:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to mention the fact that the logo guidelines are quite clear that that non-free content guidelines still apply to logos, and they must be treated the same as any other non-free image. I doubt there would be nearly as much controversy if the images we were talking about were not logos- they should not be treated any different from any other non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of logos from main articles

Now editors are removing logos from the main articles as well as from individual-season articles. I understand this RfC is to debate the use of logos in 1. Individual season articles such as 2007 Georgia Bulldogs football team, 2. Rivalry game articles, and 3.Individual-game articles. Yet edits such as this one are removing logos from a main article such as Georgia Bulldogs football. File:UGA$!logo.png is the logo if the football team, and is not the logo of the University itself, which is File:Ugaarch.svg. This is a perfect example of what Cmadler argues above.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in error with that edit, and you will notice the next edit is me reverting myself. The Bulldogs logo is not eligible for copyright, so it is not a nonfree content issue. I apologize for my error and have already reverted myself, what else do you want? (Also, I refactored your comment above to take out the university logo, which is nonfree and so may not be displayed outside of article space, you can link to such images rather than displaying them by putting a colon before "File".) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Minor point, given there's no mention of PD-ness of the Bulldog's logo, it should be treated as non-free until otherwise determined, so I've colon-ed the image off the talk page too) --MASEM 05:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The oval-G logo is actually owned by the Green Bay Packers (created in 1961) and licensed to both the University of Georgia and Grambling State University. This is cited in the Packers' article. Cmadler (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Fine, but you reverted yourself for a different reason than what 2008 is talking about. See this or this for examples of main page removals that you did that were reverted by others. Oren0 (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main article there is at Auburn Tigers or California Golden Bears, and those logos are copyrighted and copyrightable, so yes that would be correct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, Sera, I see that you are correct. Mea culpa.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, Oren0, and there are a ton of other examples. The logo for The University of Texas is File:The_University_of_Texas_at_Austin_seal.png, whereas the logo for Texas Longhorns football is File:Texas Longhorn logo.svg. Sometimes they are the same, see Texas A&M University :File:TAMU_logo.png which is the same as the logo for the football team: File:Texas AMU logo.png.University of Michigan and Michigan Wolverines football, but often they are not. But the general football article is the main article.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the football team's article is a subarticle of the article on the school's entire athletic department, such as Auburn Tigers or Texas Longhorns. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the logo can be used on both the school's main page as well as the athletic department's main page, as in the case of Texas A&M? Wouldn't that violate the proposed limit of using the logo only on the "main" page?--2008Olympianchitchat 19:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the removal of logos at this time is very premature, as there is obviously a lot of discussion on the topic. Furthermore, there appears to be a heavily weighted consensus for not removing those logos. The standard, I believe, is "over-use" and that over-use in my opinion would be for using the team logo on player or coach articles, not for the team or sub-articles about the team. Those sub-articles are, in my opinion, absolutely appropriate. But my opinion aside, the removal of those at this time was completely inappropriate until this discussion can be put to bed. Can someone supply a reason or reasons why they should be deleted at this point in the discussion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For two reasons. First, they violate NFCC and will get removed regardless, they're not up for discussion, so the outcome of the discussion is irrelevant. WMF would have to change its policies for them to be kept. Secondly, nonfree content is always presumed unacceptable. "No consensus" in a nonfree content discussion does not default to keep, we're talking about something that's by definition against our mission and we must make exceptions for. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - and even in the unlikely situation that there were an overwhelming consensus that these logos should be an exception from our non-free policies, that would still require a WMF change of policy, which almost certainly wouldn't happen. It's quite understandable why - either the m:mission of Wikipedia is free content, or it isn't. Making an exception to that free content policy would be the beginning of a long, very slippery, slope. Black Kite 18:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your "slippery slope" has already been started. Your mission argument could easily be made to exclude all non-free content. But obviously WP:NFCC exists so the powers that be believe that some non-free content is acceptable. We don't need NFCC or anything else to be rewritten for many of the uses we're lobbying for if a consensus believes they fit within the current policy. No matter how loudly you disagree, the interpretation of Wikipedia policy and the definition of what is "minimal" and what is "illustrative" are matters of opinion that can only be decided by consensus (barring an overriding view by ArbCom, Jimbo, etc). Oren0 (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that images in violation of NFCC should be removed, subject to established procedures. That's why I argue that team logos shouldn't appear on articles about rivalries or on articles about individual games. ("Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article?" No.) That's also why I argue that, per NFCC, team logos CAN appear on single-season articles; the oval-G logo IS the logo for the main subject of 2008 Georgia Bulldogs football team. The facts that it also happens to be the logo for 2007 Georgia Bulldogs football team and will most likely be the logo for 2009 Georgia Bulldogs football team are irrelevant to the question of its appearance in 2008 Georgia Bulldogs football team. Cmadler (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC) (I continue to believe that for articles about a single season a team photograph is preferable to a logo. That, however, is a matter of taste or style, not of what is or is not permissible.)[reply]

Where does this "longstanding tradition" exist?

Black Kite, You say "It has also been explained quite clearly how WP:NFCC#3a and to an extent WP:NFCC#8 govern the use of excessive non-free images." Neither of those rules say 1 image to 1 main article. You guys keep citing this as "longstanding tradition" because 3a and 8 are ambiguous without "longstanding tradition." My point is that if the rules doesn't explicitly state your "longstanding tradition" you are not the authority to decide if an image's use is "excessive" nor do you have any ground assume the rationale is some BS cut and paste job. If a rationale exists for the image you need to assume good-faith or contact the editor to let them know you think the fair-use rationale they provided is BS. This is not happening and the anti-editors are simply cleaning house, with most editors unaware of this discussion or unaware of your "longstanding tradition." You say "Just because you can physically write a rationale does not mean that the rationale is valid. The whole point of fair use rationales has been pretty much defeated by the vague copy-paste rationales that many editors now use. Again, you are not assuming good faith here. You are simply imposing your belief that the other editor's free-use rationale is BS and going ahead with the removal, based on longstanding tradition that is not written anywhere. Tedmoseby (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not failing to assume good faith by saying that a rationale is bogus. Saying that someone is deliberately inserting bad rationales to force non-free content onto the project when they know it is against current practice is a failure to assume good faith. Let's not turn this into an argument about who's assuming good faith and who's being incivil, let's just stick to the matter at hand, shall we? J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still doesn't address the "longstanding tradition" or what you call "current practice" of 1 image to 1 main article. Editors claim this but it is nowhere to be found in the rules and is not evident in other sports articles, such as NFL. I bring up good-faith only because editors who are removing content are claiming something that doesn't exist anywhere in the rules for another editor to find. It's wrong for you and others to assume editors know what "current practice" is and accept it when you are slashing images during an open debate, since free-use rationales have been the norm. Inevitability of an outcome in your favor to begin the process of removal is bogus. Tedmoseby (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:FUEXPLAIN covers some of those discussions. βcommand 19:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is your user page. Where does this policy exist in the Wikipedia policies? I am not interested in discussions that cannot be proven to be policy. And its not what others are citing. They are citing their interpretation of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8Tedmoseby (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please review that page, it summaries and links to prior discussions. if you are un-willing to do that please stop contributing to the current discussion, as you will not have complete understanding of prior discussions. βcommand 19:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • What that page has is *your slant* on past discussions. Please remember WP:CIVIL. You have no right to suggest other people leave the discussion just because they are not eager to follow a link to your personal essay. Johntex\talk 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please note that I have never edited that page. Rather it is something that I saved when a admin invoked their right to vanish. βcommand 20:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, you did not write it. But it remains merely an essay supporting your point of view. It has absolutely no weight of policy or guideline. Johntex\talk 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Nevertheless, it is a useful page in that it links to prior discussions, and explains why many common objections to the limiting of non-free images are not compatible with Wikipedia policy in terms that are easier to understand. Betacommand was not claiming that it *was* a policy. Black Kite 21:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It is useful only in the sense that information from a political campaign headquarters is useful. Yes, it will contain some discussion of the issue at hand, and perhaps even some facts, but they will be colored by the commentary of that side of the debate. Also, I never said he claimed it was a policy. I am simply pointing out to other readers that it is *NOT* a policy or guideline, lest anyone be confused by his posting a pretty-blue link. I do note he took no pains to point out the fact that it is merely an essay. Therefore, his post could have been unintentionally misleading. Johntex\talk 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for the links to past discussions pertaining to fair-use in Wikipedia. However, it appears that the past discussions linked deal with having many images in lists or list-like articles (TV episode summaries for a season), so although there are some relevant points, in certain regards this is a different matter. You say How an image is used is the salient point on this aspect, not how many are used. It is typically the case that images used for depiction purposes only are rather tightly restricted to articles pertaining to the particular thing being depicted, not superset articles such as discographies, list of characters, artist pages, etc. That is very much my point here (in this case the issue is how many times a single image is used, rather than how many images are used). A logo appearing on 100 articles for which it is the legitimate logo is acceptable (e.g. 2008 Georgia Bulldogs football team), but even a single appearance where it is not the logo of the subject of the article is unacceptable (e.g. Michigan-Ohio State rivalry). Cmadler (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then why dont we do that for other things like Apple Inc's IPODs and other products? those are in fact the logo for those items. Please review WP:NFCC#8 ... omission would be detrimental to that understanding. logos outside the main subject fail that. why must 2008 Georgia Bulldogs football team have a logo on it? what unique need will be added that cannot be achieved by providing a link to the main article besides convenience? βcommand 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just to make it clear that no-one is "picking on" these articles, I can think of no situation in which using the same non-free image 100 times in Wikipedia could ever be justified. We have been here many times before, with discographies, "List of..." articles, galleries etc. and in most of those cases even two uses of the same image was held to be excessive. That's how restrictive NFCC#3a is. Black Kite 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comparing logos to galleries of images is not a good comparison. A logo, by definition, exists to identify the subject of the logo. That is not true for something like a frame from a movie or even album cover artwork. There is no problem at all with using the same logo 100 times if we are so broad in our coverage that we have 100 articles on the topic being covered. Johntex\talk 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Per Betacommand's WP:FUEXPLAIN, the number of uses is irrelevant, each one must be considered in its context. An item can be used 100 times, all appropriately, or can be used just once but inappropriately. The number of uses per logo is irrelevant. Cmadler (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong the number of usages is part of the consideration of usage. There is a reason that there is not a set number of usages for each NFC image, its a subjective issue. In the case of using it 100 times why must it be used on each page? what unique additions does it make to the article that cannot be achieved with a link to the main article? βcommand 21:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. There is no reason to set an arbitrary limit on how many times a logo is used. Johntex\talk 21:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand, please explain your point in light of the above quote from your essay? Thanks, Cmadler (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how xxxx football team article usage passes WP:NFCC#8 ... omission would be detrimental to that understanding. ? βcommand 21:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an arbitary limit. There's WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, which make it clear that only a minimal number of uses is allowed, and each of those must be completely necessary to the understanding of the article. Black Kite 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Minimum" would be zero, and we don't forbid all usages of a logo on Wikipedia so therefore we are not after "zero" usage. Any number other than zero is an arbitrary limit. If a logo is used 5 times to help the reader identify the subject or 500 times, that is an equally valid use. Johntex\talk 23:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmadler, this is not what they have been arguing. They have been arguing that an editor can only use a non-free image once, and only on what they deem to be the "main article," such as Syracuse Orange. And they are using WP:NFCC#8 to delete all other uses and are ignoring free-use rationales because of their own opinion that the image does not add substantially to the article. Finally, they have proceeded in removing images, ignoring consensus rules, because of the "inevitability" that their viewpoint will win based on past precedent. A precedent I have yet to find anywhere other than user pages that support their argument. Still can't find any rule of this 1:1 ratio, as I have been referring to it.Tedmoseby (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the point I was trying to make with the above quote from Betacommand's essay. Cmadler (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's an analogy. A policeman sitting in York Road books a motorist for doing 44mph in a maximum 30 zone. The motorist complains that the penalty ticket is unfair. "Why?" asks the policeman. "You show me the exact law that says - in those exact words - that I can't do 44mph in York Road, and I'll pay the ticket" replies the motorist. Tedmoseby and others, this is the argument you are currently using, because you are saying that despite a policy which clearly states that minimal use of non-free images is required, it doesn't give the exact combination of circumstances to define "minimal". This is why we use common sense and precedent. 100 uses is clearly not minimal, and in precedent cases, even two uses has often - even usually - been found to be excessive. Black Kite 21:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your analogy is faulty. Say there is no speed limit set on this road yet. There is a general law that says speed limits should be "minimal", but not a specific limit on this road. A committee is currently in the process of determining the proper speed limit by consensus and choosing between two options. While no decision has currently been reached, the committee is currently about 2:1 in favor of the higher speed limit. The police officer decides to ticket people as if the lower speed limit was decided anyway, because he claims that only the lower speed limit could be considered "minimal" and that based on "longstanding tradition" the speed limit of the road is predetermined. "It doesn't matter what consensus the committee comes to," the officer says, "because clearly the lower speed limit is the only one that fits the definition of minimal. Whatever consensus is reached is irrelevant as I will just enforce the lower limit that I deem to be minimal." I believe that is the proper analogy to what's going on here. As a side note, 100 uses is a straw man, so please stop pointing it out. Most of those 100 uses had no FURs and were removed. Nobody is advocating that kind of use. For a more accurate look at the numbers we're talking about, I'd point you to User:Hammersoft/logos. Oren0 (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that there is a speed limit - WP:NFCC#3a - and this RfC is not a committee - it's a request for comment - and canot "determine" Wikipedia policy, as has been repeated ad nauseam above. Black Kite 22:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "speed limit" you mention is exactly the law I mentioned in my analogy: speed limits should be minimal. What you're missing is that we're not trying to determine policy, we're trying to interpret it. It's a matter of subjective versus objective. A speed limit is objective. We can all agree that a car traveling >20 mph is violating the law and therefore we can all ticket consistently. But policies that use terms like "minimal" are inherently subjective and open to interpretation. One thing this discussion has made abundantly clear is that your definition of "minimal" differs significantly from mine. Unlike the speed limit, whether use is minimal is a matter of opinion. Around here, matters of opinion and interpretations of ambiguous guidelines are determined by consensus. Oren0 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • @ Black Kite, You can throw all the analogies, metaphors, etc. around that you want. You still aren't quoting any Wikipedia law or rule that proves your interpretation of what "minimal use" means is correct. And all Betacommand has done is shown us a convenient collection on his user page. Again, no laws/rules/regulations defining what minimal is can be discerned. None of what you have said has shown any of us that your interpretation of WP:NFCC#3a, that "minimal" means using an image only once and only for a main article, is the correct interpretation. Past precedent isn't cutting it because minimal is not defined and there are differing opinions on what consensus means. For all we know, you have been operating under a false assumption the entire time. OrenO is correct that the "speed limit" is not set. Only that you, Black Kite, believe it is. I think most reasonable editors can discern misuse of non-free images, and we do not need you, Serpahimblade, or anyone else to impose your interpretation of what constitutes "minimal." You can look no further than the use of the free-use athletic logos to see that they are not being plastered over every little article that mentions the university or sporting team mentioned in that article. This sensationalist argument that the use of these images is out of control is a red herring. And more egregious than that is you are editing as if the speed limit is set specifically at 1 image only used for 1 main article. That is not what minimal is defined as. It has no definition. Plus what Oren0 just said. Tedmoseby (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your entire argument seems not to revolve around the fact that the logos are adding anything to those articles, but the fact that you are not breaking any "law" in putting them there. How about you focus on demonstrating that the logos are actually necessary, rather than digging in your heels? We can all agree that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." How about you tell us how this media meets the requirement of "significance"? J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sure. I've largely been arguing over "minimal" to this point since that's primarily what the opposers have been bringing up. As for significance, including the logo of the 2008 Oregon Ducks football team on 2008 Oregon Ducks football team is a visual representation of the team that identifies the team to the reader in a way that text cannot. This is exactly the same reason the Microsoft logo appears on Microsoft, the Mercedes-Benz logo appears on Mercedes-Benz, and the Super Bowl XLII logo appears on Super Bowl XLII. If you're going to argue that these cases are different in terms of significance, I'd be interested to hear why. The fact that the 2008 Oregon Ducks football team shares a logo with other teams has no bearing on whether that logo is significant on that page. Oren0 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[de-indent to reply] But those usages don't support what you're talking about. We don't put the Mercedes-Benz logo on every article about a car Mercedes makes. Consider, as an example, the use of logos in articles about the Chicago Bears. We use the logo, of course, in the parent article, but not in 2006 Chicago Bears season, History of the Chicago Bears, Chicago Bears seasons, Chicago Bears statistics, or List of Chicago Bears players. The only other place in the Bears family of articles where I can find the logo and derived art being used is, quite appropriately, the article about Chicago Bears logos, uniforms, and mascots, which (if the article were of better quality) should contain critical commentary *about* the logo in question, and thus the image's use there would be necessary. It seems that despite what you see as a horrible shortcoming, our coverage of the Chicago Bears football team does not suffer. Why then must we plaster college logos all over Wikipedia? (ESkog)(Talk) 00:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

              • On the contrary, I happen to agree that the images should be used judiciously. I simply disagree that minimal means "only on the main article" as others have posited. Furthermore, the main article is not necessarily the most or first visited article on Wikipedia when it comes to college athletics. For instance, I frequently edit Notre Dame Fighting Irish football. I would consider that a main page, because of the volume of Notre Dame football related articles surrounding it and because of the frequent edits it undergoes. Others would argue "main page" in this instance means Notre Dame Fighting Irish, which is a poorly written article that is not as frequented nor is as frequently edited. All I have been asking for is where in the rules it says that "minimal" means only one use on the main article, where "main article" is defined, why the anti-logo editors get to decide what the main article is, and how editors removing the non-free logos get to determine what constitutes acceptable use using guideline 8. Finally, basing an argument on the fact that the logos are adding anything to those articles is too subjective and consensus should dictate that. Tedmoseby (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • (ec, this is a reply to Oren0) Though this point is veering strangely towards the classic philosophical debate regarding identity and change, it seems to me that the team is actually the same team from year to year, (keeping the ground, the name, the coach, the logo) and the "year" articles are merely subarticles- as in, they would all be included in the same article, were it not for length concerns. As such, while consensus remains that team articles should include their logo, the main article on the team should include said logo. However, the year articles are not about the team overall, they are about one specific aspect- their performance in that year. Let us propose a hypothetical situation in which we had no free images of Barack Obama, and he died tomorrow. We would use a single image of him at the height of his career in his main biographical article, probably taken from press materials on his website. We would not, however, use this main image of him in subarticles- the article we have on his political views, the article we have on his early life, and so on. I see this as a similar case- though the logo is significant to the team as a whole, it is not significant regarding that particular aspect of the team, be it a specific year, a specific rivalry, or whatever. Of course, there may be subarticles (perhaps a subarticle on the kit, the mascot or the logo itself) where the logo would be a significant part of that aspect of the team. In these articles, as well as the overall article, the logo could be included. However, where the logo remains only related to the subject of the article, as opposed to an integral part of it, it should not be included. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This has been my concern as well - the team articles could replace the word "team" with "season" and not change any meaning. Except a "season" has no organizational identify and thus requires no logo. --MASEM 01:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:SantasLap.jpg
"Have you been a good boy and minimized your use of non-free content this year?"

The bottom line

As in previous discussions on these subjects, the fact that people believe WP:NFCC to be ambiguous does not make it so. If all these logos in sub-articles can be shown to pass both WP:NFCC#3a (minimal use) and WP:NFCC#8 (significance), then they stay. I am open to persuasion, but I have not yet seen any convincing argument made that they pass both parts. Black Kite 22:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, when you say "can be shown to pass both WP:NFCC#3a (minimal use) and WP:NFCC#8 (significance)", what exactly do you mean? "Can be shown" to your satisfaction? No, that doesn't sound right. Certainly you mean "can be shown" to the satisfaction of a consensus of the editors here, right? That's all we're trying to do. I'm glad we're in agreement. Oren0 (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are certainly not in agreement in the slightest if you believe that a small collection of editors with an interest in a subject can decide unilaterally to override a core section of Wikipedia policy, and I would suggest very strongly that no-one here decides to take this RfC as an excuse to do that. Black Kite 22:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'd think much the opposite. Since these images were ripped from the articles, I'd say that the logos shouldn't be taken away unless they are shown to not pass both NFCC 3a and 8 (see, bold text is cool, huh?). And I have not yet seen any convincing argument made that they do not pass both parts. Mastrchf (t/c) 22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and I have yet to see them pass either. so default is exclude. βcommand 23:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the default would be to not remove them from the page. Mastrchf (t/c) 23:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Black Kite, that the images do not violate any policy. Your premise is therefore false. Johntex\talk 23:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The default is to exclude fair use images. It is up to those wishing to include anything (be it a statement, an article on a garage band, or whatever) to demonstrate to others that they should be included, and, with fair use images (the same as with information from BLPs and other potentially controversial material) it is better to err on the side of caution, to be one short rather than one over. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, and we're attempting to demonstrate to others that these logos should be included. Currently, by about a 3:2 margin, people here seem to agree that this use is appropriate. I don't have a problem with disagreeing with our interpretation of the nonfree content policies. I do have a problem with the idea that we can't even discuss this use or attempt to convince anyone that it's appropriate. Oren0 (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consensus to include the images. Therefore, by policy, they go. I'm sorry if this angers people, but that is policy. By the way, it's not 3:2, it's 4:3. If you remove the the support votes from people Rtr10 canvassed that were not previously in the discussion before the RfC began (4 of them), it's almost a dead heat. That's not consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is definitely not assuming good faith on the part of those participants. If you want to indicate those that were canvassed, that's fine. But to take out their input ("If you remove the the support votes from people Rtr10 canvassed that were not previously in the discussion before the RfC began") (added for tastiness) assumes bad faith on their parts. That you are doing so indicates that you are seeing that the community consensus approves of including these images and are now grasping at whatever you can to ignore what is becoming pretty clear.--2008Olympianchitchat 02:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for putting words into my mouth. Would you please pass the sauce? They are quite inedible. I certainly don't recognize the taste, since I never spoke such words. What is blatantly clear is there is no consensus to include the images. Even if you take the (incorrect) stance that it's 3:2 in favor, that's still not consensus to include. The use fails. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems as if the people have spoken. There's more time left in this RfC, tho, so we shouldn't call it yet.--2008Olympianchitchat 02:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was considering adding a section at the bottom similar to "motion to close", give the blatant lack of consensus after more than 300k of debate on this page and recent debate at WT:NFC, the fact that this RfC has been polluted by canvassing and that the limitation of fair use isn't really a consensus issue anyways. But, given that this RfC has only been open for three days, I'm sure there's people who would object on procedural grounds, even in the face of evidence. So, I've decided not to. The horse will continued to be ruthlessly flogged, despite it having stopped twitching 150k ago :) I don't think there's anything that anyone is saying that hasn't been said several times before.
  • The said hilarity of this is both sides are taking up a stance of "We win! We win!" It's like a black comedy. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we were ignoring the discussion and just looking at the vote above, we would be able to remove several voters who clearly do not understand what the discussion is about, or put forward invalid arguments- it doesn't matter whether they were canvassed or not. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real bottom line

  • Generally speaking, there are several potential reasons to remove an image from an article:
  1. It is a copyright violation
  2. A replacement exists or may exist in the future
  3. The image detracts from a mission to promote free content
The use of a logo in an article about a sports team does not violate any of the above:
  1. Fair use allows use of the logo to identify the brand/product/company being discussed, exactly as being done here.
  2. By definition, a logo is unique and their is no replacement. Any user-created drawing that was similar enough to the logo to be recognizable would still be covered by the trademark or copyright of the owner of the logo.
  3. Since no replacement can be created, there is no advantage to us in avoiding the use of the logo. As I have pointed out above, most of these articles that use the logos have multiple free-use images as well. Therefore, the logo has not in any way detracted from promoting free-use images.
Therefore, there is no reason to remove these logos from articles. Johntex\talk 23:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your argument ignores the actual issues at hand, NFCC #3 and #8. By your three standards, I could slap the Longhorn logo right here next to this comment, so that we were all clear what we were arguing about, and I can't find any way that it fails to meet any of your three standards. In fact, to use your standards, we should put non-free content all over discographies, TV episodes, sub-entities of companies, and wherever else they fit. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And allowing that non-free content again would, what, roughly return us to the state of play that prevailed on enwiki when the Foundation identified enwiki as exemplifying best practice? Jheald (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ESkog beat me there- this "bottom line" completely misses the whole point of this discussion, and is clearly not a reflection of current practice, policy or goals on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is, a nonfree image requires four things to be included here. Every one of these four is required, the failure of any of them precludes its use.

  • It must be legal for us to use, generally under fair use law. This point is likely passed here, I don't foresee us getting sued for use of the logos.
  • It must pass our nonfree content criteria. This is passed for a single image on the main article, but is failed by any additional use as that fails #3 and #8. We can stop there, as failing any one of these precludes use. However...
  • The use must pass the WMF resolution. Again, that does allow use of a logo in a main article, subject to the minimal use restrictions on all other images. More than one use fails here, that's not minimal as a link to the main article suffices.
  • There must be clear community consensus to use the image. Note that this is one of the four, consensus could never override NFC or the WMF resolution, and of course could not override the law. However, in this case, there is no consensus to include. If there were, that would not overcome the previous two failures.

We cannot use them here. Any one of these items failing would be sufficient to exclude the image. Failing three of the four makes the outcome crystal clear. That doesn't mean it's always to everyone's liking, but it is the outcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Show me the policy And the real bottom line is that nowhere is there any policy that anyone can find that states that fair-use of copyrighted photos is "one-and-out" only. Overuse is certainly wrong, and the "overuse measure" is more stringent than on free material. But it is not one-time only. If it is and I have this incorrect, (which happens way more than I like to admit) there is a simple solution: Show the policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no such policy but this is a false dilemma argument. The policy says minimal use, true it does not say one and only one use us allowed, but that doean't mean that since more than one use can be allowed in some cases it is always acceptable. In this case the logical threshold for minimal use will in most cases (there might be exceptions, but generaly speaking) will be to use the logo only in the main article about the team (one use). Yes if the logo is a subject of commentary in another article (the design was changed that year or something) it might be used there as well and still be minimal since it was nessesary to use it in both places, but just because there is not a hard 1:1 limit doesn't mean there is a carte blanche to use onece in every article somehow related to the subject. It has to be nessesary in those other articles to qualify, not merely "nice to have". If the logos can't be said to significantly enhance the understanding of all those other articles then clearly having it there can't be said be in line with as little use as possible. As such in most cases minimal use will be only the one use in the main article. Exceptions are possible, but not the rule, and needs to be carefully justified in each instance. Needles to say I don't believe "identifies the team" is a valid justification when repeared across several articles, a link back to the main article can do the same job. --Sherool (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It must pass our nonfree content criteria. This is passed for a single image on the main article, but is failed by any additional use as that fails #3 and #8." Unless someone has recently modified the dictionary definition of "minimal" recently, this "main article" thing is your interpretation of #3 and #8 and therefore necessarily subjective and not fact. I feel like I've said this a ton of times and you still haven't responded to it: matters of interpretation and opinion are matters for consensus.
  • "The use must pass the WMF resolution. Again, that does allow use of a logo in a main article, subject to the minimal use restrictions on all other images. More than one use fails here, that's not minimal as a link to the main article suffices." Again, I must have missed where in the WMF resolution (which allows logos and does not say their use should be minimized) it says anything about "main articles". Again, this is your interpretation. Again, interpretation is a matter for consensus. Neither of these bullets are objectively failed, only subjectively failed as determined by you. This leaves #4 as the only hurdle remaining, which is the purpose of this RfC. Oren0 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems fairly clear to me that this discussion, if more formal, would be closed by an impartial administrator as "no consensus". (Naturally, as has been said above, both "sides" see themselves as the "winner", but that's not really important.) If that is the case, then, as explained above, the logos should be removed. When there is not a consensus for non-free content to be kept (usually coming from silence), it should be removed. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the discussion is not over yet. Second, the idea that the default position is to exclude content (in absence of a consensus otherwise) has been discussed at length above and it's not obviously true. I've never seen a policy or guideline that states anything like this. Generally on WP, the default is the status quo until a consensus emerges to change something. Since silence implies consent, and these pages have had these logos for a very long time, it would seem to me that a consensus is needed to remove these logos, not to continue to include them. As evidence of this being standard WP practice I'd point to WP:BLP. We always want to be careful not to include information that may be false or have pages on living people of dubious notability. But if an AfD based on the questionable notability of a living person closes as "No Consensus", the article is kept. Oren0 (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use the fact that something has existed for a long time as support for it. I won't make real world comparisons, as that would just be silly. Silence implies consensus until that silence is broken, and not a second after that. When there is no clear consensus in AfDs regarding living people, and there is a reason they may want the article removing, we often err on the side of caution, and delete (Brandt/Peppers). In borderline cases, there is very much a delete now, discuss later mentality, with material being added back if there is consensus for it. The same is true of non-free media- take a look at PUI some time. As non-free content is clearly something that stands in the way of us being a "free" encyclopedia, its use needs to be strictly monitored, and used only if the community clearly supports it. J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Political statements aside (though I do find the inclusion of religion alongside slavery and war interesting), sometimes trying too hard to be a free encyclopedia inhibits our ability to be a free encyclopedia. I find the argument of "it goes against us being free" to be uncompelling, because if that was really the community's belief there'd be no non-free content at all. Of course it's a matter of balance and different people land different places on where that balance is. Oren0 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to slip towards using too much non-free material than it is to using too little- I've had images removed from articles I've written recently, so I do realise that they can just slip in. Therefore, though I accept that using non-free material is important and what we should continue doing it (I hate to think what articles on visual arts would look like without non-free images) I feel that any non-free images we do use should meet with significant community approval. Also, we have to remember that the non-free content guidelines, along with the BLP guidelines, are issues that have to be adhered to for legal reasons, so the whole idea of letting something wallow when there is no real conclusion doesn't apply in the same way. Instead, when there is no clear conclusion, it's probably best to take action to be safe. You may argue that there are no legal concerns here (I don't know, and, frankly, don't really care) but if we hypothetically allow overuse (not saying this overuse, I'm speaking hypothetically) in one place because we suspect there are no legal issues, how do we justify removing overuse in another? I don't like the idea of "one rule for you, another for you". Either we stick to our policies, or we scrap them. J Milburn (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer and I'm guessing you aren't either. Let's stick to what complies with the policies rather than speculate on legal matters. Oren0 (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm saying, because we don't want to start speculating on legal matters, unless we're certain that the use of images is within our non-free content guidelines, we should remove the images on the off-chance their use is illegal. We can trust that anything within our guidelines is legal, until told otherwise. J Milburn (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logos in articles of parent organizations?

Has there been discussion, in this RFC or elsewhere, about the use of team logos in articles not about the actual sports teams but parent organizations? Specifically, there has recently been some very contentious discussion regarding the inclusion of team logos in college and university articles. I realize that this is only tangentially related to this RFC but it seems relatively close in spirit. I don't seek to sidetrack or complicate this RFC but only to seek information from a group of people obviously knowledgeable or and interested in this topic. And I apologize in advance if there has been discussion and I have missed it. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


An attempt at consensus

Preface: I still believe that consensus on this matter, on this page or elsewhere, is insufficient to overrule the Foundation's mission, and I further believe that if the supportiest supports were to carry the day, that is what we would essentially be doing. However, in an attempt to move something forward, I would propose that at least there seems to be consensus for the following:

The other two primary uses in question here seem to fall into two categories:

  • Rivalries involving a pair of teams for which the rivalry itself has no identifying logo.
  • Individual seasons of a particular football team's existence.

Although the "oppose" voters (myself included) believe that these uses violate policy, and that this policy uniquely may not be overturned by a consensus of editors, I think there is less pushback there. Unless anyone can think of a reason why, I think we can at least get started on the cleanup of individual game articles as a start. Thoughts? (ESkog)(Talk) 06:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the support category, but I believe removing the logos from individual game articles and eventually yearly team articles is a good compromise. The only caveat with the yearly article is if that certain team has won a national title, it is reasonable to think a user might navigate to that particular page, bypassing main articles. I also think that in the absence of a rivalry logo, the logos of the two teams juxtaposed with each other is a valid visual representation of that rivalry. I also believe that main pages should be Texas Longhorns football and Texas Longhorns men's basketball, not just Texas Longhorns. That should limit a given non-free logo to about 3-6 uses, and definitely under 10. However, I fear that the attitude of some precludes a compromise all together because they feel the issue of consensus is moot given past practice in other areas of Wikipedia. Tedmoseby (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the first game of specific games, it should be noted that if the game itself has a logo that incorporates the logos of the teams, this is in no way an issue. (Magnolia Bowl is an example of such).
However, we should not be trying to figure out if X uses of a logo are ok - as soon as you put hard numbers to this, you create problems that people will try to game the system with. There may be a completely valid reason to use a college team's logo 12 or more times - I cannot fathom a situation of that nature, but lets assume there is one - so as long as all other NFC requirements are met, that's fine.
And we must remember, no one is saying that any use of these logos are bad and thus the image should be deleted; only that in a well-written article that is not directly about the team, the user should be able to know exactly which team it is from the text in teh lede and infobox, and should be exactly one click away from discovering its logo. That is one very common method of reducing non-free content while still being useful to readers. --MASEM 10:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of whether consensus can override the NFC policy, I would refer you to this. CIreland (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "Team logos should not be used in individual game articles which happen to mention that team (such as 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game‎ and 2007 Insight Bowl" except to the extent that the team's logo is incorporated into a logo for that game (as I believe some bowl games do). Although there is disagreement about the use of logos on pages about rivalries and single seasons, there seems to be little, if any, argument in favor of the use of logos for individual games, so I agree that any logos used in such a manner can be removed from those articles. Cmadler (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no different in the uses described, and addressed this early on when the RfC opened. If we permit seasons, then we permit more than a hundred uses per logo. This is absurd. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think ESkog was not conceding the latter points but rather seeking to clarify that there is agreement on the first point. You believe the logos shouldn't be used in individual game articles. I also believe that the logos shouldn't be used in individual game articles. I think the vast majority of commentors on this RfC agree on that point. So let's consider that point settled, let's remove those logos without any further discussion, and to the extent that this discussion continues, focus on the actual points of disagreement. Cmadler (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cmadler is correct. I believe the other uses are also against the policy, and I particularly object to the use of the logo in each season article. I was trying to start here by finding some common ground. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is consensus to remove from game articles. Also, if season articles are removed, I think that solves excessive use. Far less that the sensationalist argument by Hammersoft of over 100 uses per logo. It looks in the case I outlined for Texas, about 7 uses (Main page, football main page, basketball main page, volleyball, baseball, women's basketball and the band). I am no math major, but that is far less than 100. Tedmoseby (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tedmoseby there. We can remove the logos from the game articles, and yes, that's a start, but the real problem seems to lie with the season articles. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea to get the cleanup started somewhere. From this, it seems it will be best to start at the game and season articles, and go from there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Single game articles and season articles are totally different. That is what this consensus is trying to do, find common ground on the single game articles. Not season or rivalry articles. I have no problem with team logos being removed from single game articles. Season articles on the other hand are a totally different story. Rtr10 (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that any of the editors who have participated in this RfC need to be determining what the results are. The RfC is open until January 18. A disinterested editor will close the RfC and determine what the consensus has been. It is inappropriate to start deciding to remove any sports logos in any of article types that have been discussed until then.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFCs are much more informal than that - you act as though this discussion is similar to AFD or something like that. It's supposed to be an informal, lightweight process per the "in a nutshell" summary. In the interest of that, I'm not going to patronize you by quoting extensively from that page. Suffice to say, I think that if consensus is clear on a point, there is nothing magical about the 18th of January. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no fan of additional process and procedure but maybe there should be kind of AfD-like process with a determination of consensus by an uninvolved admin for resolving these dispute on the use of non-free content. At the moment, resolutions are only achieved either by a filibuster or strong-arm tactics by one side or the other. CIreland (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no fan of it either, and I don't think we should do it here. AfD is necessary because whether to keep or delete an article is ultimately up to consensus, so we need a process to gauge that consensus and someone uninvolved to read over the discussion and figure out what the consensus was (or if none formed). Unfortunately, AfD already suffers from headcountitis, where the closer closes the AfD based upon the number of arguments for a given side rather than the merits of the arguments. Here, where there's a right way and a wrong way (we cannot use images in violation of NFC, even if consensus were to develop that we could), I don't think leaving it up to such a process is a great idea. You are right that we need something better than what we've got now, I just don't think that's it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other sports

I had a look round other sports to see what the general style is in those articles. In summary, I can't find any football (soccer) season articles - and there are a lot of them, so I may have missed one - which contain the logo/badge of the team. The soccer articles don't appear to use a consistent infobox, though. Articles that do use an infobox include NFL - I note that Template:Infobox NFL season - which is widely used - does not contain a section for the logo (example article). Ditto baseball - see Template:MLB yearly infobox. Ditto basketball - Template:NBA season. Ditto ice hockey - Template:NHLTeamSeason. I'm not a US sport expert so I may have missed something else, but it appears that using logos in season articles here is very much in the minority. Black Kite 13:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's something I said in the very beginning. This is a minority use, and the notion that "it's how we do it" is false by the evidence you show above. The use of logos in season articles is not how we do it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a conceptual difference between a professional team's season and a college team of a given year. Has anyone stopped to think why all professional sports are named, e.g., 2007 Chicago Cubs season, but college articles are always, e.g., 2007 USC Trojans football team? It's not some clever scheme to try to add logos to the articles. It's because unlike in college, professional teams are fluid. Over the course of seasons, due to free agency, trades, etc, teams are constantly changing. College teams, though, are almost always consistent over a season, as players cannot be traded, etc. due to NCAA rules. A single college team in a given year is a single entity much moreso than a professional team, which is why the articles are the way they are. A single year of a college team is a distinct entity with a logo, a season or a pro sports team (where the roster is constantly in flux) is not an entity and therefore doesn't have a logo. The comparison to pro sports isn't valid. Oren0 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pro football teams tend to remain relatively consistent over a given season. Most of the moving around happens during the offseason (and, of course, college teams have plenty of churn in between each season due to students graduating/coming in and the like), and notwithstanding that, they are the same team whether or not the members change. Regardless, the amount of churn during a given season has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a logo passes the NFC guidelines. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they were distinct entities, they would have distinct logos. (And if they did have distinct logos, we wouldn't be having this conversation). Regardless of that, a "season" or "team" article is effectively the same thing. Black Kite 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since when is there any guarantee that distinct entities have distinct logos? By your logic, Super Bowl XLII and Super Bowl XLI are distinct because they have distinct logos, but the 2008 Rose Bowl and the 2007 Rose Bowl are the same entity because they share a logo (note to self, prepare for the next RfC these guys will bring: removing logos from bowl games). It still hasn't been explained why two different things having the same logo makes them the same or has any bearing on WP:NFCC/WP:LOGO. Nor has it been explained why your interpretation is that two instances of the same logo is less "minimal" than one instance each of two different logos. Oren0 (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll mention the Rose Bowl on your talkpage. Can we stick to this claim that somehow these "team" (i.e. effectively "season") articles have a different status than other equivalent articles on Wikipedia? Because I still don't see a convincing reason why this should be. Black Kite 01:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whatever happened to judging every situation on its own merits? I'm waiting for the explanation of why the 2007/2008 Rose Bowls are the same thing. In terms of policy, there is no logical reason why two instances of the same logo are less "minimal" than two different logos, and pointing to other articles where the free-content police may have already removed things doesn't justify removing anything from these articles. Oren0 (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I addressed this point above. The fact that the players change does not make something a different team- the coach, ground, logo, support staff, fans, name, etc etc remain the same. If college teams are different from year to year, then why not other professional teams from decade to decade? J Milburn (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am with Oren0. What are people supposed to do; Upload a different logo for every bowl (or article) even though they are the same logo, just so there can be a different instance of the logo unique to each article? That would be a total waste of storage and resources, and just doesn't make sense, but that is the logical conclusion to be drawn from the argument being posed. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If there are different logos for each instance of a bowl (such as, for instance, how the Super Bowl has a unique logo for each game), then yes, using that game's unique logo in the article about that particular game is exactly what we should be doing. On the other hand, if the game itself has a logo that is reused from year to year, we should simply put the logo in the parent article about the game (Foo Bowl), and then have 2006 Foo Bowl, 2007 Foo Bowl and the like link to the parent. There would be no need to use a non-unique logo in the article on each year's game if the same logo is present in the parent article about the game as a whole. It does appear some cleanup is needed on those as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Please explain how policy dictates this usage pattern. For the umpteenth time, why is it "minimal" if every article has its own logo but not "minimal" if pages repeat the same logo? Not to mention that you're going to introduce a horrible and arbitrary inconsistency in between one bowl and the next. Furthermore, what do you do for logos that change every five years when the sponsor does? This usage pattern doesn't serve any purpose except to further one draconian reading of policy rather than its intent. Oren0 (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Every use of every image is part of the cumulative use of non-free content on WP. There's a reason why we need a rationale for each use of an image and not just one that covers any possible uses ever. As for the case where the logo changes due to sponsors, it really depends but in most cases, can be replaced by free text. The Rose Bowl logo where the sponsor logo in no way interacts with the bowl logo can be described in words (if such is needed). Sugar Bowl may be a different case, but the intent of the logo is still there, and if you show me the Allstate one, I can probably guess what the Nokia version looked like. (And part of this goes back to the question of including historical logos without criticism or commentary for tv stations that was about a month ago). The Super Bowl logos, on the other hand, have significant changes in overall shape and design each year, and thus keeping each version makes sense. --MASEM 18:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions regarding this issue

I'm already getting reverted trying to attempt this cleanup at 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game. Assistance and/or additional discussion would be appreciated. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've watchlisted it and left a message below yours on his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also watchlisted this one. Cmadler (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps if you didn't use the exact same kind of edit summary for all other edits like this I would have some clue where to look. Imagine my surprise when I found it under a heading of "other sports". [sarcasm]It's a complete mystery as to why I missed this consensus[/sarcasm]. Furthermore, this RfC isn't closed/summarized and is HUGE. The only reason I found this was that you made a recent edit to it. You were reverted once where you re-reverted. Perhaps a more detailed explanation would have been in order. Your comment about an "edit war":
        1. is completely without merit. I made a single reversion against something for which I was completely unaware and was uncodified in policy or any guideline. In fact, you are implementing something buried in a discussion which is not yet complete or closed.
        2. is rather snippy and condescending. Reverting a single change disrupts Wikipedia is no appreciable way
        3. stating that I am "continuing to edit war" is an outright lie in that no edit war has existed prior. Please stop distorting your position on the subject and demonizing those with whom you disagree.
        4. Please retract your comments on my talk page to remove such slander. — BQZip01 — talk 02:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week without comment

We've gone a week without comment. It's clear from this RfC that we do not have consensus. I think on that point we can agree.

The problem we now face is this; the images are still being widely used, and there's no consensus this counts as valid use. There's two ways of looking at this:

  1. With the images in use, but no consensus to permit the use, there will be edit wars if removals are attempted.
  2. If the images were not in use, and no consensus to permit the use, there'd be edit wars if people attempted to use them.

Regardless, the status quo is not an acceptable status. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the other more recent problems with logos, I think the best course of action is to secure some language on WP:NFC that outlines when logos are appropriate, and when they are not appropriate in all cases, not just for sports; the application of logos has to be consistent across the project, not just within the realm of college football, so seeking a wiki-wide solution is likely better. --MASEM 15:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be language outlining what constitutes appropriate use of non-free logos, and it does need to be wiki-wide, rather than college football-specific. In terms of this discussion, I think that the remaining disputes are 1) whether logos can be used on single-season articles and 2) whether logos can be used on articles about rivalries. We appear to have consensus that team logos should not be used on single-game articles, per ESkog's proposal above. Cmadler (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually Hammersoft, there is only one way to look at it: the burden of proof is on those wishing to include non-free content to provide a valid rationale (i.e. demonstrate that it the NFCC are satisfied). In the absence of consensus that a valid rationale is possible, we default to removal. Unless anyone has any further points to bring to the debate, compliance should commence in the near future. CIreland (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with you. However, if removal commences an edit war will erupt. Unless some admins are willing to step in here and be willing to block those who attempt to stop this application of policy, there will be no way this will succeed. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone disputes that a valid rationale must be provided. The issue is whether provided rationales are valid. This is not a question of policy, but of interpretation. With no consensus for a change, the status quo (decisions being made on an article by article basis) continues. However, as discussed in a previous section, we do appear to have a consensus against using team logos on articles about single games. Cmadler (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cmadler, there is not a consensus for what constitutes a valid rationale under WP:NFC to start removing sports logos. And it appears that the staus quo has not caused Wikipedia grind to a halt. I was worried, however. The only reason it can't continue is that you won't leave it alone. You started this whole discussion, then no consensus to change anything was reached, and you can't abide that so you start up again. There has to be so many other images without valid rationales you can police, no?--2008Olympianchitchat 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would be great if we could get around to dealing with other images rather than continuing this ridiculous, partisan discussion. Without a clear consensus to include an image, it should not be included. The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the images (all our guidelines and "official" statements are pretty clear on that) meaning that "no consensus to include an image" quite clearly means that images should be removed. That is what this discussion was about- whether it was within policy to include images in this manner. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including album covers on discographies didn't cause Wikipedia to grind to a halt either. That's not a valid reason why we should permit them on discographies anymore than it's a valid reason to include team logos on per season articles. Yes, I did start this discussion. Since it's been quiet for a week, I wanted to point out that the status quo is not acceptable. We need a decision, one way or another. I agree with Masem's sentiments that we need wording that applies across the entire project, and that such wording should go into the guideline rather than the policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the RfC cannot produce a result, then this should go up the next rung of dispute resolution rather than one side (against logo use) seeking to impose its will. If I had it my way, all of the uses of these logos would be valid. I proposed a compromise that would have satisfied some of what both sides wanted and removed the vast bulk of logo overuse way up at the beginning of this discussion, but the non-logoers wouldn't accept any inch of compromise. If this goes against my (and many other editors) view, than so be it. But it won't be by fiat.--2008Olympianchitchat 22:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you see as the next step of dispute resolution? The result here is fairly clear- that there is no consensus. This defaults to removing the images, as has been explained numerous times. Of course, you are welcome to start discussions in some other (or the same) form of dispute resolution to see if consensus has changed in the future. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fiat you speak of hasn't taken place. I'm simply saying that we can't accept the status quo. We can't include the logos when there's no consensus to do so, nor vice versa. Both will result in edit wars. Policy does support removing the logos when there is no consensus, but doing so will generate an edit war. There are three possible ways around that. 1) Logos are removed anyways, with administrators at the ready to block people refusing to abide by policy. 2) Some other means of solving this RfC in a consensus (doubtful at this point). 3) going further in the dispute resolution process, which honestly has no chance of succeeding. ArbCom doesn't rule on policies, only on editor's behavior with respect to them. Regardless, the status quo can not remain. We have inconsistent application of this usage on the project, with College Football apparently being the only one that uses this method. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free image use and information on living persons are the only two areas of content that the Foundation has placed its foot down on how it should be handled. If this was any other normal content dispute, with information present that is contested, and resulting RFCs show no consensus, then there's no reason to change that information. But when we talk about NFC or BLP, there must be a strong rationale to keep these around regardless of consensus. A result of no consensus means that until a different consensus can be reached these pieces must be removed per the Foundation. --MASEM 22:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the route we are to take, we have to have admins at the ready willing to block those who edit war to force the issue towards inclusion. An edit war will erupt. Count on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) ArbCom can do nothing about this- everyone's remaining calm, there's no fighting, and it's actually a fairly civil conversation. It is possible that they will get involved if we see the apocalyptic removal, reinsertion, removal, block, DRAMA, unblock, reinsertion... process that you are worried about. I think, as the result of this discussion is clear, the logos should be removed. If people are not happy about that, they're welcome to protest, but I am not sure how they would get anywhere. If they edit war, they will be rightfully warned, then, if they persist (which I doubt, everyone involved so far is a reasonable, decent Wikipedian) they will find themselves blocked. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Reply to Hammersoft above) Blocking for a single reinsertion is a little draconian. People may not accept this outcome straight away, and may place the images back. The issue simply needs to be explained to them- if they ignore explanations and continue to reinsert, then we block. As I explained above, I don't think this is as likely as you fear. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of a consensus in AFD means default keep, unless perhaps there's a clear policy violation. Since this issue is itself centered around policy interpretation appealing to the authority of policy as grounds for removal becomes a circular argument. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of consensus in an AfD about (say) a murderer, or someone most famous for negative things, and perhaps (debatably) in IfD discussions leads to deletion. It has been explained fairly clearly above why the lack of consensus defaults to not including the images, this comparison is clearly faulty. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, I think, is that there is project-wide consensus that lack of consensus on a specific BLP issue will lead to removal.
But there is no similar consensus I have seen demonstrated that lack of consensus on images defaults to non-inclusion.
Obviously, no amount of editors will trump an WP:OFFICE action, nor something which is manifestly at odds with a Foundation resolution. But the present case is not manifestly at odds with the Foundation resolution; nor is it manifestly at odds with WP:NFC. Instead we have seen admins and editors on both sides making good-faith arguments.
I also can't help noticing that the people pushing this argument that no consensus = no inclusion seem exclusively to be people who have already declared that they want to get rid of these images; and many of them people who make clear they don't really believe in the line of WP:NFC at all, and left up to many of them would prefer there to be no non-free content at all. It doesn't seem to be a position evidencing any support from other third parties or people who are neutral on the specific logo question.
I would therefore caution against unilaterally removing content, throwing around block warnings, and provoking the situation. Triggering a full-scale edit war when a matter is already calmly and quietly under discussion doesn't go down well. Admins who start to think they are God or Napoleon may find at the end of the day that it is themselves that end up getting blocked. Jheald (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion: The purpose of the copyright policy is to protect Wikipedia and its editors from legal harm. I suggest we ask at least 3 real copyright and trademark experts if the current practice puts Wikipedia in any jeopardy. If all 3 agree that it does, then ask them how much must be removed, and summarily remove just enough so that it's no longer unanimous that more has to be removed. Once you get to that point, the debate over what to remove can resume if necessary. I know some of you will read this and say "what if the vote is 2-1 that it puts Wikipedia in danger." To that I respond: I'm trying to at least see what absolutely positively must be removed from a legal perspective nailed down before moving on to discussion. If it turns out the lawyers all agree "they all have to go" then there is no need to discuss it further. If they are split, then it's time to talk. Of course, if they agree "they can all stay" we as editors may still agree to delete them, but it won't be for copyright reasons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't give a shit about trademark or copyright law, this is about Wikipedia policy- far stricter than copyright and trademark law. Anyway, who is gonna pay for that? J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, this is not about WP getting sued. Mike Godwin even stated about 3-4 months ago that galleries of fair use images are fine from a copyright standpoint. This is about adhering to the free content mission of WP, which any non-free media can hurt. --MASEM 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's policies are not about Wikipedia not being sued. Wikipedia's policies are about creating a free content encyclopedia, and to that end allowing non-free content on a highly limited basis to support the end mission as critically necessary. The lawyer's opinions on this matter would not matter, even if someone did pay for them. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's not the case. WP's NFC policies track very closely the requirements for WP not to be sued under U.S. law, and to be reasonably confident a U.S.-based commercial verbatim reuser would not be sued. WP:NFC is not just an accidental set of arbitrary commands made capriciously or haphazardly; instead it tracks this more-or-less objective external yardstick very closely. There is really only one respect in which we are "far stricter than copyright and trademark law", and that is that we don't accept non-free images when they might prevent free images being found or made instead. Jheald (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely accurate. There's plenty of cases where fair use would be allowed under law where we do not permit it. I can cite many examples, but I'm confident you're aware of them as you've been involved in this area of Wikipedia for a long time. Further, we can and do replace fair use content (that would qualify) with text when text can replace it. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Actually, looking at the above discussion, it looks like it was pretty clearly in favor of retaining the images as acceptable under WP:NFC. About thirty editors weighed in in favor of inclusion as opposed to only about twenty who were opposed.--2008Olympianchitchat 23:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a straight vote. If it was, I am sure I could have ten respected editors (perhaps even ten administrators) added to the list in a matter of minutes. This is a discussion, and, in any case, 3:2 is not a heavy majority, by any means. Many of those who commented in support gave little or no reasoning, showed poor understanding of the discussion/applicable policies, and some were brought here through canvassing anyway. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those who commented in opposition also gave little or no reasoning or showed poor understanding of the discussion/applicable policies. I think 3:2 is a pretty good clip, especially considering the RfC is on a talk page of a group dedicated to minimizing non-free use. The RfC was publicized at the WikiProject of College football and was initially poorly-worded but rephrased to more neutral language. Several of those you claim were canvassed have stated that they were aware of the RfC and intended to comment, and those statements should be accepted as good faith.--2008Olympianchitchat 23:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, support for inclusion clearly outweighed opposition. I don't have to argue with you, anyone who likes can just scroll up above and take a look. If the discussion had gone the other way, you would be claiming a consensus against this use, but since it went against you, you hide behind a claim of non consensus.--2008Olympianchitchat 01:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut the rhetoric about me supposedly hiding, shall we? In truth; in any dispute like this regardless of which side supposedly was ahead, it's clear there's no consensus. Counting up support/oppose does not consensus make, and it's very clear there's a large gap of disagreement on this point with no middle ground. There's a large group of people on both sides. That's not consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must agree with Hammersoft policy states the burden of proof is on those who wish to include non-free material, not those who want to remove. Besides ILIKEIT for inclusion I have not seen a compelling reason to include non-free material on these border articles. Canis Lupus 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does the many above claims, in a discussion as to whether the use meets WP:NFC, that summarily state that this use violates that guideline. --2008Olympianchitchat 01:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we were talking about one specific piece of content you would be correct, but this "discussion" has been more about the practices/system of the way editors in the College Football Project use the content. The current use does not violate current policy, thus there must be a consensus formed to change the policy and there definitely has not been anywhere close to a consensus in that opinion, in fact the clear majority has sided with the current system. Not really much of a debate to that. Rtr10 (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your logical layout above fails at the point that you say the current use does not violate current policy. This entire RfC is regarding that very point, on which there is no consensus. Since the policy places the burden of proof on this wishing to use non-free content that it does not violate policy, then consensus must exist to permit such use. That consensus is lacking. Therefore, the use is not allowed at this time. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion not the actual policy. The way the current policy reads, there is no violation in the current uses overall (although there were specific cases where there was overuse) in whole, that is not the case. The way the policy reads, there is no current violation and just because something goes against your personal beliefs and NOT policy doesn't give you the right to try to wiggle your way through and remove content with legitimate rationales without actually changing the policy. The only way there would be violation would be for you to gain a consensus among editors and change the policy and it has been pretty clear in the RfC that your opinion is not even the one of the majority, so that seems very unlikely in happening, but who knows. Rtr10 (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry you hold the view that you do, as it is incorrect and not supported by policy. You've been shown this multiple times now but choose to ignore that component of policy. If after more than 240kb of debate on this we've not been able to convince you of this, nothing will. Nevertheless, the policy is clear. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consensus on this subject at this time. 30+ people supported keeping the images while 20+ people opposed. This isn't a vote, but a 60-40 split doesn't show consensus in any way. Claiming consensus in such a discussion only serves to inflame the situation. Moreover, citing a small section in which 3 people said "hey we have consensus on XYZ" under a misleading heading is not only erroneous but goes against WP:CONSENSUS. I have to admit that this may simply have to be decided by arbitration in order to make policy more clear. On a related topic, stating "policy supports my point of view" or "the default is to support my point of view" and then doing what you want doesn't help consensus, cuts discussion, and increases animosity. Personally, I would be happy to go to Arbitration to settle this and just have a concrete rule as to how we can/can't do things here on Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — talk 02:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you will find that ArbCom will not handle this case. Past history dictates this. This issue is not a matter of user or administrator misconduct. It is a dispute regarding a policy. It is outside of the remit of ArbCom, and they would not accept the case. If ArbCom takes action on a case, it is specifically in regards to the actions of a particular editor. There's no such situation here. --Hammersoft (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm
  1. Netoholic 2
  2. Iasson
  3. Kenneth Alan
  4. Lir
G'night, I'm going to bed. — BQZip01 — talk 06:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And all four of those cases specifically had to do with the conduct of certain users, not with ArbCom deciding policy. There is no specific user misconduct that ArbCom needs to address here. This dispute is beyond their remit. --Hammersoft (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprised though I am see BQZip01 coming round to view of the "free content nazis" such as myself, I welcome his agreement that there is no consensus on the use of the logos in the articles in question. However, I am also not sure if arbcom would accept a case although I am not so certain as Hammersoft. Regardless, absent a consensus for use of non-free content, removal is mandatory. CIreland (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I never called anyone a "free content nazi". If this was an attempt at light humor, please disregard.
  2. Could you show me the part of a guideline or policy where it states "Regardless, absent a consensus for use of non-free content, removal is mandatory"? — BQZip01 — talk 06:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HE REVERTED IT!!! IT'S AN EDIT WAR!!! — BQZip01 — talk 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, why did you ask to discuss the dispute on the talk page and then say you weren't interested in discussing it there? — BQZip01 — talk 06:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responded elsewhere, and further I choose to no longer debate who use what template against whom under what principle and how the price of eggs in China affected the whole blasted thing. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, mediation is not the preferred remedy when one person consistently reverts other users' enforcement of consensus policy interpretations - it would be a waste of further dispute resolution. I haven't touched any season/rivalry articles since this discussion came up, but on single games you're on an island here. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the above question, as to why no consensus defaults to removal. For your answer, please have a look at the top left hand corner of your screen, right under the puzzle-piece globe. "Free" there doesn't mean "free of charge", it means "free content". For a more detailed explanation, see the mission statement, which makes this quite clear. Nonfree content is by definition counter to our mission, that mission being to produce free content. We are allowed, in certain limited cases, to make exceptions to that requirement, but those are exceptions, and the default answer is no. In the absence of consensus to make an exception, the status quo (that we are a free content project and nonfree content is therefore presumed to be disallowed) prevails. Further, even consensus cannot override a failure of NFC or the Foundation resolution, including that use must be minimal. We must also be legally allowed to use the content. All four of these conditions (consensus to make an exception, passing NFC, passing the WMF resolution, and being legal for us to use) must be passed. Failure of any one renders the use unacceptable. Here, though, there is no consensus, so we're spared even having to examine the rest. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is ingenious reasoning, but as yet no consensus exists for its application. That will need to be achieved first. Ty 07:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no. The policy already states that the burden of evidence lies with the people wanting to use the content to demonstrate how it complies. The people wanting to include the images haven't been able to achieve consensus among us that the use complies. The policy is just one expression of this overarching mission. We are a free content encyclopedia. This is demonstrated through the EDP policy, the branding, the mission, and Foundation Resolution. In order to believe that we must gain consensus to remove the images, we have to ignore the branding (which states we are a free encyclopedia), the m:Mission (which states our mission is to develop content under a free license), the Foundation resolution (which states that non-free content use must be minimal and is narrowly allowed) and our local EDP policy (which states the burden of proof lies with those wanting to use non-free content). The people who want to retain this usage have nothing in policy supporting the use. Several hundred uses of a college team's sports logo can't possibly be construed as minimal use. Yet, that is what the people who want this usage to be permitted are asking us to accept. And no, I'm not exaggerating. Most major universities have twenty or more varsity sports. All of them have seasons, and when the project is more complete could all have season articles dating back to their inception as a sports program. As a result, most major college sport team logos would be used several hundred times when Wikipedia is more complete. That simply isn't minimal use, no matter how one tries to look at it. Since the Foundation's stance on this can not be eroded (see the resolution) and their stance is that such use must be minimal, this use will be deprecated, regardless of the outcome of this RfC. That it is resulting in no consensus merely makes this task easier and less contentious than if 99% of people supported the usage. And no, this isn't just my opinion as so many of the people who want this usage try to claim. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just running an example demonstrating the usage if we were to permit the use of team logos on season articles, and how it would look in a more complete future Wikipedia. Much of this discussion has been centered on the Texas Longhorns, so I'll use File:Texas Longhorn logo.svg for this example and how often it would be used.

  • The Texas Longhorns sports program includes 18 varsity sports.
  • We currently have independent articles for five of those sports.
    • Football inception of the program in 1893. 115 seasons.
    • Men's basketball, inception in 1906. 102 seasons.
    • Women's basketball, inception in 1974. 24 seasons.
    • Baseball, inception in 1894. 114 seasons.
    • Volleyball, inception in 1974. 34 seasons.
    • Sports without separate articles (yet) include Men's golf (at least 37 seasons), track and field (at least 88 seasons), Women's cross county (at least 22 seasons), Swimming and diving (at least 54 seasons between men and women), Fencing (at least 15 seasons), Men's tennis (at least 93 seasons) Women's tennis (at least 23 seasons). There's probably more.

Totaling that all up: 721 season articles where the Longhorn's sports logo would be used. 721. That's just one major division I school. One. Expanding this to all of Division 1 schools (119 of them), which average 20 varsity sports, and let's say they average 50 seasons each, that's 119,000 uses of team logos on season articles. That's just college sports. Imagine adding in season articles for every major sport in the world, for every team in those sports. There'd be several hundred thousand such uses. I don't expect the people who want to include the images to be impressed or swayed by this. But the numbers are mind bogglingly huge. There's no possible way it could be construed as minimal use, which is required by Foundation resolution. It's flat out impossible. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers aren't mind bogglingly huge, they are reasonable. However, you make several assumptions that aren't appropriate:
  1. each season needs to have a separate article. That simply isn't the case. No one is going to write about fencing in such depth because there isn't that much material to go around. While major sports will likely have season articles, most others will not. If there is the material to support an article, why not make an article? And why not include the logo of the team for purposes of identification.
  2. There are 119 teams in FOOTBALL. There are a LOT more in other sports like basketball and volleyball.
  3. If we don't use a fair use image to clearly show the team's logo, would you support a fair use image of the team in play? If so, then there is no net gain as we are still using a fair use image (not reducing anything). If you don't support it, why not? Nothing else will appropriately show the team's logo and accurately identify it.
  4. There certainly is a way it satisfies "minimal use" as it is being used in the least possible way for identification. It is not being used to adorn someone's talk page. It isn't being used in some way that reduces the commercial value of the logo. etc. Minimum doesn't have to mean "ten or less".
As for your view on policy, no where in WP:NFCC does it say minimal use refers to the quantity of articles in which the image is contained, only that multiple items shouldn't be used when one will suffice. That isn't the case here.
Your repeated attempts to quash all discussion by declaring that "consensus agrees with me, so the images must go", "there is no debate on this subject", and "since we don't have consensus, we have to remove the images" is ludicrous and is based on your own interpretation of policy, not reality or prior application of policy.
That said, let's take a quick poll to see where we currently stand and see If we can't just get consensus on something. I'll notify all contributors to this page today: — BQZip01 — talk 02:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  27. Jkelly (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Jh12 (talk) 17:13, 11 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]
  9. --Iamawesome800 03:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[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 [7], 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]
  24. Jkelly (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:04, 10 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]
  27. --Iamawesome800 03:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[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]
  37. --Iamawesome800 03:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Jh12 (talk) 17:15, 11 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]
All participants in the previous straw poll have been notified. If I have missed anyone, it was an oversight; please feel free to notify them. — BQZip01 — talk 01:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team logo images on sports team articles

Team Article Option 1

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]
  2. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TheMile (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This seems broadly in line with policy (e.g. WP:LOGO) and practice on the use of logos. CIreland (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Willking1979 (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CH52584 (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nanonic (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is basically current practice for all logos. Mr.Z-man 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. travb (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Need I even explain that this is natural behavior? ViperSnake151 02:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ndenison talk 03:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rtr10 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oren0 (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Seems reasonable. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm not at all sure about using the athletic department logo if there is no available specific logo, but I agree with the rest. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. What the best lead image is can be decided on a per-article basis. It doesn't have to be a logo if something else is more iconic or descriptive. As an aside, I remark that the use of logos in these articles is (unfortunately) acceptable under our current policies. Also, there is no reason to do yet another poll, so I suggest we turn this into a proper discussion. Kusma (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

Again, this is where votes tend to be uninformative and not represent the available options. This isn't a straight "yes/no" answer across all articles. It would depend if a suitable parent article (for example, on sports at the school as a whole) exists and contains the logo, whether the team has its own unique logo or shares the one from such a parent, and so on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is where people don't seem to be reading what I already wrote. I never said this represents all of the available options. I never said this was an up or down vote (in fact I said it was worthless without discussion). This is a single idea I had. If you have a better solution, feel free to put it out there. Put that into a proposal and we'll see how other people feel about it. — BQZip01 — talk 07:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, there is no such thing as a "proper" discussion. Your insinuation that what we are trying to accomplish is somehow improper is a tad bit uncivil and doesn't help things. — BQZip01 — talk 20:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was trying to say "I don't think voting is all that helpful here". I am sorry if I gave the impression of accusing you of impropriety; while I disagree with you, it has been obvious that you were acting in good faith at all times. I'm sorry I was slightly snappy when I saw yet another poll (I started enjoying the polls more the further down I got on this page). Kusma (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team logo images on individual season articles

Season Article Option 1

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]
  2. Willking1979 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CH52584 (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Only if we add the stipulation that the team photo/season image can only be fair use and that the team's logo can only be used on the most recent season, with fair use rationale of course. Ndenison talk 03:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree with Ndenison that a stipulation should be added that a fair use image is available. Team Photos are property of the Universities/athletic departments and would not qualify for fair use and finding a free alternative would not be easy in most situations, but if there is one available then I see no problem with that. Rtr10 (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oren0 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Logo should not be an option. Mr.Z-man 01:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed with above. Resolute 01:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Replaceable by text, thus decorative. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Decorative. Don't do it. ViperSnake151 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The logo is extreamly unlikely to be discussed in the season article and is thus mostly decorative.Geni 04:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Using the logo would fail NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The very wording indicate that the logos are not actualy nessesary, just "nice to have" in the absense of something better. Fails both replacability and significance criteria. --Sherool (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Logo is unnecessary and against non-minimal use policy. Furthermore, the type of image should be decided on a per-article basis. Kusma (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is very much an "include a relevant photo, but, if there isn't one, wap in the logo". This is exactly how we should not be treating non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per J Milburn. The fact that an article doesn't have a free image doesn't mean one isn't available, thus the non-free image isn't an option. This is exactly analogous to why we don't use non-free images on articles of living people (with very unusual exceptions). Black Kite 19:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]

We don't have to illustrate every single article with an image. There are many articles here, even not related to sports, that happily go without any sort of picture. I prefer no picture than having to use a logo. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually , the Manual of Style says we should: "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox." — BQZip01 — talk 01:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the image is actually discussed in the article, its pure decoration and such use of non-free images is forbidden by NFCC 1 and 8. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding that couldn't be replaced by simply the name of the team. The style guidelines don't override the NFCC policy. A team photo would be much more relevant as individual players are more likely to be discussed than the logo, meeting the relevancy requirements of NFCC. Mr.Z-man 01:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. 99% of the time, the use of these logos is nothing more than decoration, failing several NFCC criteria. A random logo adds nothing of import to the article, and "it's better than nothing" is not close to a valid argument, imo. Resolute 01:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Correct, and these articles all include infoboxes, fulfilling the MOS requirement. "Or" is not "and", and that MOS guideline is specifically because not all articles will have an image. We don't need images in every article, many of them make their point just fine with text. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But a season is certainly not an entity, it only describes the performance of the entity over the course of one year. --MASEM 05:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask again, what information - facts, data, etc. - is being conveyed by using the logo that adds to the article about the season/game that would not also be conveyed by just the name of the team? Or, to put it another way, what information is lost by using only the name? A "portrait" doesn't add significantly to the season article. Just like we don't put pictures of all the actors in a movie in articles about movies, because it adds no information that the name doesn't. Mr.Z-man 06:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Masem's hit the nail on the head there. The logo guideline isn't a bad one (I should know, I wrote it) but there is a clear distinction between a "portrait" of a team and a "portrait" of a team's performance in a certain year. Would a non-free image of a dead musician be appropriate on an article about said musician's third album? Not unless the appearance of the musician or the photo itself was discussed. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that each year is a different team with (usually) 20-30% new members of that team; they have different opponents, a different schedule, a different coach (sometimes), a different stadium (sometimes), etc.
  • As for movies, I would concur in general with regards to movies, but that comparison is going backwards with regards to sports. It would be more appropriate to compare to a tournament involving many teams. In such a case, I would just use the tournament logo and leave it at that. — BQZip01 — talk 21:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC) ----[reply]

Season Article Option 2

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]
  2. CH52584 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Same as above Ndenison talk 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rtr10 (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oren0 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tedmoseby (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose
  1. As above. Mr.Z-man 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ditto. Resolute 01:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As above. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No. ViperSnake151 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Would fail NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No. --Sherool (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The preferred image is the best available free image, as always. Its content can be decided on a per-article basis. Kusma (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is very much an "include a relevant photo, but, if there isn't one, wap in the logo". This is exactly how we should not be treating non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per above. Clearly violates WP:NFCC#8, amongst other things. Black Kite 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]

The logos are also copyrighted and less relevant. Mr.Z-man 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logos are usually trademarked, not copyrighted. It's a big difference legally. — BQZip01 — talk 02:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're usually copyrighted. Trademark-only would allow anyone to use them as long as they don't try to use them for the same purpose (a sports team logo), for us they're essentially public domain. Unless they are ineligible for copyright (text-only), they're copyrighted as well. File:OSU.svg is plain text on a plain background - trademarked, ineligible for copyright. File:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png uses text, but the artistic arrangement around the "O" means it can be copyrighted. See threshold of originality. Mr.Z-man 02:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a logo is not copyrighted this policy does not apply to it and the argument is moot. Moreover the wording suggest that we have to use some kind of image and that if nothing better is found the logo will have to do. In other words the logo is not significantly importnat, you just want some kind of image. That clearly makes it fail both the replacability and significance criteria. --Sherool (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season Article Option 3

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
  1. — BQZip01 — talk 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CH52584 (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Same as above (only on most recent season). Ndenison talk 03:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Never has been anything wrong with it and doesn't need to be changed.Rtr10 (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. As above. Mr.Z-man 01:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ditto. Resolute 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As above. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose it big time. ViperSnake151 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No, if the image is not copyrighted do as you will (within reason), but non-free images, logos included, actualy need to serve a significant purpose and not just be used because some style guideline says most articles should have a lead image of some sort. --Sherool (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The preferred image is the best available free image, as always. Its content can be decided on a per-article basis. Kusma (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No. The logo is not required, and adds nothing to the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Any non-free image in this situation would fail NFCC#8 (significance). Stifle (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per the above. Black Kite 19:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • What is the chief rationale for including the team logo in all season articles beyond the wish to start every article with an image of some sort? I started a new section below to try to get the the bottom of this, but so far (10 hours and counting) no one have provided any explanation for how this use would actualy comply with the policy criteria. --Sherool (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Season Article Option 4

Submitted by Mr.Z-man

The preferred lead image for a sports team season is the team photo. If a team photo is not available, an image from the season is preferred. If such an image is copyrighted, a fair use rationale must be included for each iteration.
Support
  1. Same as option 1, but without allowing team logos. Mr.Z-man 01:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For all except most recent season. Ndenison talk 03:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. — BQZip01 — talk 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC) see discussion[reply]
  2. As stated above there will only be a few teams out of 120 each year that would have a free photo of a team that would actually work as "the image" of that team. Just not logical. Rtr10 (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The preferred image is the best available free image, as always. Its content can be decided on a per-article basis. Kusma (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Neutral on this one, actually. I would limit it to images of significant value. A random non-free image really goes against Wikipedia's aims to be a free content provider in much the same way a random logo for decoration would. Though a historically significant moment would be very fair if only a non-free image is available. Resolute 02:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season Article Option 5

Submitted by Ndenison talk 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is only to be used on the most recent season's article. For example, right now the logos should only be on the 2008-2009 season articles. Once the 2009-2010 season articles are created, the logo is removed from the previous season and replaced with a fair-use team photo, game photo from that season, or nothing at all.
Support
  1. Ndenison talk 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have no problem with this. — BQZip01 — talk 04:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, but not as much as I oppose #1 and #2. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Longer comment below. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A rather random cutoff. Whether a non-free image can be used shouldn't depend on how "current" the article is. Kusma (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Kusma. Logos are just not relevant enough for season articles. Mr.Z-man 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Kusma. The logo can stay on the team article, no reason for it to filter into a recent season article for some reason. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As mentioned below, a noble attempt at compromise, but the logo fails WP:NFCC#8 on the current article as much as it does on all the others. Black Kite 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • This is a noble attempt to work with the "minimal use" standard, but I feel it doesn't set up a very meaningful boundary. What about the current season makes it particularly significant? Do we expect that the 2008 article will meet the criteria consistently until the moment that the 2009 season kicks off? (ESkog)(Talk) 14:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's merely an attempt at a compromise. Disallowing use on all previous seasons would greatly decrease the overall use. I would imagine these articles are viewed far more than the previous seasons, and the logo would be very helpful to the reader (read my discussions below). Ndenison talk 16:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What policy? Where does it state the minimal is '1'? Ndenison talk 01:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you show me where in our policy it says that we must not use album covers in discographies? Just because the policy doesn't say something explicitly does not mean we are free to do as we wish on a given point. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that you won't find every possible case of how fair use is to be used on the project. Just because it isn't EXPRESSLY mentioned in policy doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season Article Option 6

Submitted by (ESkog)(Talk)

Season articles should not include non-free images unless that image is uniquely relevant to that season.
Support
  1. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree, except I'd like to add that season articles are not special in that regard. Same applies to all types of articles. --Sherool (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Sherool. Kusma (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mr.Z-man 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, absolutely no reason that season articles should be treated any differently to other articles. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Replace "season" with "all" in the first occurrence and "article's subject" in the second. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With the caveat that the image still needs to pass WP:NFCC, of course (I'm thinking significance here). Black Kite 19:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. There is no requirement in policy or guidelines for an image's use to be "unique". — BQZip01 — talk 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Team logo images on individual game articles

Game Article Option 1

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]
  2. Willking1979 (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CH52584 (talk) 01:20, 10 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]
  2. The name of the team is going to be much clearer than a logo, its just decoration. Mr.Z-man 01:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As with the above. In fact, a sports team logo would be less clear than the team name to a person without an understanding of the teams/league/sport. Resolute 02:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CIreland summed it up perfectly. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There is no need for three logos on a page. Ndenison talk 03:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely not. All three logos fail NFCC1 and 8. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No. If the event has a logo that is enough, team logos have no business on such articles other than as decoration wich is not an allowed use of non-free logos. --Sherool (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Three more logos than necessary. Kusma (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. What's said above. You know what's more recognisable than a logo? The teams' names. Have it in big letters if you want, but there's no need for a logo. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. cmadler (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No, per season article options (actually, this one is worse, because it involves the possibility of multiple logos). Black Kite 19:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Game Article Option 2

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]
  2. CH52584 (talk) 01:20, 10 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]
  2. As above. Mr.Z-man 01:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ditto. Resolute 02:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As above. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As above. Ndenison talk 03:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per previous. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. For same reason as above. --Sherool (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Logo is not necessarily the best image for an event. Image of venue or trophy might be free and more suitable, no need to prescribe anything here (and we must not demand that non-free images are used: they are to be used as exceptions only). Kusma (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Clearly not necessary. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. cmadler (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per option 1. Black Kite 19:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Game Article Option 3

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]
  2. CH52584 (talk) 01:21, 10 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]
  2. Let me get this right; if we cannot use/find one unfree image, then yall want to use two fair use images? Honestly, as CIreland said, you can use the name of the teams and still cover who played without having to use a logo at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Zscout370, CIreland, and myself above. Mr.Z-man 01:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per all above. Resolute 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per above. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Again, no need for the team logos. Ndenison talk 03:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Same again. A non-free image is not appropriate here. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As above. Can't think of a reason why we should ask for non-free images, especially as for most of these events, free images are sure to exist. Kusma (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Still no due to the suggested use of team logos. Just don't see how that is defensable under the policy. --Sherool (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Still not seeing any reason the logos are necessary. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. cmadler (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per option 1. Black Kite 19:47, 11 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]

So you don't use such an image, duh. The possibility that the only free image we have for a certain team in a certain game or season is not appropriate is not a justification for inappropriately using non-free images as decoration. Resolute 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, you view this as decoration and not identification? — BQZip01 — talk 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Team logos, yes. The tackle image above wouldnt likely be suitable for a season article, I agree. It is, however, a red herring, as the lack of a suitable image does not necessitate the use of the "best" unsuitable image. If a one-off event does not have a logo of its own, and we do not have a suitable free image, and a suitable non-free image that directly relates to a moment of significance in that event, then we are better off having no images than decorative logos of marginal relevance. That really is the crux of this entire RFC, imo.Resolute 02:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you resolve your views with WP:LOGO? Do you just mean for a game article? — BQZip01 — talk 04:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is how do you resolve your views with WP:NFCC. If you can't show how the use of team logos in a game article comply with all the criteria of the policy the images can simply not be used there and pointing to a content guideline is moot. Once you have shown that the policy has been satisfied, then you can start worrying about the guidelines. --Sherool (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game Article Option 4

Submitted by Nanonic (talk)

The preferred lead image for a sporting event is that event's logo. Another option is an image of the event itself. If any such images are copyrighted or trademarked (as most are), a fair use rationale must be included for each iteration.
Support
  1. Nanonic (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — BQZip01 — talk 01:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. An option that doesn't use excessive non-free images. Mr.Z-man 01:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Resolute 02:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is fine - limits to logos to identify the actual subject of the article. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ndenison talk 03:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rtr10 (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Best of a bad lot. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. An appropriate use of a logo- to identify the subject of the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak support. cmadler (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The preferred image is a free image if one exists. Kusma (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

As used on 1930 FIFA World Cup and 2002 UEFA Cup Final (with event logo), 2007 UEFA Champions League Final and 2000 Football League Second Division play-off Final (with no logo or image) and 1923 FA Cup Final (with neutral image). Nanonic (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game Article Option 5

Submitted by (ESkog)(Talk)

Articles about individual games of a sporting event should not include non-free images unless that image is uniquely relevant to that game.
Support
  1. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ndenison talk 16:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC) A game logo is uniquely relevant to the game (i.e. Cotton Bowl and should be included.[reply]
  3. Kusma (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mr.Z-man 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No reason these articles should be treated any different to any other article. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per what I said above. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, and of course such images still need to meet WP:NFCC. Black Kite 19:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. cmadler (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For now since "unique" is undefined and potential problems down the road (see below). PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE submit something else. I think this kind of solution is our best shot at consensus. — BQZip01 — talk 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Define "unique". If you mean that the individual event used the image a single time, I suppose that's ok. The problem lies with events like bowl games. As an example, the 2006 Cotton Bowl, and a few years previous, used one logo, but in 2008 Cotton Bowl they changed the logo slightly. From my understanding of this phrasing, it would be appropriate to use the 2008 logo only until the 2009 Cotton Bowl when the image would thereby no longer be "unique". In general I support the concepts of this phrasing, but the application could be quite muddled and contentious without some clearer guidance. — BQZip01 — talk 20:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen any requirement in any of our current non-free use guidlines/rules/criteria that an image must be uniquely relevant to an the article in which it is used. ("Unique" seems to imply that such an image can only be used in one article, and again, I find no such existing requirement.) If I'm wrong, please point me to the relevant page. cmadler (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Principles

Support
  1. Has the advantage that use is kept mininal while allowing it where the logo is actually important to the article. It also gives us stronger fair use cases.Geni 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mr.Z-man 01:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seems self evident to me. Resolute 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is a clear statement of the applicability of many NFCC to the use of non-free logos. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Necessary but not sufficient. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Stifle. Kusma (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes. Allowing the logo to be used simply for identification when the team is mentioned does not meet the spirit of the minimal use requirements in the foundation resolution - Peripitus (Talk) 01:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Doesn't seem to jive with WP:LOGO — BQZip01 — talk 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain please?Geni 01:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CH52584 (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. travb (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wiggy! (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ndenison talk 03:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Logos may still be necessary for identification. J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Explanation: "The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative." — BQZip01 — talk 02:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However when the logo gives valuable information to the article that also tends to be the articles that should talk about the logo (after all if the article doesn't talk about the logo how valuable can the information be in that context?).Geni 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The logo is part of the team. They're on the helmets, jerseys, flags, tickets, plastered around the stadium, and so on. In the south, you see college football logos all over the place on cars, clothing, etc. People identify teams by their logos. A perfect example in the "G" used by University of Georgia Athletics and the Greenbay Packers. They are just as important to recognition as a celebrity's portrait. What do you see on every news site or television broadcast about a sporting event? The team's logo. Ndenison talk 03:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. :-) — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
except nothing he wrote has anything to do with copyright law, wikipedia policy or the proposal being strawpolled here.Geni 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So every image in every article that does not specifically discuss the image should be removed? Why not just remove images all together? Ndenison talk 04:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is something of a stawman. First it is well established that different standards apply to free and non free images. Secondly you will notice I'm mearly saying that their should be the potential that the article will disscuss the logo when complete. Not the most dirrect of measures but works supriseingly well.Geni 04:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the best you can do? "Well it isn't discussed in the article, so it shouldn't be there."? Give me a break. Through this entire discussion that is by far the weakest explanation I have seen as to why logos shouldn't be used on team pages.Rtr10 (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<<< Could you please provide an example where the article discusses all included logos? Ndenison talk 04:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverhampton_Wanderers_F.C.#Colours_and_badge, Sheffield_Wednesday_F.C.#Crest_and_mascots, ]]Sheffield_United_F.C.#Kits.2C_colours_and_crest]] amoung others.Geni 04:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2012_Summer_Olympics_bids, New_Zealand_national_rugby_union_team, Calgary_Hitmen are all featured articles with logos that are not discussed. Ndenison talk 04:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However in none of those artices would discussion of the logo be out of place which is all this proposal requires.Geni 05:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much. It is generaly best to aim for discussion when writing such articles but it's actual presense or otherwise isn't the determining factor.Geni 14:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that isn't even a guideline on any image use with regards to logos, much less policy. I could easily argue that the image in use simply hasn't been discussed yet in every single article and that would "solve" the problem? I don't think that's a good idea. — BQZip01 — talk 22:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<<<That can also be said about all articles. The discussion "This team used the same logo as the previous season, it has blah blah with blah blah" could be added to all the season articles, and therefore would be satisfactory. Ndenison talk 15:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1)articles tend not to say that and 2)That doesn't say anything about the actual logo.Geni 16:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider a comparison. I have written two featured articles about albums- Dungeons & Dragons (album) and (more recently, so this is the example I want to use) Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album). They're featured, so they're both fairly complete (I am sure I have read every article about Connie Talbot ever published online) but neither mention the cover. However, both include the cover. I think this is where we use the images for identification purposes- album covers on album articles, logos on corporations, book covers on book articles and so on. A single image like this is completely acceptable under current practice (even at FAC and among the most rouge NFC admins) and if that wants to be changed, then we have a whole other issue on our hands. I don't think that question is within the realms of this RfC. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This new poll should be shut down

I don't mean to throw a wrench into the machine, because I believe the attempt was made with the best of intentions. But, I fail to see how the latest poll is little more than a repeat of the straw poll and the prior, more regular, RfC format discussion. I feel as though this is now the third time we've tried to assess consensus on this issue.

I am deeply concerned that this new poll has, as options for season articles (one of the most contentious of this debate) only options that permit the use of fair use images. The same applies to the individual game articles. This poll is therefore inherently biased, not offering an option where NO fair use images are used at all, which is the default case on Wikipedia. At a minimum, there should be such options. But now it's too late, since the new poll has begun.

I am concerned that despite claims to the contrary this new straw poll will be considered binding. This is effectively what happened with the logos on the school team sports pages. 9:1 in favor of retaining, therefore keep. I am therefore in significant doubt that this third assessment will not be considered binding, claims not withstanding.

I am also concerned that you archived a very significant portion of this RfC, a portion that was in a format more conducive to assessing consensus rather than the now two polls being conducted on this. Polls do not evaluate consensus. Further, there was still ongoing discussion going on in that section of the RfC, as recent as yesterday. Even if it should be archived (which I dispute, since it's THE most important part of this RfC), it is exceedingly premature. I am therefore un-archiving it.

I think this new poll should be shut down. If you want to start a new poll, then at a bare minimum involve people from both sides of the debate to help craft the poll. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, this is an attempt at finding language to specify policy/guidelines for logo usage. This is not talking about broad generalities, but actual phrasing and application. This is not a "third" poll. As I said before, this isn't a poll. It is an attempt to more clearly find something which meets WP:CONSENSUS. People's opinions vary based on the subject at hand, so let them express it within the confines of the subject. Shutting down discussion which is resulting in concrete, actionable results does not help Wikipedia.
We have indeed assessed consensus on some general issues, and now we are exploring specific phrasing to come up with something that can be actionable and put into practice. To throw up your hands and say, "well, we can't agree" doesn't help anything. Discussion is key here, but if all we do is talk, it's just a conversation with no results. I'm not saying it will result in consensus policy/guideline changes for such images, but we can certainly try.
You completely missed the fact that I explicitly stated that anyone/everyone is welcome to offer their own ideas on how to phrase guidelines regarding the "seasons" issue. In fact I offered 6 options and already a few more have been added and, I suspect, even more are to follow. Let's see what people want to actively do with this. Moreover, you are invited to propose some phrasing to reduce the ambiguity.
As for the archiving. I didn't archive it initially, someone else did, but seems that they didn't complete the process and left it simply deleted. I fixed that problem by properly archiving it. I have no problem with its return, but the page is getting pretty big and potentially unwieldy. — BQZip01 — talk 04:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second archiving. Ndenison talk 04:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't expect it to be ultimately unanimous, we do have two proposals (right now) with unanimous support for phrasing that solve 2/3rds of the problems. This is progress! — BQZip01 — talk 04:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear "...at a bare minimum involve people from both sides of the debate to help craft the poll.": I already invited everyone to add their own proposals. — BQZip01 — talk 04:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "shutting down discussion which is resulting on concrete actionable results does not help Wikipedia". Yet, this new poll is supposedly non-binding? You just admitted it is. Thank you. Further, conducting such a "discussion" which fails to include options that do not involve fair use images is flat out wrong. The poll is inherently biased. Adding new options after the poll has begun is highly flawed. Craft the poll, THEN put it before everyone. How many people do you think are really going to keep up on every change made to this page? The poll is flawed. It's inherently biased and you don't change a poll after it is started. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said this discussion wasn't binding (I never said it was either). Add some more. This section has only been active for a few hours. Would you like it if we stopped discussing things until you come up with a proposal or two or three or four? I'm fine with that. My intent was to simply continue discussion. Lastly, this is not a poll, but a format for discussion. "Here's idea A" followed by discussion. "Here's idea B" with more discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say this is discussion, yet there's been hundreds of kilobytes of discussion already on these points. There's nothing new being brought up that hasn't been brought up several times before. No matter how many times you melt this candle and reform it into a new one, it's still wax. I have no interest in trying to recraft this poll. We're just rehashing what has already been discussed. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there has been lots of discussion, but most of it has been,
"I think we should do only do things like A".
"That doesn't work, we should do B."
"But your idea is a slippery slope."
"No it isn't. But it is better than C. Why not allow D, E, and F?"
  • After enough discussion, we eventually have to say
"According to the discussion we've had here, the new guideline should read "A, B, and C, are the ideal form of...' Is everyone good with that?"
  • I think it is time to put down some concrete ideas and see how people like them. I'm not against ArbCom, but I'd like to see if we can come up with a decision that works well for at least the vast majority of users and could serve as the best guide for other Wikipedians. — BQZip01 — talk 05:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another problem here is that we have a person deciding the results of the straw poll who is not an uninvolved admin and has a definite position in these issues, and archiving discussions that had not resolved (though I grant you were fixing the archive, the result is the same). You are not the arbitrator of this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said I was an arbitrator of anything. I certainly didn't "decide" anything. My status as an admin is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. I am simply offering a format which may lead us to a consensus solution to the problem. If you don't like my conclusions about the straw poll, or disagree in some way, please add your own interpretation.
    • "How many people do you think are really going to keep up on every change made to this page?" They don't have to keep up with every change. They can check back tomorrow or a few days from now and express their opinions, change their minds, offer new opinions, etc.
    • Lastly, there are indeed subjects being brought up here that have not been brought up before, namely, specific additions to guidelines/policy which can guide us and other users to appropriate use of these logos. — BQZip01 — talk 05:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We already have a policy that guides us quite well to appropriate use of the logos. The problem here is an attempt at an end-run around that policy, not a lack of one. The fact that people dislike the rule that use must be minimal and not where nonessential doesn't mean that's not the rule. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is current policy, but since the current practices in almost every situation do not violate [[current policy then you are really wasting your and our time. We have went through this discussion hundreds of times and the only way to end it is to A. Come up with a clear language that specificly says what IS and IS NOT acceptable or B. Form new policy which is the whole point in this. To bring it to an end and find a resolution. Rtr10 (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, we've already got a current policy. Handwaving it away won't make it go away, and it's quite clear. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • <waves hands around frantically...it was worth a shot>
            • And here is the problem: It isn't cut and dry and there is some interpretation involved. This is not an end run around policy and no one disputes we indeed have a policy, but this is an attempt to clarify it. Your interpretation "use must be minimal and not where nonessential" is not explicitly codified anywhere. Even if it were, what is the definition of "minimal"? Where are places that are "essential" and nonessential"? These are the kinds of questions we are trying to answer and come up with clear guidelines to prevent current and future problems. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT seems to potentially be applicable here. — BQZip01 — talk 07:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is most certainly applicable here, but not in the way I believe you mean. "Minimal" is one use in the parent and links from the rest. (This is as distinct from "none", a limited use of logos is allowed by the WMF resolution, but not an unlimited use!) "Essential" is, of course, where it would significantly (this is a lot higher standard than "theoretically" or "somewhat") increase the reader's understanding of a topic. These are certainly already codified, right in existing policy. There is no "clarification", there's an attempt at an end-run. Asking "Does NPOV allow me to write a promotional article?", and then nitpicking about the definition of "promotional" and "neutral" well outside what they actually mean, would not be an attempt at "clarification" either. The policy is already set and already clear-cut. One use in a parent article, no others. That's the case for logos anywhere else, and it's the correct usage here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm sorry Seraphimblade, but having just read the policy, I see nothing clear-cut in the policy that states how many times a single non-free image can be used. To quote the policy,
                • 1.)Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. It is very clear from the wording of this sentence that the term "minimal usage" applies to use of multiple images when a single image suffices. It does not reference anything concerning the number of articles in which a single image may be used.
                • 2.)Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace. Most college football logos are low-resolution (I have not seen one that isn't, but I haven't seen them all). Nowhere does this rule reference the number of times a single image may be used on wikipedia.
                • Nowhere else is the word "minimal" found in the policy. Nowhere in these two sections does the word "minimal" apply to a single image. Could you please show us where the policy "states that a single image cannot be used as few or as many times as editors see fit, and how you extrapolated this policy to mean "One use in a parent article, no others"? CH52584 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • de-indent I've repeatedly seen this argument that since there's no particular wording on how many uses constitutes minimal, <insert definition of minimal use> is ok. For ANYone who claims this argument, it is highly important for you to read and understand...not just read...Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy to understand that fair use image use MUST be kept to a minimum, per Foundation dictum (and they are the voice of God so far as we are concerned on this project). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Minimal" has a well-known and clearly defined meaning in the context of copyright. It means "no more than needed to achieve the purpose identified" (see Perfect 10 v. Google, citing Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation).
      • Is "one use in the parent and links from the rest" sufficient to achieve the purpose identified? That depends on what we consider the purpose being identified actually is. If the purpose is, at least in part, to "assure the readers that they have reached the right article" (to quote from {{logo fur}}), or to significantly inform a reader who may not be particularly likely to click through to any other article, or to ensure that a page should be substantially self-contained and self-complete so that it can be printed without requiring reference to other pages, then any of those could potentially be purposes for which inclusion of the logo could indeed count as minimal, "no more than needed to achieve the purpose identified". Jheald (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I vehemently dispute your choice of words as I will never worship and entity such as this.
        • As for "minimal", what is "no more than needed to achieve the purpose identified" mean to us? There are lots of meaning that could take. One purpose of Wikipedia is to produce a "quality" encyclopedia. We could use that alone as justification, but that ignores many other points, including the goal of building a free encyclopedia. — BQZip01 — talk 22:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, I do not see that as supporting a particular side here either. Of the six points of the resolution, the following apply:
3.) Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use...should be...to include identifying protected works such as logos... (didn't include irrelevant text). It clearly states that use of logos is acceptable, and doesn't clarify whether or not "minimal" refers to the number of different image, or the number of times a single image is used.
4.) Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content. An image lacking a rationale will be deleted from wikipedia. Whether or not a specific use of an image is applicable is a matter of opinion and should be subject to consensus.
5.) all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well. The licenses of the logos have not been questioned here, so this section does not apply. The same is true for #6.
I believe the same issue I brought up before can be applied here as well. Nowhere do I see anything specifying that the term "minimal" refers to the number of time a single image may be used in the project.CH52584 (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... If an image is uploaded, it can be used anywhere and everywhere, for whatever purpose? Or do you accept that the use still needs to meet the non-free content criteria? What we have here is a pointless discussion about semantics; the non-free content criteria and non-free content guidelines still apply, and so we should be considering them. Whether a hundred uses of an image counts as minimal is pretty obvious, but also pretty irrelevant. If the use of an image meets the non-free content criteria, it's acceptable. If it doesn't, it is not. Whether it is used elsewhere or not has little bearing on that. J Milburn (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A hundred uses of an image could indeed be minimal, if in each case it was considered to be serving a justifiable purpose which would not otherwise be achieved. The purpose of this discussion is to consider what reasons for use (such as the three potentially arguable ones I gave above) are justified, under both U.S. law and WP policy (which is closely informed by U.S. law).
Incidentally, it is also clear from policy that the "significance" of the contribution that an image must make to be justifiable is not an absolute standard, but is to be judged against the degree and quality of the copyright "taking". From the section on acceptable and unacceptable uses, broadly three distinct categories can be identified. The most stringent requirements are for documentary images - images of war, images of objects, etc - where there is a real danger of WP using the image for the same documentary purpose that it was originally created, which would not be considered a transformative use. Hence the explicit requirement that for these images there must be commentary directly on the image. A second broad category would include images like movie screengrabs and software screenshots. Here it is clear that WP is not using the images for the purpose they were originally made, so the standard is more relaxed: the image must in some way contribute usefully to the general commentary made in the article. Finally, a further category is images like logos, created to help make a company or other entity easily identifiable. Here we start from the assumption generally made by entities in the wider world outside wikipedia, that in encouraging the identification of their organisation with such a logo, an organisation is giving an implied license for use of the logo for the purpose of such identification. That assumption means that the use of such a logo for such a purpose is a very slight copyright taking, and one which is very easily justified. Hence the proposition that use of the logo to visually "assure the readers that they have reached the right article" is justifiable, not just for the team "main article", but also in other article where this visual confirmation could have a positive usefulness. Jheald (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely correct: there should be a guideline that specifies the use of college sports logos specifically. But every time someone tries to write and get feedback on such guidelines, someone responds that it is a policy matter that we cannot decide and therefore not subject to debate or consensus because "(paraphrasing) it doesn't matter what the consensus is, we cannot violate policy," and then the debate gets lost yet again, and nothing gets done.
So, try to get consensus on a specific guideline, and debate gets derailed because someone accuses us of trying to make an end-run around wikipedia policy. Try to change the policy to be more specific, and "that's not the issue." This is getting tiresome.CH52584 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely rubbish. These are non-free images, and they must be treated as such. Just because they are logos, does not mean that they are any more free. The reason such debates are shot down straight away is that they are completely counter to the non-free content criteria, in that they are trying to create a more relaxed environment for certain types of non-free media. The same could also be said about various covers and about images of dead people, but we cannot arbitrarily decide to treat some images as "more free" than others. Furthermore, on Wikipedia, implied licenses are not worth the paper they are not written on. We always assume an image is non-free until we are certain that it is not. J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here thinks that these aren't non-free images. No one is trying to make these images "more free". No one is trying to relax the criteria, but (as iterated ad nauseum all over this page) the policy and guidelines aren't crystal clear. We are trying to clarify and more plainly/clearly express policy so we don't have problems in the future. I, for one, could care less of the specific outcome because it will reduce animosity and problems in Wikipedia. That said, it doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on the matter. As for "We always assume an image is non-free until we are certain that it is not," WP:AGF? — BQZip01 — talk 10:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk of implied licenses and claims that college sports logos should have their own guidelines reek of attempting to treat these images differently from other non-free material, which we shoiuld not be doing. What on Earth does assuming good faith have to do with assuming that work is copyrighted until we have evidence to the contrary? J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, if you look at WP:NFC#Guideline examples it is simply a fact that there are different yardsticks that we to different types of content, as to when non-free content is considered justifiable.
As I have written before, they closely reflect whether a commercial verbatim re-user in the United States could re-use our content verbatim. Considerations of implied licenses directly touch on that.
The essence of WP:NFC is balance. It is not a one-sided imperative not to use non-free content. If that were the case, we wouldn't use non-free content at all. Rather, policy is a balance between usefulness and practical reusability, with both sides of that balance considered important. The rough and ready balancing point (commercial verbatim reuse) works out differently for different forms of non-free content, and policy reflects that. Jheald (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're not understanding the argument. You're saying that there are questions as to whether the logos pass the "No free equivalent" and "significance" sections of Wikipedia:NFC. We are thus asking two questions: 1.) "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" and 2.) "Do these logos significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic?" Some here say yes to both, some say no. Thus, both these issues are subject to consensus. The college sports logo guidelines would specifically address these two questions in regards to use of the logos, and would be based on consensus to decide if use of the logos correctly follows the policy. CH52584 (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This really is getting old and it's just going around and around. Those who want a sports walled garden are never going to be convinced not to use logos. Those who want free content are never going to be convinced to use them. It's very unfortunate that when the Foundation published the policy, they changed some of the wording. The original draft did not include the "logo" exception and said that the EDP could only permit non-free images when the reader's understanding would be impaired by not having the non-free image. In other words, the only thing we would have used non-free images for were things like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or the Kent State shootings where those historic photos are in every history book. Just !voting over and over again is never going to settle anything. --B (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but as seen in the motion I put forth below, people seem very bent on rehashing this over and over again, with no end in sight. I fail to see the utility of this. We're now up to 466kb of text discussion debating this issue. That's about 160 pages worth of debate in printed form. Congress has shorter debates. The latest poll is flawed, so there's no conclusions that can be drawn from it. We're spinning our wheels in the mud, producing prodigious quantities of debate with nothing but a mess to show for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just get down to the core issues here

Let's try something different. How about instead of counting !votes about who support using logos in this or that kind of article we intead get down to the baiscs here. The number of people who support using a non-free image is irrelevant unless they can show that the use actualy comply with the policy.

The WP:NFCC require all 10 criteria to be fulfilled before using a non-free image is allowed. That much is not up for debate. So I suggest those who support the wide use of logos in ancillary articles provide a collection of explanations for how they consider the disputed use of logos to comply with the policy.

The main dispute center around the criteria of replacability, mininal use and significance so I suggest we focus on those for now.

Please post each explanation in bold without any indentation. Discission related to each explanation should then be posted directly below it with aproprate indentation. If a section gets to long for easy editing add (sub-)subsections where apropriate.

Please avoid reasons that only apply to exceptional cases, exceptions can always exist. The main dispute is over the general practice of percieved indiscriminate use of logos in scertain types of ancillary articles (usualy) for the purpose of identifying the team in question. --Sherool (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replacability

Please explain why the we have to use the logo, and not simply the team name linked back to team's main article to sufficiently identify the team related to the ancillary article. --Sherool (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm assuming that the major debate is over team logos in season articles. At least to me, it seems like consensus is overwhelmingly toward allowing logos in team articles, and leaning towards disallowing them in game articles. I'll note that (IIRC) I've never edited a college sports article, so my opinion is largely controlled by my belief that fair use is an important freedom that Wikipedia should exploit when justified.
  • Logos can and do change over time, so a link to the main article showing how a team currently identifies itself doesn't convey much information about how it identified itself over time. Including team identification on each page helps to show such identification at notable points in time, helping us remove a recentist bias. I would not support including current logos on historical pages, except when the current logo is the one used at that time. — PyTom (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy is clearly not designed to exploit the full freedoms afforded by fair use law, quite the opposite in fact. So that's not rely an argument for how the use is in compliance with the policy. Also any significant changes in branding and logo use should be covered in a suitable "history" section of the main article. If anything simply using different historical logos on past season articles without any commentary is more likely to confuse than inform casual readers. Better to refeer to the main article where the changes of the logo over time can be discussed in more detail. --Sherool (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either is probably sufficient. As the saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words," so some might argue that simply replacing a logo with the team name in text takes away from the article. It's all a matter of opinion, so whether or not this criteria is met should be based upon consensus, not the assertion of one side that text is an adequate replacement for the logo as factual. CH52584 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal use

Please explain how the use in each ancillary article can still be considered to be the minimum amount of use nessesary for getting the information provided by the logo across, even though they all link back to a main team article. --Sherool (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Solution would be to only use them on the most recent season. The first site listed on a Google search for "2008 Georgia Tech Football" is the Wikipedia article [8]. Ndenison talk 05:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • One logo per notable season (ignoring the rare cases where a team changed logo mid-season) is the minimum possible while still allowing one to identify the team at a given point in time. — PyTom (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you reread the policy, you will notice that the minimal use criteria refers to multiple fair uses images being used when one will suffice, not the number of articles in which a single fair use image is used.CH52584 (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy is just "Minimal use", it then goes on to provide some examples. It's not intended to be an exhaustive definition of what is and is not considered minimal use. It used to explicity say "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole (...)". However the "Wikipedia as a whole" bit aparently got dropped in subsequent re-wordings because it was thought to be redundant to spell it out. Similarly the foundation resolution just says the use must be minimal and within narrow limits. Nothing about only limiting the number of items on any one page. This is also part of the reason (next to significance) the bit about not using non-free images on pages outside of the main namespace was added, because it caused more use of non-free images overall than was nessesary. --Sherool (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significance

Please explain how, as a general practice, the use of a team logo in an ancillary article will significantly increase the readers understanding of the topic covered by the ancillary article. --Sherool (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Used for identification the same as a portrait. Note: This is copied exactly from a post a made further up. I also do not support using the logos on every season article, just the most recent. The logo is part of the team. They're on the helmets, jerseys, flags, tickets, plastered around the stadium, and so on. In the south, you see college football logos all over the place on cars, clothing, etc. People identify teams by their logos. A perfect example in the "G" used by University of Georgia Athletics and the Greenbay Packers. They are just as important to recognition as a celebrity's portrait. What do you see on every news site or television broadcast about a sporting event? The team's logo. Ndenison talk 05:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add, the first hit on a Google search for "2008 Georgia Tech Football" is the Wikipedia article for that season [9]. Shouldn't the logo be used for recognizably to improve the reader's Wikipedia experience? Ndenison talk 05:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They won't recognize that the article is about the 2008 Georgia Tech football season based on the title of the article? Mr.Z-man 06:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Is Georgia Tech the one in yellow or red?" Perhaps not. While our goals is to build a free encyclopedia, another is to build a quality encyclopdia. — BQZip01 — talk 07:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could easily explain that Georgia Tech is the one "in red" using plain free text if that's a big deal. (I just did!) I suspect that's probably not a question asked frequently by those looking for a high level of detail on a team such as individual season articles, and if someone wants to know, they can certainly click through to the parent article and find out exactly what the logo is. A theoretical, unlikely situation in which the logo would be marginally useful is far different from a significant increase in understanding. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just proved our point. Georgia Tech would not be in red. Wouldn't the logo have quickly and easily cleared that up? Ndenison talk 15:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Huh? The article is titled 2008 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team. I really would hope that someone reading that article would know what its about before reading anything but the title, its pretty obvious. As for "yellow or red" - that's the kind of information that can be conveyed without a non-free image, though unless they changed the color that season its not particularly relevant for an article about the season. That's why we have internal links, such as one to Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football where the team colors are more relevant. Part of being a quality encyclopedia means not including barely-relevant, repetitive information in articles and putting it in relevant linked parent articles instead. Mr.Z-man 07:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to harp on this, but "Part of being a quality encyclopedia means not including barely-relevant, repetitive information in articles and putting it in relevant linked parent articles instead." is not policy or a guideline. It is your own personal opinion. I also think that the team's logo is extremely relevant and pertinent to the subject at hand. We can debate stuff back and forth all day, but until policy/guidelines are clarified, this discussion has no end. — BQZip01 — talk 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on that's just common sense, if you have a main article on an organization you don't repeat all the facts about the organization on every ancillary article, you just provide enough info to put the article in context and refeer readers back to the main article for more in depth information. Yes using the logo is extremely relevant on the main article about the team, why it significant to repeat it across every ancillary article however is less clear to me. I may just have misunderstood since you only commented on the wording of a comment rater than the question as a whole. Please feel free to provide your own detailed answer to the question posted at the top of this section to help clearify your view. --Sherool (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Common sense is uncommon" Anon. So why isn't it spelled out 100% clearly then?
In response to your request, I'll use another example: Boeing and its logo are used with over subentities as well. If there were and article entitled 2008 engineering advances by Boeing, I would expect to see the Boeing logo at the top, since that is the subject of the article. The same goes for the teams. The team's logo should be used at the top for season articles, because that is the subject of the article. — BQZip01 — talk 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What would it provide other than decoration? "Boeing" is in the title, so the reader obviously knows its about Boeing and they can click on the link to Boeing that will probably be in the first sentence if they care about such information. The logo isn't an engineering development, why should it be the main image rather than say, a picture of a new aircraft? Also, while it doesn't specifically mention logos and team colors, it is spelled out at Wikipedia:Summary style. Mr.Z-man 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...bad example as it didn't show what I was trying to iterate. Let's try this: I don't think that anyone (even Aggies) would disagree that the 1939 Texas Aggies Football Team is a different team from the 2008 Texas Aggies Football Team. They have different logos, different coaches, different players, different schools (one was a college and is now a University), etc. and there are differences between...
AND IN A STROKE OF GENIUS I THINK I MIGHT HAVE SOLVED THIS!!!
I concur that a season article shouldn't use the logo because it is a subset of the football program, but the annual team article should use the logo because that is the team's logo! New proposal to follow. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between the two, other than semantics? (ESkog)(Talk) 21:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the 1939 and the 208 Texas Aggies are the same team - the team run by the athletic department of Texas A&M for those 69 years. The personnel may be be different, but the team is not changing. --MASEM 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could've been more clear on that. The 1939 team is a separate entity from the 2008 team. The 1939 and 2008 seasons are the results of the efforts of these entities and their opponents. If you see no difference between 1939 (a national champion) and 2008 (a dismal 4-8 team that lost to Arkansas State), then we disagree. Could you be so kind as to propose a middle ground? — BQZip01 — talk 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its as much a separate entity as Ford Motor Company in 1915 is separate from Ford today. All the employees, all the vehicles, all the factories are different, the company is still the same (I would also note that History of Ford Motor Company doesn't include the Ford logo, nor on all the articles about Ford cars). And I think ESkog's question was more about what the difference between an article about a season and an article about an annual team is. Mr.Z-man 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is quite clear. Just because a few people here, including yourself, keep saying its not while refusing to listen to people trying to explain why the proposed usage is wrong, doesn't make it unclear. The policy seems to work fine for every other non-free image on the project including other logos. The fact that it seems to be not able to be followed correctly for sports team logos suggests a problem with the users rather than the policy. Mr.Z-man 17:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we are having this discussion at all should be evidence enough that policy is not 100% clear. "Other logos" do not have as many articles as sports articles do, so they don't face the same kinds of problems. The attitude of "there must be something wrong with you if you don't agree with me" is not a useful attitude and will not help this discussion. I've pointed out the shortfalls and you refuse to acknowledge that problems even exist. If you take this moral superiority position, there is nothing I can do to dissuade you since your mind is already made up. Realize that WP:CONSENSUS can change...and even policy can be changed. — BQZip01 — talk 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To use an analogy, if 1 user is having problems with software that works perfectly fine for 100 other users, odds are the prfoblem is how the 1 user is using it, not a bug in the software. The same applies here. No other group of articles/images is having these problems with NFCC, so odds are the problem isn't with the policy. Its not just agreeing with me, its agreeing with all the other users who aren't having these problems using non-free images. I can't acknowledge problems exist when you don't say what they are, you just say there's problems and the policy is unclear. From my perspective there are no problems besides a bunch of logos being massively overused. What aspects are unclear? What needs to be clarified? Mr.Z-man 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated those ad nauseum on this entire page, but to summarize:
"Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace."
Minimal usage is not defined as anything other than using multiple images when a single image will suffice.
Minimal extent of use is not defined as anything other using parts of an image when it will suffice instead of using the whole image.
"Overuse" is not a term used in policy or guidelines anywhere. It is also not defined. What is "overuse"?
People are defining "minimal use" and "minimal extent" in their own minds, not what policy states. Minimal can mean "0", "1", "few", "the least amount needed to accomplish a goal", and others. Without a concrete definition, this wide variety of definitions causes problems, as is evident here.
Just because a single group has an issue doesn't mean that others don't have issues. A lack of input on other users' parts does not mean they agree with your point of view (or anyone else's either). This is a logical fallacy
As a computer science major, your analogy isn't even close to accurate. If 1% of people have a problem with software, there is likely a major problem with the software.
I'm. not. arguing. about. minimal. usage. And neither are most of the other people in this section about significance. If you have read any of my comments except the last one you'd see I've been arguing that the logos add nothing of significance and are replaceable simply by the name of the team. Please explain how I can be wrong that other people outside of the sports article areas (or based on a discussion below, college football, making the number more like 0.01% rather than 1%) are having a similar problem with this policy. Find one other group of articles where problems defining minimal use of non-free images exists. I'm not talking about a lack of input, I'm talking about a lack of observable problems. In the absence of any shred of evidence of existence, I can only conclude that they don't exist. I said "overuse" with the assumption that people reading my comment would be familiar with English. Since you're going to argue semantics, Wiktionary defines "overuse" as "excessive use" and defines "excessive" as "Exceeding the usual bounds of something." As using a non-free logo on all subarticles related to an organization is not the normal use, it seems to meet the definition "excessive" and "overuse" unless you're also going to challege the definition of "use." Nothing is explicitly defined in the policy except "non-free content". That doesn't mean the policy is meaningless. Mr.Z-man 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is consensus that using the current logo to identify the team is significant. Using historic logos to identify historic versions of the team should be similarly significant. — PyTom (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Historic logos can be covered in the main article where aprpriate, but there is clearly no consensus for saying that identifying each iteration of the team on season articles significantly increase the understanding of the coverage of that season. If the season article goes into details about a logo redesign then yes (though I still think the main article is better for that), but that's not the kind of use that's in dispute. --Sherool (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, all a matter of opinion. You may think it's insignificant, but someone else may think it is. Consensus applies. CH52584 (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just saying it's significant doesn't make it so, you need to show how it significantly increase the readers understanding of the topic covered in each article it's used. Also even if it was just a matter of opinion there is still no clear consensus that the comunity believe that using the logo in each season article result in a significantly increased understanding (even the user who provided the "illustrative portrait" argument above does not believe so), and since the bias of the policy is to avoid using non-free conent when in doubht that's actualy a good enough rason to avoid this use. --Sherool (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was the one who "provided" that argument. Of course, that provision comes from existing guidelines at WP:LOGO, so it isn't an original and it already has consensus. I concur that there is no consensus for inclusion, but by the same token there is no consensus for exclusion either. — BQZip01 — talk 21:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close the RfC as no consensus

Some of you will disagree because you feel there's consensus on some sub-points. But, this overall RfC has been going on for three weeks now. We're continually rehashing the same points over and over again with no sign of let up. It's time to put this to rest and seek other avenues for resolving this dispute. Note that closing this RfC does not mean we should devolve into edit warring.

Support

Oppose

  • Ndenison talk 16:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Closing this now will flood discussions into articles as edit wars; not saying that I will, but I have a strong feeling it will happen.[reply]
  • I oppose closing this while it's still being actively debated. I doubly oppose referring this to Arbcom, which should not be making policy or content decisions. — PyTom (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some issues do have clear consensus (such as the opposition to removing team logos from school sports team articles). Others are still being debated. The problem is that if this RfC is closed as "no consensus" the status of hundreds of images on thousands of articles is left up in the air, which will lead to edit warring and further disputes. Oren0 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh...there is still PLENTY of discussion going on right now (200+ edits in the past 12 hours!). There are points on which we do have consensus, so to lump them all together and say, "We can't agree on everything, so we can't agree on anything" simply isn't useful and makes the efforts of those points of consensus worthless. In short, we do have consensus on a large percentage of the problem. — BQZip01 — talk 21:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a growing consensus on everything except for season articles right now, so ... no. Mr.Z-man 21:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too soon. cmadler (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. You can hold off on the RFAR for a little while longer. Mastrchf (t/c) 05:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, many users are spending time on this instead of adding meaningful contributions to Wikipedia. The articles they want to remove images from need a lot of copy-editing and could in many cases be expanded. Instead of adding text and correct information(meaningful contributions), they have become the image police(waste of everyone's time and their talents). Furthermore, they are treating our attempts at a resolution as a joke, "respectfully", because they claim this already happened. But what they fail to acknowledge is yes, using a free image 100 times is an abuse, but using a free image only once is just their interpretation of "minimal use." They keep claiming that this is what happened before, ignoring what is happening now. Tedmoseby (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • I would kinda like to see it run for a few days more at least. I'd like to see if some more people will give their best explanations for how they believe the disputed use of logos comply with all the relevant criteria of the policy in the section above. That would give us a basis to judge the rationales for using the logos in ancillary articles on the merits of policy compliance (or lack thereof) rater than wishfull thinking or inconclusive !votes on proposed guideline wordings that mostly miss the point. --Sherool (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new avenue to resolve (part of) the dispute:

Reading down the discussion, it has become clear to me that opponents of the use of logos in the season articles are referencing the "minimal use" section of the Wikipedia:NFC policy, with some interpretting that to mean a single use in the parent article (the university's article), and no use in any other article. I want to post the minimal use section of the policy in its entirety here:

a. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. b. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace.

The word "minimal" does not appear anywhere else in the policy.

Section B of this criteria does not apply to this discussion.

Personally, I interpret section A to mean that multiple logos for the same team should not be used to illustrate that team in an article, because one logo would suffice (unless of course each individual logo is discussed in the text of the article). However, I can understand how someone could interpret the words "multiple items" as meaning the same image being used multiple times.

Either way, I don't think this wording is as clear as some have suggested. Both sides have been stating that the policy is crystal-clear in their favor. This is simply not true.

Therefore, my proposal is that the policy should be edited, and the exact meaning of "Multiple items" should be further defined to whether it includes multiple uses of the same image or not.CH52584 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question of minimal use is not the key question here. Instead, the question of significance is. The significant aspect of minimal use to this discussion is the fact that, just because an image is already on Wikipedia, does not mean that it is more acceptable to use it elsewhere. Each use must be justified on its own merits. J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As CH52584 points out, the wording of the "minimal use" aspect actually has very little to do with this. The key issue is the significance of the logos- are they adding anything to the related articles? No one is particularly talking about minimal use (except in a colloquial sense- few people are explicitly referring to the criterion of minimal use) and even fewer people are toting this "one image, one article" policy that some seem so keen to pin on those opposing logo use. J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refer you to the initial complaint that started this argument: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Severe_overuse_problem. You'll notice the initial complaint by Hammersoft was "The problem is college sports logos are being distributed across a huge number of articles."CH52584 (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different subject. I am not attempting to address that issue here, as that involves developing a consensus, not a policy.CH52584 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, so what are you trying to address here? What does this have to do with the subject of this RfC? J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole reason this argument was started is that 3 weeks ago, Hammersoft complained that an Ohio State logo was used in 102 different articles, and that it violated the "minimal use" clause of this policy. This is the initial point that has brought us here today.CH52584 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Its the more relevant subject. Except for the proposal(s) suggesting using 3 logos in each article, criterion 3 doesn't really apply IMO, at least not as much as 1 and 8. Mr.Z-man 23:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, it's not the point I'm addressing. If you don't think my point should be addressed because it's not the most relevant point, trying to change the subject of the argument at this point does not help either of us. You can address your point elsewhere.CH52584 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c x2)I've been opposing logos in season articles based on criteria 1 and 8. They add nothing of significance to an article about a season and can easily be replaced with just a link to the article about the team, which probably already exists in each article. As it stands they're essentially decoration, and no one has yet been able to explain to me what information relevant to the article will be lost by removing them and/or replacing them with a link to the team article. Though criterion 3.a would apply to some of the proposals above. Mr.Z-man 23:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have been using the term "minimal use" and insisting that this is not open to consensus, but a policy not open to debate. There are 3 fronts for this argument, whether you only argue 2 of them or not. If we could just settle one of those issues, it would be progress, no? CH52584 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, and minimal use is required. It is not open to debate, as it is specified in the WMF resolution. Minimal use applies to both use within a given article and total number of uses on Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of minimal in this case is whats being debated. There is no clear cut finite or relative number. Minimal clearly means that the logo shouldn't be used on every article that mentions a team, but does it really mean that the logo can only be used once? That is what is being debated. Ndenison talk 00:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Minimal use applies to both use within a given article and total number of uses on Wikipedia." Where are you getting this from? The whole point of this section is that nothing in such a statement is backed up in the actual policy. The point is, this is your interpretation of a vague policy, which is why the policy must be edited to specify this one way or the other. Until that is done, it is open to interpretation and IS subject to debate.CH52584 (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is a single project, and the policy applies to the project as a whole. We would not presume, for instance, that the NPOV policy applies only to a single article—it is a sitewide policy, so we presume it applies to the whole site. The same is true here. Policy applies to the entire site. To say that it does not would be nonsensical. When policies are limited in scope to certain articles, certain namespaces, etc., that is specifically noted. In the absence of such a specific note, the presumption is "Applies to everything." Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not responding to his argument. He isn't arguing the WP:CFB is immune to policy. There is no policy that defines 'minimal'. Is minimal 1? What if 1000 articles reference it, does that mean that minimal is .1%? And if so, what policy defines that? Ndenison talk 01:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A policy does not have to define every single English word used in it. That is what dictionaries are for. Nitpicking semantics doesn't change things. It's like saying that the policy doesn't define "use", so having it appear in more than one article isn't really a "use" because the policy doesn't explicitly state that it is. That would be a garbage argument. So is trying to pretend that "minimal" is not a clearly defined word, whether or not the policy provides that definition. "Minimal" means the minimum possible. Normally that would be "zero", however, the WMF resolution does explicitly allow that logos may be shown. So, the minimal amount there is "once", in a parent article, and anyone wanting to see the logo can go to that parent article. Anything else there is beyond the minimum, and therefore not minimal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And where does it state that minimum is 1? I always thought minimum in the case meant, for example, that the Georgia Tech Athletic Association logo only be used in articles pertaining directly to Georgia Tech athletics, not articles about the Georgia Institute of Technology, it's various schools and colleges, or notable alumni (as I have seen and removed). If you can show me where minimum is clearly stated as '1', I will make it my top priority to make sure that the Georgia Tech athletics logo is only used in one parent article. Ndenison talk 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum is actually 0 - we replace non-free with free whenever possible. --MASEM 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What policy states '0'? Ndenison talk 01:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum is no more than needed to achieve the purpose. It may be 0; it may be 1; it may be 100. It depends what the purpose is that the content is being used to achieve. Different people on this page are proposing different views of what purposes are justifiable, based on different readings of the policy; and that is what this page is exploring. Jheald (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP's mission is to be a free content encyclopedia: any use of non-free content dilutes that, so the minimum is zero. What the NFC policy does recognize, however, that there are times we do need to use NFC to help the reader comprehend the article, but any time that that NFC can be replaced by a free equivalent (including a free image or text (including a wikilink to an existing use of the NFC picture), we help move closer to the minimum defined by the free content mission. --MASEM 13:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a new avenue at all. It's an argument frequently hashed out in fair use image use debates. It's routine. It should probably be in WP:PEREN. Whenever a significant debate on fair use erupts, odds are one or the other party will come up with an argument about the policy being unclear or not saying what the other party thinks it does. We've already done this multiple times in this debate. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes your view of minimum more correct then someone else's? If you say policy, please provide the exact policy (which hasn't been done yet). Ndenison talk 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been done multiple times already. It's shown in resolution, mission, policy and guideline. You choose to dissect it and indicate that there's nothing expressly forbidding the use of logos in X case. You're right. There isn't anything expressly forbidding it. That doesn't mean that every time we have an opportunity to use fair use images where the use isn't expressly mentioned we have carte blanche to use it as we like. Here we are back to the old argument, yet again. You say the policy says one thing, I say it says another. But, policy really is on my side on this one. "Such EDPs must be minimal" doesn't mean liberal use. Any interpretation of that which concludes we can use an image a hundred or more times is failing to understand policy. I'm sure you'll respond I'm wrong, and policy is on your side. Lather, rinse, repeat and gosh let's let this RfC go on for another 160 pages worth of text so we can better understand the failure to reach consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to change my mind. I think that only using the team logos in articles about the team instead of every article the references the school (colleges, alumni, etc) constitutes minimal use. Everyone states that I am wrong based on policy, but has not been able to cite what policy explicitly states what 'minimal' is. Ndenison talk 20:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will not find a policy that explicitly states what constitutes minimal. It doesn't exist. This doesn't grant carte blanche for people to apply minimal as meaning as much as they want. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'll respond with what someone else noted before. The policy has worked fine in other sports, and no case has been made that college football is any different than those. There's no need to change policy when it's worked just fine in so many other very similar cases. The problem isn't the policy. The problem is college football's interpretation of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the last time. NO ONE is trying to change policy, but to clarify it. There is an ambiguity within the policy that can be more clearly worded. Just because other sports haven't had a problem in the past is a red herring. We are having a problem now. Furthermore Wikipedia:LOGO#Specific_cases specifically outlines uses of at least three other types of logos/images. Adding a guideline that everyone can follow (that is within WP:NFCC, a policy) WILL simplify things and reduce these problems. Can you imagine being able to remove an image and say "WP:LOGO says we can't use it"? By the same token for those wanting to add images, can you imaging being able to add an image and say "WP:LOGO says we should do it this way"? That simplifies discussion dramatically. — BQZip01 — talk 22:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the other sports are important to consider because they immediately disprove that the logo is essential to the understanding of the article. These articles seem perfectly fine without the presence of the logo. By extension the college team articles will be perfectly fine without the logo. NFCC#8 is not met. --MASEM 22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I can imagine a much simpler case than attempting to modify or clarify policy. "Remove logos per RfC; no consensus this is a valid use". The policy seems to have been clear enough for the other sports. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to take an insult, that's your business. None was intended or offered. What I am pointing out is that the same arguments are being rehashed over and over and over again. I could have responded to CH52584 with the same answers that have previously been written. The answers and the responses to the answers aren't taking us any further forward than reciting going around the mulberry bush. This is repetitive. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

"I can imagine a much simpler case: do what I want and I'll be happy" isn't discussion. It is a decree by which WP:CONSENSUS is not fulfilled. Multiple comments that we aren't going anywhere are counterproductive/condescending. If you think this is going no where, then please feel free to leave the discussion instead of belittling contributors who are trying to form a consensus. — BQZip01 — talk 01:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am becoming increasingly tired of your accusations against multiple people that they are being condescending towards you. You intentionally took offense in the section above, even going out of your way to do so. That's your business if you want to take offense. But when people make it blatantly clear that no insult is intended, don't then blame them for insulting you. That's your responsibility.
  • As for highlighting the repetitive nature of this debate, that is productive. You're welcome to your opinion of that assessment, but you're not welcome to demand people leave the discussion because you disagree with their opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No offense, but you're a real asshole" is still an insult no matter how it is prefaced (I'm not saying you said this, it's just an example. But if you are being condescending/dismissive, it doesn't matter how you preface your comment. You are still being condescending/dismissive). — BQZip01 — talk 01:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went out of my way to make it clear it was not an insult. Several times now you have taken offense, even reporting me once for perceived transgressions. You were told you were in the wrong then. You are in the wrong now. If you think you are in the right, then report me (yet again). Otherwise, as Wiggy suggests below, stick to the issues at hand and stop trying to find affront when there is none to be had. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HS, you have a remarkable gift for getting into non-sensical confrontations with other users. How be we stick to the issues at hand? Wiggy! (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we aren't backtracking. There's plenty of evidence to suggest we have some consensus on logo use. Just because you don't personally like them doesn't mean they shouldn't exist or that they must be removed; consensus on some issues obviously runs contrary to your personal beliefs. Not to be too blunt about it, but your individual desires don't matter if consensus is contrary to it. You are welcome to try and change the existence of WP:LOGO, but that is a different discussion. Furthermore, many different sports and leagues in varied countries use logos in accordance with policy/guidance with no issues being raised, some with far more fair use images being used, some even in an article about a season! (note: WP:OVERLINK applies in spades here) The gross oversimplification that "this is a college football issue" is simply wrong. — BQZip01 — talk 01:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it seems pretty clear that consensus won't be reached here. That makes things a bit easier, though really it wouldn't matter even if it were, consensus can't override NFC. However, the lack of consensus makes it very clear that the images can't be used, since regardless of anything else we can't make an exception to NFC without clear consensus to do so. It's time to get started on the cleanup. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not disruptive to perform needed cleanup. Nor is it to make a point, it is to bring articles in line with nonfree content rules. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such policy or guideline which states "If there is no consensus about using a fair use image in an article, the default response is to remove it from the article." — BQZip01 — talk 02:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is. This is a free content project, so nonfree content is always started with the presumption of being unacceptable. And of course, in the absence of consensus, the default presumption stays. It wouldn't matter here anyway, since the images fail regardless, but the lack of consensus makes it even clearer that removal is required. 24.8.162.202 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is not a policy or guideline. — BQZip01 — talk 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So here we are

Ok, I've done a thorough re-reading of everything on this page, sans the stuff added in the past hour and I think I've come up with a reasonable addition to Wikipedia:LOGO#Specific_cases for purposes of clarifying WP:NFCC with regards to use in sports pages. If you don't like it, please feel free to propose your own interpretation. — BQZip01 — talk 03:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Teams

Teams
In order to present the subject clearly, the preferred lead image for a sports team is the team's current logo (example). Images of current players are not desired 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 particular 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).
Season article
The preferred lead image for a season of a sports team is an image from the season, preferably of the players within the field of play. To further the goals of a free encyclopedia, do not use a team logo, the logo(s) of the school, or athletic department logo(s) as the lead image(s).
Sporting Event
The preferred lead image for a sporting event is that event's logo. Another option is an image of the event itself, but care should be made to use a neutral image (examples: acceptable, not acceptable). To further the goals of a free encyclopedia, do not use team logos, the logo(s) of the school(s), or athletic department logo(s) as the lead image(s).

As always, free images are desired wherever possible. If any images used with this guidance are copyrighted or trademarked, a separate fair use rationale must be included for each use of the image.

Support Proposed WP:LOGO addition

  1. While I do not agree with everything stated above, I think this is the best we can do as a compromise. — BQZip01 — talk 03:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For the sake of compromise. Ndenison talk 03:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Proposed WP:LOGO addition

Neutral on Proposed WP:LOGO addition

  1. While I agree with the 1st and 3rd points, and the Preferred Use of the 2nd point, I don't feel that if a free image isn't available, no image should be the option over a fair use image. But faced with the option of this and that of radical views of significance and minimal use, I would choose this. Mastrchf (t/c) 03:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

While I do not agree with everything stated above, I think this is the best we can do as a compromise. Thoughts — BQZip01 — talk 03:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fail to see the utility of separating out season and event clauses. This can all be condensed into a simple guideline to follow. Further, this proposal does not address one of the original issues in this RfC, that of rivalry articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that would be a separate issue.File:Lonestar rivalry logo 137.png is neither a logo for a parent team. what hammersoft is saying if a rivalry does not have a unique rivalry it should not include the separate logos of the competing teams. Canis Lupus 05:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, it does use the logos of both of the teams...
Ok, well, here's a few I just pulled out of for examples:
Almost all of the rivalries (with a sole exception) that have a logo use both team's logos in their logo; if there is another one that doesn't, I'm not aware of it. For the sake of accuracy, clarity, and quality, I think it would be appropriate to include them only for rivalries where there is no specified logo. We aren't doing anything that the other rivalries aren't already doing, but this is only for those that have a notable rivalry (i.e. have/had a formal game each year with a definite named game/trophy or a very long history). I'm open to phrasing so we don't get the once-every-ten-years game on the table. In football, there only seem to be about 40 or so rivalries, many with their own logos. I also think there is a very strong association between the logos and these rivalries. To not use them here would be a disservice to Wikipedia in terms of quality and significance (the fact that the team logos are included in almost all of the rivalry logos backs up the significance). — BQZip01 — talk 05:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again, those unique rival logos are not being challenged, going back to Hammersofts original over use see: Michigan–Ohio State rivalry. their is no logo for that rival, rather they are just throwing both teams logos up to make the article look better. with the rivals that you pointed out there should be a section with each about the logo design/history to integrate it into the article/explain its meaning more. But where a majority of the free content users have issues with rival pages are situations like Michigan–Ohio State rivalry where both teams logos are just thrown on the page to make it look pretty. Canis Lupus 05:59, 12 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=263535170"