Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	WikiProject College football
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	MECU≈talk
Parties involved	User:Johntex, User:Ed_g2s, others
Comment	Please review

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|WikiProject College football]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|WikiProject College football]]

Request Information

Request made by: MECU≈talk 13:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

I am trying to coordinate everyone here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format but that page contains a list of other pages that discussion is occuring on.

Who's involved?

User:Nmajdan, User:Johntex, User:Ed_g2s, User:Bobak, User:Zscout370, User:Jkelly, User:Zzyzx11, User:Carnildo, User:ReyBrujo, User:Simetrical, User:Johnleemk, User:Mecu, User:Z4ns4tsu, User:MatthewFenton

What's going on?

Some members (begun by User:Ed_g2s) are removing use of images from sports pages because they believe the images violate fair use policy. Other believe they are being over zealous in their intrepretation of fair use. Specifically (for example), on 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team, some claim that logos of teams in the Game Notes section violate fair use of these images. You can see the example of how these images were being used looking at this version: [1] (also note the edit/revert war that occured on the page)

What would you like to change about that?

Come to conclusion about how these images may be used and adopt this as a standard accross Wikipedia. It is the intrepretation of fair use that is/should be discussed.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No, please take charge and organize and push the discussion to a conclusion.

Mediator response

As much as I hate making any sort of decision on anything, it is my opinion that the images should stay out of this article until the policy is figured out. You are, of course, free to ignore me, but I think it'd be in everyone's best interest to go figure out the policy/guideline first, then argue this. I will, of course, go to unnecessary lengths to get people to look at the issue as well. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you clarify what you are looking for exactly from Mediation? We are here more for content disputes or settling down tense situations. We are not advocates so if you're looking for people to support your argument to change policy, this is not the place. It is my first instinct that this is not a matter for the mediation cabal, but simply something that you should go to the village pump for. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought a mediator would assist in helping all parties come to a resolution on the matter. The job of the Mediation Cabal is basically to provide a friendly hand in resolving disputes without taking it through a formal channel. This is the first step in the dispute resolution process. There is a dispute on whether fair use logos should be permitted on pages other than where they are directly discussed (critical commentary). Some say none, other say yes. The draft guideline I wrote below is an attempt to bridge that gap - limiting the use of logos to several instances. There is no need for an advocate for either side, there are enough people willing to be vocal on this issue. If you think that the cabal cannot assist in being the mediator, then we can move the issue along to formal mediation. It may be needed since this is regarding policy, but then again, policy can be drafted and agreed upon by the community, perhaps not. MECU≈talk 23:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, policy changing discussions require strong community consensus, and I do believe that mediation is not exactly necessary here. I believe all you need is to get a wider input on the matter from other people in order to change policy, but fair use is a very delicate area as it involves legal matters. I suppose you could go to formal mediation, but I don't see what is to gain from that when there seems to be no issues going on at the discussion. Usually mediation is required for heated discussions where people aren't getting along, but this does not seem to be that case, unless I'm missing something. Cowman109^Talk 00:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to close this case; we can reopen if necessary. --Ideogram 09:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compromise offers

Discussion

As an administrator, I offer my opinion that these are not copyright violations. These images have been discussed on the article Talk pages and found to be fair use. Ed doesn't like that consensus, so he is acting unilaterally to try to remove them.
Some people are more visually oriented than others. The logos are informative to the reader and they occur alongside discussion of the teams they represent.
It is common practice to use both teams' logos when discussing a contest between the two teams (E.g. Sports Illustrated[2] and ESPN[3] and university websites such as this one).
We have numerous articles where we use logos to represent a company or sports team or sports event discussed in the article (IBM Nebraska Cornhuskers, NASCAR, etc.)
The use of team logos can occur wherever discussion of those teams is taking place. What we happen to have chosen as the title of the article is irrelevant. The use of the logos can occur wherever the discussion occurs, regardless of the name of the article.
For example, using the logos to illustrate a contest between the two teams such as a rivalry between two teams is a perfectly valid fair use justification. (Eg. Bedlam Series) as shown in this version or Red River Shootout)
The same thing applies when the article discusses multiple games, such as those occurring over the course of a team's season. For example, 2005 Texas Longhorn football team contains a description of each game the Longhorns played that year. The logos of the teams they were playing are fair use alongside each game played. Before Ed removed the images, the article appeared like this. He removed the images despite previous discussion on the article's talk page.
Our policy says that fair use images are allowed when they contribute to the article and when no free alternative is available. By definition, no free alternatives are available for logos. The images are useful, and they should be kept. Johntex\^talk 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it boils down to varying opinions on rule #8 of the fair use criteria: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." The part of the clause we take issue with is the last part in the parenthesis, specifically illustrate relevant sections within the text. Having a logo in a secion that discusses that team should qualify as fair use. I understand Ed's perspective and his role on Wikipedia, but he is acting unilaterally and ignoring all discussions as it is his way or the highway. He was repeatedly asked to hold off on his edits until this mediation was resolved but he ignored those requests. It seems he has takes a draconian interpretation of Wikipedia's fair use policy that many of us believe needs further clarification.--NMajdan•talk 15:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To build on Johntex's argument, I would like to also mention the trademark aspect of these logos. It is a bit telling that this argument over logos, the epitome of TM, is being discussed as a copyright problem. While these arguments are sometimes made in tandem, they are different (as patents are different that these two). TMs, unlike CPs, never expire by duration (they do expire for other reasons, but we all know that, right?) --thus getting a free alternative is a significant problem. Trademarks are intended to be manifestations of what they symbolize. Relevant to the uses in this case, most TM litigation deals with the misuse of a mark to create a false representation of one company at the expense of another. That is clearly not the case here. Here the use of trademarks in these articles are used as representations of the discussed university athletic programs, of which there is nothing equal (that wouldn't also present a TM fair use issue). Still, when it comes down to it, we're back to Nmajdan's comment that it's a discussion of rule 8. I think this is not a mere decoration. I think this interpretation of fair use is needlessly strict. In addition, stepping into the real world (gasp, I know), I highly doubt universities would be inclined to sue Wikipedia for the use of their trademark in a way that's already used by the schools themselves in their annual media guides they release for promotion. --Bobak 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think trademark is a big issue. Trademark law tends to be extremely lenient: if you aren't confusing anyone, it's almost certainly not a trademark violation. But trademarks can also be subject to copyright, which is much stricter in general, so that's our primary concern here. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appear to have been listed as a party in this dispute without every having edited an article about college football (IIRC). I speculate that this is because I have somewhere offered an opinion that fair use is supposed to be used very conservatively, that making our list articles less freely reusable is not a good idea in general, and that columns of logos in lists are precisely the kind of decorative additions that WP:FUC prohibits. I suggest that using "thinks that columns of unfree images are not okay" as a criteria for inclusion in this dispute would make it unworkable, but I'll be happy to contribute further here if other editors feel that my input in particular would be valuable in some way. Jkelly 19:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were included because you have are one that holds a different opinion than the three of use above and this would be a pretty one-sided issue without your presence.--NMajdan•talk 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see the logic, but there's not a lot for me to say that I haven't already said at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It isn't obvious to me that college football articles are a special case. Jkelly 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its not that this applies only to college football articles. It applies to trademarked logos and there use on Wikipedia.--NMajdan•talk 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would just like to note that I believe these images' use is clearly contrary to policy, if not the goals of this project. However, copyright more than any other policy is subject to rule of the Foundation, so our interpretations may be overruled. I've asked User:BradPatrick if he can spare a minute to clarify this matter, which will obviate the need for mediation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Such is your belief, "our laywer" (Bobak) has already spoken several times. Thus is the need for mediation. This is why we are here: to achieve a result. Not to rehash all the same arguments in yet another location. --MECU≈talk 21:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mecu. Of course I agree with you that the images are allowed both by law and by our current policy. However, I just want to clarify a point in case you are not aware. Brad Patrick is the Wikimedia attorney. Therefore, Brad is "our laywer" in the sense that he is the only one paid to provide us with legal advice. Johntex\^talk 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh christ, please don't call me "our lawyer", I just throw it on my userpage to at least shed light that I've studied law successfully (saves the arguments over whether illegal computer ROMs are "legal abandonware" or other such nonsense). I go to pains on my own page to make clear I am not representing anyone. This is my opinion as a Wikipedian. Lawyers are wrong all the time, that's why there's other lawyers in this lawyer-driven adversarial common law system ;-) Anywho...--Bobak 00:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not know that John. Thank you for informing me. My point is that anyone can have an expert to define such items as they see fit. But if Brad is the defacto lawyer, then perhaps he would be the best mediator period. --MECU≈talk 00:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a matter of law, but of Wikipedia policy, so a lawyer's opinion is not worth more than anyone else's. I agree that the images are likely fair use, but they're still against Wikipedia policy. Let me quote it again: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Some have said that the images do "illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". Well, they do, in one sense of the word illustrate. It can mean either "to provide explanation, clarify" or "to decorate, accompany as an image". The latter sense is obviously impossible in this context, however, because it flatly contradicts the following clause: the image "must not serve a purely decorative purpose". What is intended is that the images must clarify what the text says. These cannot be reasonably construed as doing so. They make the text easier to read for some (you can skim it more easily to find the team you want if you know the logos), but that's not clarification. I agree that the wording is unduly vague for something that will inevitably be interpreted legalistically, but it still has only one reasonable interpretation in my eyes.

As for Brad Patrick, he's not the de facto lawyer, he's general counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation as well as its interim CEO. If he steps in, it will be as arbitrator, not mediator: he will look over the situation, say what the answer is, and leave. I hope he does, because this will be very difficult to resolve otherwise. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since Brad is general counsel, I believe that makes him the defacto laywer for this case. And yes, I misspoke calling him a mediator, arbitrator would have been a more appropriate term. I'd like to highlight an item from the Fair Use that you quoted: (the image) must not serve a purely decorative purpose. Do these images used in this case do that? I don't believe so. They clarify and explicitly provide more to the article than be merely decoration. If you look at the two versions of the article, with and without the disputed pictures, the version with images provides immediate information and clarity that the version without does not. Therefore, they are not purely decorative, are not intended as so, and thus meet the criteria for usage. --MECU≈talk 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The version with the images provides no more clarity. It provides precisely the same information except perhaps, as you say, in a fashion that's slightly more pleasant to read for some people (glancing over the logos rather than reading through the names). I don't think they contribute significantly to the article's content; they don't increase its informative value. They're just nice to have there: decoration. You seemingly disagree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My view on this specific matter is that there is such a thing as "ok amount of images" or what I call an "overkill of images." I mostly worked with some of the above users on the Texas Longhorns article. My personal view is that while using the college team's logo that is the subject of the article (not their opponents) can be a good idea. However, given how many games each college team plays for football, I personally think that using the logos of each team Foo played is an overkill. I think it distracts from the flow of the article. Will we really get sued over the logos? I do not think so? However, what I can suggest to is this: one, link to the school's article, so for those who wish to see the logo can do so or if you really, really, really think that it is not a good idea, then just use the college logo once per entry. It would be redundant to post the USC logo twice if they play USC twice, IMHO. I will craft more ideas later, until then, email me your concerns, since I do not think that I will be on the Wiki much in the next few days. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could accept a compromise to only use the logo the first time the opposing team is played. It would be a little non-standard compared to the general practice in reporting sporting events (where both teams logos tend to be used on every game) but it would be consistent with our usual policy of wiki-linking only the first occurance of a word. Johntex\^talk 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have proposed a policy clarification on use of sports team logos at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. Johntex\^talk 18:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Surely a more productive place to discuss is at WP:FUC? That's what the disagreement is about. This doesn't really apply just to logos, it applies to other iconic things as well (e.g., photographs of people being discussed in text), and touches on disagreements regarding things like fair-use images in lists as well. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I have the discussion in the proper place. My proposed clarification is specifically related to logos. Logos are different because they are trademarks that serve specifically as a representation of the team. They are also different in terms of how they are commonly used in reporting sports events, which is what I am aiming to clarify. Both the logo page and the fair use page are Guidelines, so they both have equal weight. One does not trump the other. Therefore, I put the request for clarification at the page most closely related to the point I am trying to clarify - use of logos to illustrate sporting events. Johntex\^talk 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page Wikipedia:Fair use is a guideline. Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, which is transcluded in WP:FU, is a policy, and that's where FUC #8 is. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake - the link you gave is to policy. Never-the-less, the policy is not specific on how much is too-much or too-little with respect to using logos. Therefore, I think the logo guidelie is still the appropriate place for discussion, and I did provide a pointer from Wikipedia talk:Fair use so there should be no risk of anyone missing the conversation. Johntex\^talk 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, this very recent edit by Ed g2s was highly questionable. How can you remove the athletic marks of a university on its own article page for no reason whatsoever but the edit summary, and I quote in total, "decoration". I have reverted, but this is just a prime of example of how Ed g2s is taking this policy beyond what a reasonable prudent person would think appropriate and into something that is harming Wikipedia articles. Maybe there's a misunderstanding because of how American universities handle sports versus the rest of the world (and it is quite different). --Bobak 21:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He did something similar here. On the main OU university page, the seal is at the top of the infobox and the interlocking OU logo is at the bottom. He removed the logo because is was "decorative" and then later reinserted it in a different part of the infobox. It looked much better at the bottom so I moved it back to the bottom. He takes a very broad approach to "decorative" as is seen here and is even unsure of his changes himself, as is seen by his reinserting the logo.--NMajdan•talk 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the OU article, it would be fine to display the official seal in the infobox, and then the athletics are being discussed, the logo used by the sports program is fine. But I wonder, should we just keep this discussion to just sports logos or all logos in general, or is it the only issues we have at the moment are at sports pages. While my personally preference is to avoid the logos at all, but this is not my WP. I think the above idea I gave could be fair for right now unless someone higher-up than any of us makes a decision. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, logos to differ from normal fair use images so thats what I think we are discussing here.--NMajdan•talk 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then, it should be on a case-by-case basis, since there are sometimes where the logo should be used (such as using X's logo on the article about X), and where it should be avoided (X's logo on an article of a multi-company unnion, such as Star Alliance). Of course, they should stay on the article space only. I am sorry if this feels over simplified, but I hope this gets the "ball rolling." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeing as this is an issue regarding official policy, I don't really see how an unofficial medcab case will solve anything. That said, I have no objections to you pursuing this matter here if you think it will help. ed g2s • talk 18:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have requested User:Keitei take the mediation case. If anyone objects to her, please say so and provide another mediatior to request. --MECU≈talk 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None from my end. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has been a notable lack of attempt to reach a compromise in this discussion to date, so here is my suggestion of one:

• Facts
  • Logos have a history of fair use under certain situations.
  • Logos by definition do not have a Free alternative, so fair use must be allowed if the images are to be used at all.
  • Fair use cases typically hinge not on the use of the material but on the motivation behind its use and the extent to which protected material was used (if you want me to look up case law to support this, just ask and I will).

• Contentions
  • Mecu et al. argue that the use of logos is important to the understanding of articles relating to single season's contests between two opposing teams.
  • ed g2s et al. counter that these logos are decorative only and therefore are not protected as fair use under Wikipedia policy.

• Compromise
  • Taking this information into account, I offer this as a compromise between the groups and request comment on and discussion of this suggestion:
    • Allow the use of logos for opposing teams to be limited to the team in question's current opponent (i.e. the game to be played the comming Saturday), the most recent opponent (i.e. the game played the previous Saturday/two weeks prior depending on bye-weeks), and the next following opponent (i.e. the game to be played the week/two weeks after the current Saturday depening on bye-weeks).
  • This has the following bennefits:
    • The page is illustrated and teams are identified as Mecu et al. would like.
    • The use of images covered by fair use policy is limited to three logos at most per team page.
    • This discussion is ended and the contention and bad feelings generated by it are soothed.

Please discuss this suggestion. I am disapointed by the usually curt and uncivil responses that this issue has raised. Mediation has no bearing when one or both of the parties refuse to participate in the discussion. My understanding is that Brad Patrick and Jimbo have both become aware of this discussion at some point since it began. From their lack of responses on these pages, I assume that they either have no oppinon or are willing to let the process take its course. The second option sounds more likely to me. Please, let the process work by becoming involved and adding constructive comments to the discussion. z4ns4tsu\^talk 15:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree Jimbo and Brad are probably aware of this, and most likely seem to fall in the 2nd case, but that is merely conjecture and not useful. Until they do speak, we are left to ourselves to decide.
I don't think limiting the logos to the next one or two and previous one or two is sufficient. If they are allowed to aid in description of the team at any time, then they should exist for all time. At the end of the season (or, further to the extreme, in the year 2030) when someone looks up the 2006 season, why should they only see the last 2 logos of the season? I would therefore suggest the following:

1. Limit of one use of a logo to once per article, with no exceptions -- even if a team plays another 20 times and it would be appropriate to put the logo there, only the first (or last, to the editor preference) instance should have the logo.
2. The size of the logo should be reduced to be no larger than the paragraph used to describe it. This could be used as a rule of thumb, such that, if only one line is written about a team, the logo would have to be so small as to be unpractical for using.
3. A maximum size of 200px shall always prevail. Reduction of the image beyond 200px should also be required, following the rule above, and using the full 200px size image except on the main article about that team, is always discouraged.
4. The image should appear immediately next to the position in the article where that team is being talked about. An exception to this would be on pages about a specific contest (2006 Rose Bowl for example) where the whole article is generally about two teams, and may be more stylistically appropriate to list them at the top of the page. However, if the article were still sufficiently short, the size should be reduced appropriately.
5. Merely mentioning a team is not enough to warrant the use of the logo. Just because I mention Penn State in the article does not mean I can use the logo.
6. Their mention must be important for the article to exist. If the article would be either incomplete or not encyclopedic without inclusion of the team and discussion of in the article, then logo use is permissible. Such as an opponent.
   1. A simple table or roster listing names/teams is never appropriate to use the logo with the name.
   2. A logo shall never be used next to a player/coach/associate of the team, only when talking about the team in it's entirety. It shall never be used on a coach or player article.
7. A Logo shall never be used in a simple gallery of images, whereas there is nothing but the images and no context to put them there.
8. In no case shall edits be made to remove images purely by an editor's choice -- only to comply with policy. It is highly preferred for an editor to modify the logo use to comply with the policy, rather than remove it, unless it does not comply with this guideline or another policy of Wikipedia.
9. Images should not be added until sufficient text that warrant their use is added. In other words, you cannot create a template for a season with the expectation that you will add more text to then warrant the use of the logo later. The usage and text description shall be immediate. This is to prevent someone from planning to add text creating all the images and spots to fill in text for a season, but failing to return and do so, which would then put the logo use in violation of this guideline. A reasonable time (1 hour max) shall be permitted to allow someone to be working on a page an make an intermediate save, but still work on the page to add text that would then justify the image.
10. A logo shall never be used in an infobox of any type, or outside the article namespace. Specifically, creating a page in your userspace as a "draft" shall never have use of the images.
11. The logo shall be the current logo as issued by the team/school. Use of historical logos shall be permitted in the limited context of displaying the logo transformations.
12. Logos shall always be used in a positive light. A logo shall not be associated with negative actions towards the team. An article about 2004 Colorado recruiting scandal shall not include the logo.
13. Examples:
    1. In an article that is about the team in whole (e.g., Colorado Buffaloes, use of the Colorado Buffaloes logo) the logo shall be permitted once, at the top right with a maximum size of 200px.
    2. On a season page about a team (e.g., 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team, use of the Colorado Buffaloes logo) the logo shall be permitted once, at the top right with a maximum size of 75px.
    3. Listed as an opponent for a team with description about the game (e.g., 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, use of the Colorado Buffaloes logo) shall be permitted once, immediate next to the paragraph describing the game with a maximum size of 75px. (Although Texas and Colorado played each other twice, only one use is still permitted).
    4. On a conference, division, group article (e.g., Big 12 Conference) shall not be permitted as this is to be considered a gallery. Unless each team is described in detail in context with the article that would merit its use otherwise, with a maximum of 75px.
    5. On a university page (e.g., University of Colorado at Boulder, use of the Colorado Buffaloes logo), the logo shall be permitted only if the article discusses the athletics at the school and appears immediately next to the section about the athletics with a maximum size of 75px.

I was thinking about this, and with my 2030 example, we could have thousands of usages of each logo. Thus, I'm willing to compromise and say that only the current and last season pages should be allowed to use the logos of other teams. This would add a rule: Only the current and previous season pages shall be allowed to use logos of opponents. I think that only casual readers who may be looking for info on the current (or last) season would need use of the logos to aid in identification. A hard-core fan looking at 1955 Colorado Buffaloes football team would probably not need the logos to assist in clarifying the team. Perhaps allowing the exception of the champion to always forever use the logos of opponents (ie, 2005 Texas Longhorn football team) since it it probably going to be looked at more than the 2005 Colorado Buffaloes football team page by more casual readers. They must be the top-level champion -- conference, division, section, group champions do not apply. --MECU≈talk 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, Johntex brought up the point that font size and length is relative so it's not a good way to determine image size. Perhaps then 1 pixel per word over 2 chars to describe the team/talking about the game? In addition Johntex also mentioned the difficulting in determining pixel sizes of images due to readability and user preferences, and stylisticly. So, the values above are therefore hard caps, with reduction permitted (and preferred). If anyone has any ideas how to handle that with the style guidelines that permit user preferences. Is the a way, when delaring an image to say "<=75px" so that if the user says they want 50, it would come 50, but if they want 100, it would cap at 75? MECU≈talk 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Bravo! The 1-13 bullet points above are an excellent example of the process by which a draft of a document which should eventually be transformed into WP:POL. It gives specific situations and examples, but still gives room for application and interpretation (i.e. #12 "...in a positive light..." no need to spell out every combination here, group editor concensus is appropriate per case). Editors can/have/will comment about the specifics in the public forum, as they should, to create something which will benefit WP as a whole. And, many current and future discussions and disputes can at use this kind of document as a frame of reference. Sometimes it will be as easy pointing to WP:Logo Fair Use, at times it will have to be intepreted and applied like WP:NOT, and other times it will involve amending the policy. But you have to have something to be able to work towards changing it. And what currently exists is too fluid. — MrDolomite | Talk 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to rain on MECU's attempt at a compromise, but 13 steps to handle a sports logo reads a lot like meta:instruction creep... Cburnett 01:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that's helpful. What would be helpful would be to describe how you would reduce the number, combine or omit redundant items. I believe each # is needed in it's own use, and #13 is really just examples, not a real rule. We're down to 12 already. If you look at the usage of logos page, it's longer than what I've proposed above. MECU≈talk 12:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Point 1 is exactly what I brought up earlier, so it is good that ideas from everyone is being picked for a possible solution. I will study this more later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Point 2 can be scrapped, since Point 3 pretty much covers it all. From what I seen so far, most of the logos are around the size of our stub images (about 25-30px, tops). Though my concern with this one is are the image thumbnail sizes supposed to be at 200px (length?) or are the images themselves are 200px (once again, in height or width?). If it is the later, that will be a pain-staking job (but could get rid of duplicates, if any exists). I will point out too that Point 5 pretty much, IMHO, could even exclude most of the logos, unless clarified. Point 7 is already one of the various fair use policies we have already, but it is worth repeating. Point 8 worries me, since if the editors of that specific article want the images to not be used, then they should have every right to not use the images. There should be a clause somewhere stating that if the editors wish for the images to be removed by consensus on that article's talk page, then the images can be removed. Point 10 also is in the current fair use policies, but this is the first that it was extended to user's sandboxes. If that is a good idea, then we should ammend WP:FUC itself to extend the no fair use pics to sandboxes. Plus, most logos have been removed from userboxes and either replaced with text or special icons, like the Hook'em Horns (which is cool, btw). It is good that the examples for how they are used is stated, since that also brings in my earlier suggestion (where I used X and Star Alliance as examples.) Overall, with some tweeking, I would not mind supporting this, though with me editing sports article is going to be rare. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think #3 is redundant of #2, it provides an absolute maximum of the image to be used. #2 says it should be reduced to the amount of content that directly applies to it. Perhaps #2 could be a sub-rule of #3?
I would prefer the images just be reduced in the article, but I wouldn't mind having all the logos reduced to 200px in the actual image stored itself, since we never plan to use anything larger, and keeping a larger size wouldn't be useful and allow for people to violate the rule. Plus, it prevents people from ripping off the logo from us since it's so large an image. In fact, I think the images should be reduced in size. I agree it's a chore, but I'm sure there will be some willing to use it. Perhaps we could also add to the upload page that a sports logo shall not exceed 200px in the width dimension. And create a template of like ((sportslogo)) that would need to be applied to each sports logo that says usage of the sports logo should comply with the guidelines of Wikipedia and list a few of the major rules (no larger than 200px, used once per article, etc).
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say about #5. Could you clarify please?
No editors own an article. If an editor would prefer an article to not have images, that's a personal choice. I would agree they could discuss it on the talk page, but to remove images as a point of preference is to take ownership and say you want it this (your) way.
Thank you for your constructive comments. MECU≈talk 12:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your welcome. What I was trying to get at with Point 8 is that there are going to be some articles where some people decides "you know what, we might not have a need for images" or change the images to national flags, like what we do with the Olympic articles, FIFA articles, etc. Point 8 should allow for the article to not use logos "only if the consensus of the main contributors conforms to that idea." If it is just one editor, then consensus (or eventual policy dealing with this) will rule the day. What I am trying to get with Point 5 is I do not know, in this context, is "just mentioning a team." Does it apply to stuff like "Arkansas pwned Texas last weekend" or stuff longer than that. I would probably need to see some examples of that in order to figure out what is/isn't good. It is a good idea that #2 can be a sub-rule of three, and I got the software that can convert the image sizes, but I wonder still does Wikipedia, for their articles, calculate the pixel size in either length or width? Overall, this does not sound bad at all, and I do not mind telling you what could/can be fixed. Though my preference is that images, like this, should be used sparignly, I can live with most of this, easily. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see your point with #8. I'm not sure how to handle that. I agree a discussion on the talk page should determine. How about something like: Images which comply with the policy shall not be removed unless consensus is determined on the article's talk page to do so. Preference to the state of images should be to past editors of the page I think my point is that someone could come along and say "This article doesn't need images" and remove them all - which would be a personal opinion on the article. As such, the rule I tried to just craft is to prevent someone from just going through all the articles and removing all the images because they don't believe in images, not because they believe the article would be better without them. Thus the past editor of the page bit. If someone was seriously interested in just one article though, perhaps it would be allowed to ignore that their voice shouldn't be squandered simply because they're new to arrive. But if they raise the same point on several articles without a past history on them, it would be ground for ignoring their personal opinion on images.
For #5, for example, on 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team I have a line about the last DI-A teams to have never played a DI-AA opponent, and list off all the teams. In that sentence I'm just mentioning the teams since it's a fact about each of them (and someone may ask "Well, who are the remaining teams to not do so?"). Thus, my mere mentioning UCLA and the other teams isn't justification for including their logo(s). Perhaps it is a bit redundant, since the need to have the size of the image relate to the amount that talks about the team. So I'd be for combining this rule also with the new #2 (which the old #2 is now part of the old #3). I'll re-do the list if you agree to these changes to make it less confusing. MECU≈talk 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, let's condense it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There have been some calls that this has gone on too long. I also think I understand an emerging consensus that galleries or images are an over-use, but that use of the logos alongside analytical discussion is allowed. Therefore, I have re-worded my original proposed clarification and I would like to add it to the guideline. Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Coming_back_to_the_proposed_clarification - Johntex\^talk 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]