Talk:WVBX

Use of non-free images
Non-free images are required to satisfy all 10 criteria listed at WP:NFCCP because they are protected by copyright. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC which states: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is explained in a little more detail in WP:NFC. Basically, non-free images cannot be used for what are essentially decorative purposes. If the image is used as the primary means of identification within the infobox, then NFCC#8 is easily satisfied. Outside of the infobox, this becomes much harder because the image itself needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary. There is currently nothing in the article that discusses the former logo Image:WYSK-FM.png in such a way that makes seeing the image essential to the reader's understanding. A caption saying "Logo used for WYSK-FM from March 4, 2002 to January 7, 2008." is not sufficient and is basically "original research" since it is unsourced. What needs to be shown is that the use of the former logo is so relevant to what is being discussed that removing it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. Commentary on the imagery or the meaning of the image supported by a reliable source would provide the contextual significance needed. Otherwise, use is just decorative and the image should not be used. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First, please expand your knowledge of the rules of Wikipedia before continuing on your mass commenting-out of images. Second, the community has come to consensus that the caption is perfectly fine and meets NFCC8.  No, I won't find the discussion for you, that's your burden, not mine.  Third, don't quote rules to long-time users.  It kinda PO's us long time users to have relative newbies quoting what we already know as if we don't. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 13:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my post was offensive in any way. It was not specifically intended for you or intended as an insult to you or anyone else. I simply meant to explain why I removed the image to anyone who might be reading this talk page. As for unsourced captions being sufficient to establish "contextual significance" that is not what the "Meeting the contextual significance criterion" I referenced above seems to say. Regarding "burden", WP:NFCCE says "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." Looking at the version without image, it's hard to see how any significant information about the station is lost to the reader by removing it. The former logo is not being discussed at all and and the swtich in formats is more than sufficiently explained using text. So, it seems to me that the use is purely decorative which is not something really allowed per NFCC#8, at least from what I've seen at WP:NFCR - Marchjuly (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , my go-to expert in this area is . They don't always respond after being pinged; I hope they will here. Now, if there is a question about the interpretation of a certain rule, that's more interesting (to me), but I'd always ask Stefan first. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices pp. 71-72 (PDF page numers), the position of the United States Copyright Office is that there is no copyright protection to typefaces, including calligraphy. With that, I have moved the old logo to Commons as c:Template:PD-textlogo.
 * The new logo, File:WVBX-FM 2014.png, is not only lettering but also circular shapes. In one case, the United States Copyright Office found that one variant of a logo without a border was uncopyrightable whereas the logo became copyrightable when a border was added. The difference may be that lettering is utilitarian (you produce something which is to be read), whereas a border isn't utilitarian but merely decorative. There is no copyright protection for utilitarian things in the United States. Therefore, I do not know whether the new logo is sufficiently simple or not. However, there does not seem to be any problem with retaining the new logo in the article, so it is unimportant to determine whether it is copyrightable or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking into this Stefan2. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)