Image talk:AR LOGO.PNG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rationale

I believe the rationale must be improved. The reason given to use the image "To demonstrate the software." isn't compelling. I don't see why we would need a logo for that.

And when/if the "purpose" is fixed, the reason of why this image can't be replaced by free material should be addresses (as replaceability depends on the purpose the material). --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please post your questions here rather than on the page. It doesn't make sense to put it there, as others cannot post a response to them on the page. Logos are used all over Wikipedia (for example, Windows). I don't see why it's not okay here. There's nothing else that could "replace" it either: the image is reduced in quality and there are no alternate or "free" versions. The logo is the logo and there isn't any other logo. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 18:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have to say that this is the best documented logo I have seen in Wikipedia. It's not comparable to any other.

Replaceability depends on what is the logo being used for. For instance, If a logo is simply to refer to an organization is a navigation template or table, it's replaceable by the company's name. As I said, the "Purpose of use" must be fixed before we even try to write the "Replaceable?" line. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you are way overblowing this issue. If you even bothered to read the copyright template below the rationale template, you will see that the edits I did are nothing but redundant. Furthermore, if you bothered to look at the Microsoft image I referenced above, you would see that the documentation on this page is equal if not better. Nonetheless, since you have not criticized that logo use, I have used their phrases to update this one. Happy? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)