2016 Australian National Handball Championship season is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
@Marchjuly: Why did you remove the logo? It was like removing the bride-and-groom topper from a wedding cake. I believe the use of the image fit under the fair-usage rule. I can't imagine what drew you to this article and then decide to remove the logo that represents the page. You could have at least explained your actions here in the talk page. That's what it's for. - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 07:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free logos are allowed to be used in certain articles, but each use of non-free content is required to satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. There are couple of problems with using File:Australian Handball Federation logo.jpg in this particular article. The first one has to do with WP:NFCC#10c. NFCC#10c requires that a separate specific non-free use rationale be provided for each use of non-free content. There was no rationale provided for this particular article so already its use fails one of the NFCC criteria. The next problem has to to do with WP:NFCC#8. The logo is for the Australian Handball Federation and this is an article about a particular season of an event which is perhaps sponsored by that federation. An infobox logo is supposed to serve as the primary means of indentification for the subject of the article, which is why its use in the stand-alone article about the federation is fine. In this particular case, this usage fails NFCC#8 because the context required by NFCC#8 is lacking. Logos of sponsors or organizing bodies are generally not used in articles about reoccuring events for the reasons explained in items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI, unless the logo itself is the subject of some sourced critical commentary within the article. In such cases, a logo specific to the particular occurence should instead be used to identify the event. If such an logo does not exist, then the using the sponsor's/organizing body's by default is not really considered to be acceptable per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you want to ask other's about this, you can do so at WP:MCQ, WT:NFCC or even at WP:FFD. Moreover, if you really truly believe that the way you wish to use the logo complies with relevant Wikipedia policy, then pease provide the required non-free use rationale which shows how this particular usage meets all 10 non-free content criteria.
Finally, you are only allowed to write so much in an edit sum so there's not much detail you can go into. Hopefully, the above better explains why the file's use in this particular article does not statisfy relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)thujmb[reply]
@Marchjuly: I've gone over the information for Logo of the Australian Handball Federation. I'm pretty sure I got all ten of the requirements. Requirements 14 & 17 are contradictory. You can only meet one of them at a time. I met the requirements of 14; the are no child entities to worry about for 17. For requirement 8, that has been met also. The logo is no different from putting football team logos on their pages. All I have to do is label the footer of the file.
Just for reference, you violated WP:NFCC#9 by displaying the file on this talk page. It's best to link non-free files when you're discussing them by using the colon trick. Non-free content may only be used in the article namespace, and should not be displayed anywhere else except in some very specific and limited cases per WP:NFEXMP.
As for items 14 and 17 being contradictory, I don't think that's not the case at all. Both are there to help minimize non-free content use and ensure there's proper context for each use and it's certainly is possible to satisfy both at the same time. In addition, the point of NFCC#8 is that simply showing a non-free image is not enough; its use has to improve the reader's understanding of the article content to such a degree that omitting the non-free content would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free content use is pretty tricky to get a hang of and often needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, so how an image or a similar image is being used in other articles is not really relevant. As I pointed out above, infobox images are primarily for identification purposes and the context for such use is believed to come from the entire article and its sources. It is generally assumed that there will be or could possibly be sourced critical commentary of an organization's choice of branding smoeone in the stand-alone Wikipedia article about it. This is why the logo of the Australian Handball Federation is considered acceptable for the stand-alone article about it. In other articles, a much stronger justification needs to be provided for non-free use. Does seeing this logo clearly help the reader identify that this is an article about a tournament/championship which took place during 2016, and not an article about the AHF itself? Could sourced critical commentary of this logo possibly added to this particular article to help provide the context for use? I personally think that the answers to both those questions is no, but others may see it differently.
That is why my suggestion to you is to start a discussion about this at WP:FFD to see whether you can establish a consensus for this type of use. Be advised the consensus in similar discussions has pretty much been that you can't, but maybe this case is different and you're seeing something I'm not. If you're not sure how to start such a discussion, I can do so for you. You might, however, be better off first posing a question about this at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC to get some more immediate feedback. You can use a Template:Please see if you want to do that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ignore the apparent tone. I was just trying to keep it simple and short. Sorry. Umm, something odd here...
(cur | prev) 12:21, 25 May 2017 Marchjuly (talk | contribs) . . (6,798 bytes) (+865) . . (→Logo Removal: Ce to rephrase and make post much less snarky.) updated since my last visit (undo | thank)
You didn't have to do that. Snarky is a flame war in FidoNet. Okay, back on topic, I went back and reread the ten requirements and realized I'd said something stupid about 14 and 17. Of course the image could appear on multiple levels of nested pages. Oops. But, 17 doesn't apply in this case anyway. Oh, and I really meant to disable that link to the image, but I got distracted and forgot. My bad. I like the colon trick. (Don't you just love that word, transclude. Sounds made up.)
All right, it looks like I'm going to have to start a dialog. Oddly enough, FFD is all about discussing deleting before they take action. I think I'll take that route. - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 15:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Marchjuly here. The use of File:Australian Handball Federation logo.jpg in this article is not supported by our current practices. While there are many violations of this standard, we do not permit the use of non-free logos for repeated events. The problematic nature of this is reflected in the rationale that is on the image for this article. To quote; "...about the entity represented by the image". First, "2016 Australian National Handball Championship season" isn't an entity, and even if it were an entity, its logo is not this one. Compare against 2017 NFL season, 2016–17 Manchester United F.C. season, [[1]]. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your experiment, but please do not do that sort of thing on an actual article again please. You can do it in draft space, your sandbox, what have you, but please don't do it on an actual article. I've removed the kitten image. As to the logo; I'm well aware that the Australian Handball Federation is the overseeing entity, but they are not the entity being described in the article. In fact, the article doesn't even describe an entity, but a collection of events for which there is no single logo. No, the logo would not be acceptable on that article either. We're at an impasse here. Marchjuly and I have described to you the status quo; the logo image will not be acceptable. If you think that you can get consensus to change, you are more than welcome to do so at WT:NFC. In the meantime, the reigning consensus is we do not allow the usage you are attempting. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
