User talk:Matt72986

Welcome!

Hello, Matt72986, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Silensor 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Linestats_Amfootball Template

I did not specifically say that I strictly follow rule #8 of WP:FUC, if you got that impression. Only that I know some people who strictly follow that rule. According to them, the only way the a fair use image can be used is that it either identifies the subject of the article, or it is used in a way that illustrates specific points in the text.

Please read Wikipedia talk:Logos#Clarification on use of sports team logos because it is the basically the same issue as Template:Linestats_Amfootball. Including team logos in an article about a game between two teams is not appropriate because the images add nothing significant to the article. Therefore it is more aesthetics, and harder to justify under fair use. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you may also be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2 when a number of users complained to the premature closure of the Wikipedia talk:Logos#Clarification on use of sports team logos discussion, particularly the response by the closing admin and the comments supporting that action. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I would prefer that Wikipedia allowed a little more freedom with fair use images. However, I think it would be best to play it safe and leave the logos out of the template for now so there is not an edit war or users being blocked. These strict policies on fair use images seem to be coming at the top, from Jimbo Wales himself. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Sorry for the inconvenience. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly read that section but there's a few things that need to be noted. First, the interpretation you mentioned, "Including team logos in an article about a game between two teams is not appropriate because the images add nothing significant to the article. Therefore it is more aesthetics, and harder to justify under fair use.", was only one half of the opinions stated. Many others had different opinions in accordance with my own. Such as User:Dknights411 and User:WAS 4.250 in the Football Team Logo secition of that discussion page. They emphasized how an image that illustrates a team in question is not decorative but illustrative and how it is another form of communication.

Also, the admin in question, Kelly Martin, did not close the discussion, which she even stated herself. She simply decided to go ahead and begin implementing policy. A few notes on that as well. One, her specific problems were in reference to logos within galleries. Two, many admins also disagreed with her views on the matters at hand. There didn't seem to be any consensus, among the admins or the general wikipedians, as to where exactly the line exists between decorative and illustrative. It seems we have stumbled into a debate that was already raging on and has yet to be resolved. --Matt72986 03:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that discussion eventually went back to the basic issue on how FUC rule #8 is interpreted and what is meant by "the material must contribute significantly to the article". But the primary point I am trying to make is that, despite the fact that others have opinions that agree with you, there are those who strictly follow rule #8. It does not matter if it is a sports logo or a film screenshot. It does not matter if there is consensus to do something different or an endless debate on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. To them, if the fair use image does not specifically identify the subject of the article, or if the text does not specifically refer to particular area in the image, they will remove it. In their minds they will say that copyright policies and Jimbo's basic views on the very limited use of fair use images overrides any consensus or debate. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]