Wikipedia:Featured article review/Calgary Flames/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Gimmetrow 11:07, 9 September 2008.

Calgary Flames

 * Notified Talk:Calgary Flames, Resolute, GoodDay and Djsasso

This article has an excess of non-free images, Image:Calgary_Flames_logo_1980-1994.png and Image:Calgary Flames logo.svg are in violation of minimal usage, we dont need a non-free image to describe a black outline. Multiple instances of copyrighted team uniforms, when one is only needed, or even the free Image:JaromeIginla.jpg could be used. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To avoid drive-by noms, we generally don't allow reviews for articles that have recently been on the main page. In this case, I don't see that a full review is warranted. However, we can leave this up a few days to get feedback on the images. Fasach, I suggest you be bold and make some of the image changes yourself. Marskell (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * He's done exactly that over the last couple of days, and has been reverted on the grounds that he failed to give any explanation, in edit summary or otherwise, for the action.   RGTraynor  15:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it sure was nice for you to finally explain your complaints rather than just throw up a boilerplate message and bail. "Drive-by" is the perfect way to describe this.  Personally, I think this review should be speedy closed, and the nominator given a polite suggestion that discussion of his issues on the article's talk page would be an ideal first step.  As one can easily see, Fasach Nua has made absolutely no attempt at discussing any of his concerns beforehand. Resolute 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And, for the record, I do have plans to replace at least two of the jersey images with free equivalents once the hockey season starts, in a couple weeks. This is something that I would have happily explained had Fasach simply asked. Resolute 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am actually surprised this user would not even attempt to bring up the reasoning on Talk:Calgary Flames. He was asked by a couple editors to discuss his issues on the talk page before just throwing up a boilerplate message. I would agree that this is a drive-by nomination. Especially since too many non-free images is a very subjective issue. -Djsasso (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. May I ask, since the subject has come up, for a link to the policy discussing how many images are or are not permitted in an article?  (I am sure, of course, that the editor is aware that there is a right at law for the use of sports teams logos for illustrative, non-commercial use.)    RGTraynor  15:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no set limit, use is defined by policy and aims of the foundation. Fasach Nua (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is no set limit, how can you say there are too many? It's common sense that for a history of the logo of a company that there will need to be multiple non-free images at each stage of its evolution, and as such I don't see where there is a violation of trying to keep to a minimum number of them. Because the minimum number in this case would be 1 for every version of the logo. -Djsasso (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The usage of these images falls outside policy, and several images would have to be removed to meet WP:NFCC, thus reducing the number. It is not necessary to have a picture of every single logo a team has ever had to understand the concept of the team Fasach Nua (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that that section is not specifically about the team, its a history of its logo. And for that you would need one of each logo. In that respect its fully compliant with WP:NFCC. -Djsasso (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case you admit that your take is entirely subjective? I would like to hear the specific elements of NFCC you claim these images violate, because as it stands, this comes off as WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any concrete complaint.    RGTraynor  19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am closing this. What's at issue can perfectly easily be resolved on article talk. FAR is not dispute resolution. Marskell (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.