Wikipedia:Featured article review/Texas Tech University/archive1

Texas Tech University

Fails criterion #3 regarding use of images. Per WP:MOSLOGO and the non-free content standards, logos are not to be used as icons, but two small mascot logos are being used inappropriately in the infobox. Seems like a stupid little thing, but I keep getting reverted when I attempt cleanup, so here we are. (ESkog)^(Talk) 08:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Other editors disagree with your edits and this is how you respond? The article very recently obtained FA status—after an extensive review—with those logos in place. You should use the article's talk page to resolve this issue rather than opening an FAR. →Wordbuilder (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The user in question has been mass-reverting any edits I make in the realm of images. I don't see why that wouldn't continue, as the user in question seems particularly intent on violating image policy around Wikipedia. Also, please remember that this process is not a personal attack on any editor, but a check that the article meets the Featured Article criteria. I believe it does not. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Have these changes occurred with other featured articles and have those articles been nominated for review as well? Nominating articles for review doesn't address the overall issue, especially since the problem you have with this one existed at the time it first became a featured article not long ago. Resolve the underlying issue rather than using reviews to make your point. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

ESkog: Is there a reason you failed to fully comply with the instructions for "nominating an article for FAR"? Particularly steps 5 and 6 of the nomination process? If you want to be a stickler for the policies, you should follow all of them. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake - my computer crashed when I was done with the first four, and I forgot to come back to it. Getting there now. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The user ESkog's nomination of the article for FAR is the equivalent of a temper-tantrum on the floor at the mall. As has been previously stated, the article in question very recently went through probably the most extensive FAC in the history of university articles and was made to conform to all critiques. This singular user wants his opinions to trump the consensus that was found by a large pool of experienced editors, and he is now attempting to 'split the baby' if he can't have his way. While there is obviously no reason for us to fear FAR (since the article is practically unchanged from it's recently minted FA status), I feel like some sort of disciplinary action should be taken against this user for inappropriate initiation of the FAR process.--Elred (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Disciplinary action? Are you serious? There's no reasoning with some folks. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, the images fail our non-free content criteria on two fronts: #3a (minimal use) and #8 (significance vs. decoration). The logos are appropriately located on the articles about each mascot, but tiny icons splattered around elsewhere do nothing but decorate articles. Non-free content is not supposed to be used for illustration/decoration, but rather to identify the subject of the article. The subject of this article is Texas Tech University, not its mascots. This general reasoning is what led to WP:MOSLOGO, which outlines that logos should not be used as icons in nearly any circumstance. Especially since many users point to our featured articles as models for their use of other non-free content around Wikipedia, these articles should exemplify the proper use of this content. Can we stop attacking my motives and talk about the article? My understanding is that's why this process exists. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the use of the logos on all these pages is entirely in accordance with WP:NFCC especially with regard to 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." The omission of the logos in question absolutely is detrimental to increasing readers' understanding of the topic of the article as university identity is not limited solely to a single logo or seal. I likewise believe that this FAR was not initiated with fully good faith given this self-reverted edit by User:ESkog. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This nomination is in extremely bad faith and runs contrary to any discussion/consensus on the talk pages. No one seems to support his position, so, it was brought here. Whereas a better forum would have been the talk page of WP:Images or WP:NFCC first. In short, this has become a spitting match in which only a single person is contesting that a problem exists in the first place. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Keep I looked through the article history and found that the article was granted FA status on August 31, 2008. At that time that article[1] had the images of the mascots. No changes to WP:MOSLOGO has occurred since that time. Therefore, given nothing has changed, the article should still be in compliance in regards to the mascot images. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Declarations of either Oppose or Keep make no sense. The two-week process at FAR is for discussion of the article with respect to meeting FA criteria. If, after two weeks, an FAR is moved down below to FARC by Raul or one of his delegates (Sandy, Marskell, Joelito), then editors may submit recommendations to keep or delist an article. BuddingJournalist 21:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• What's with the "Oppose"s? This isn't FAC. Anyway, I don't understand why this FAR was opened. "Seems like a stupid little thing, but I keep getting reverted when I attempt cleanup, so here we are." FAR is not a place to escalate dispute resolution. If there's contention over a few images, get some image policy experts and hash out what needs to be done on the talk page. If things still can't be resolved, then go through the normal channels of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. No use wasting the resources of FAR. BuddingJournalist 19:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the only person who would disagree with you is ESkog. At this point however, it appears only ESkog can withdraw his FAR request or have an admin(s) make a final decision on the FAR. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe WP:Snowball applies here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with ESkog that the images, as they are currently included and (not) described in this article, are in clear violation of our non-free image policy. Further, those who disagree with ESkog are comporting themselves very poorly (in fairness, ESkog may not be approaching this perfectly either but I haven't examined his behavior closely yet as his or her detractors have behaved so poorly). With all of that said, I would not yet support delisting this FA as the observations made by other editors above are correct: the article passed its FA nom with these issues in place and I don't think it's very constructive to immediately delist the article.

Given the (bizarrely) contentious nature of this issue, I suggest an RFC or some other mechanism to attract attention from neutral editors who are not intimately involved in the article or its subject. The suggestion above to involve some editors who are expert in image policy is an excellent one. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Image experts did take part in the FAC discussion and did not mention the images as being an issue. Of course, other image experts may feel differently. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Everyone involved is not "comporting themselves very poorly." Most of us are quire restrained and have put forth out opinions on the matter. This is not a cut and dry issue and has spilled over into several FAs. To state that I (or anyone else isn't neutral with no evidence) is ridiculous. I personally went to another school and have little love for the subject and have very little input on this article. Calling anyone's actions "bizarre" is petty and doesn't help the situation any by using insults. Furthermore, using a single person's actions as indicative of all of those involved in the discussion as a description of everyone's input is misleading and pretty hostile. Just ratchet it down a notch and let's discuss the merits of the subject. RFC or discussion of more than a few days on the talk page would be more in order here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I clearly don't understand the culture of FAR, since it seems to have much more of an "attacking" connotation than the process should actually entail. I'll try to keep this discussion on the article's talk page. If everyone involved could cut out the attacks and assumption of bad faith, that would be wonderful. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and I agree that personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith should be avoided. →Wordbuilder (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)