Talk:SomaFM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image

Apologies, but an animated gif does not a better image make. This isn't just my policy, it's also Wikipedia's: "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size." jareha ^(comments) 04:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: This in response to an edit summary on this article by NightMonkey. jareha ^(comments) 04:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but I believe this image is fine aesthetically (though a little dated - they've added a few channels since), better legally, and complies with the policy you quote.

• There is only one animated image in this article ("..used sparingly...")
• This image is only 24KB in size ("...unless the animation has a very small file size.").
• This is the authorized image from the copyright holder (better than the "fair use" image put in its place).

Cheers. --NightMonkey 17:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

With regards to policy, my opinion of the meaning of "used sparingly": use a static image, instead of an animated one, if such an option exists (and one does: Image:SomaFM.gif).

Also, Rusty Hodge only granted use to Wikipedia. This — albeit unintentionally on his part — violates Wikipedia's downstream use policy. jareha ^(comments) 18:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be right, in part. The section you reference is not policy, but part of the WP guideline on "Fair Use" (only section 5 is actual WP policy). However, I agree that, since the goal of WP is to have everything possible licensed under an unencumbered "Free" license, the image I used for the original article isn't as good as a "Fair Use" image. While we may differ on the aesthetics, I think that, for now, your image is better from a licensing standpoint. I'll return your image to the article, pending an e-mail to Rusty. I'll also try to see if he'll license your image as well under the GFDL (though I did mention that in my original e-mail to him, and he declined, as you can read). I think he might not want to give up the trademark rights, but I have to read the GFDL again to see if he's giving that up in addition to the copyright.

Gah, I need a lawyer to properly use Wikipedia... :) --NightMonkey 22:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Play nice, please

When the original, larger and older article was merged into this one without seeking consensus to change the name or moving the existing Talk page here, I didn't complain. But, we need to keep in mind that the older article had editors, a Talk page, and history, and we should play nice, and not arbitrarily remove components that were long present there without seeking consensus. I re-added the "NOTOC" tag that jareha just removed. The article is too short, at present, to need to waste screen real-estate on a TOC. Thanks. --NightMonkey 02:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Some responses to your thoughts:

• There was no existing talk page at the old, pre-merge article (see Talk:Somafm).
• When merging the two articles, I made sure no content from either article was lost.
• I believe I've played nice, honest! Some of my bolder edits may have not have come off this way; that said, consensus would've avoided any potential issues — apologies for skipping that route.
• As for table of contents, I thought you'd added __NOTOC__ to keep the article from breaking when the banner image was in place. With a new image in place, I thought I was removing something you'd accidentally missed.

Finally, if you are still unhappy with my merge we can request an administrator's help and have article histories combined. jareha ^(comments) 03:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for responding. You are correct - the old Talk page was empty. I should have said that it was available to use, not say that there was anything to merge (indeed, there was not). Sorry about my confused response on that one. Also, just for the record, the NOTOC was there for the purpose you mention (image fixing) as well as for shortening the page. Of course, if the page gets longer, I'm certainly not opposed to removing it. Cheers! --NightMonkey 07:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad we could work this out! jareha ^(comments) 19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)