On 7/14/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/12/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
If all logo rationales are alike, why is {{Non-free logo}} insufficient? What else is needed? The reason I ask is that perhaps a few params can be added to {{Non-free logo}} to cater to the additional licencing issues.
And here's another portion of the argument; can fair use rationales be boiler plated? Some say no, some say yes. We argue endlessly about this.
Hi Durin,
I have separately arrived at the conclusion that there must be some non-free images that can be "boiler plated", but I am keen to read up if you could you direct me to some argument against this, or outline the salient points here.
...
Looking at logos specifically again, 99% of logos that are used on only one article are probably the logo for that topic, and a human could quickly go though and verify them all and tag them with {{logo|<existing logo cat param>|fairuseon=blah}} to indicate that the image is only fair use on that article. Does resolution even come into play with logos? if we only use the thumbnail on the article, is it acceptable for the actual image to be hi res?
A boiler plate for logos has recently appeared, but it has less than 50 transclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Logo_fur
Is it acceptable; can we start to depend on this template?
-- John