Talk:WGBA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin.

This article is part of WikiProject Television Stations, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Television stations. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I found the Going Places NBC 26 logo to complete the station's logo history. [1]

[edit] Logo gallery

The logo image gallery falls far afoul of WP:FUC #3 and #8. There's just no way to justify a half-dozen images when one suffices to identify the station and none of them are the subject of significant commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see grounds to disagree on point three...and possibly point 8.

On number three: The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Implicit to this is that it must be the minimum needed to present what is in the article; in this case, a history of the television station materially assisted by use of the logos. By that rationale, I see every reason why one can justify the series of network logos used as 'the minimum required' in the context.

On number eight: The material must contribute significantly to the article...and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. A station's logo history can illustrate the history of a station. These logo discussions are frequently used in the context of a station's history: e.g. 'This logo came into use with a change to NBC affiliation', or 'with a change of ownership'.

The changes being made according to user contributions are very widespread, and appear to be being done on sight as the editor encounters television station articles with logo galleries. Might it be worth consulting at WikiProject Fair Use before making such a widespread, and (if the images are ultimately deleted for being orphans) irrevocable action? If the consensus there is to delete them, I understand, but this feels unilateral. Skybunny 18:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I reverted the main article because I was looking at an out of date version of my watchlist, and saw only the second (at the time unexplained) removal without seeing the talk page addition from 30 minutes later. As a best practice, I've found it helpful to add to a talk page first, to avoid this sort of temporal misunderstanding. Regards, Skybunny 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So, on thinking about this a little, I've come up with a way that this might be done which better uses the logos, but would probably have less tenuous fair use rationale. (For the record, I've done plenty of image removals on fair use rationale myself.) How about if instead of having a logo gallery (where the focus might arguably be more the logos themselves), the gallery is broken apart, and individual logos are included at appropriate spots in a television station's history section? This keeps the fair use on task to what is being described, and also allows a caption which explains details as I mentioned earlier (ownership or affiliation changes or a date - like 'TV-26's independant era logo, circa 1991', put in the independant era section). I didn't originally come up with the idea of a logo gallery, but it seems a pity to throw everything away because of the current presentation style. I think a stronger case might be made if the logos were part of the history section and kept apart from one another. Skybunny 19:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the issue at [2]DrBear 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)