Talk:Gear (magazine)

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

I removed the citation needed from June 2009. It followed the text "was at the time only 17 years old." If this is what the citation was requested for, it isn't needed. The cover of the magazine is display in the article and shown to be the March issue. This means it was produced before March so that it could hit the stands on or before March. Biel's article lists her birth date as March 3, 1982. This means the magazine was produced shortly before her 18th birthday. If it refers to "exposure apogee," the citation request needs to be moved there. - 76.114.43.5 (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover image

Deletion of the cover image featuring Jessica Biel seems like an unfortunate "solution" to the "problem" and inconsistent with other articles. Articles for magazines and newspapers do generally include one cover image and it has got to be the most notable cover of that magazine.

If the article included text that noted the typography of the logo was particularly interesting or notable then I could see the justification in showing only the logo but using a copyright image for the sole purpose of showing text seems difficult to justify. If it were something like The Economist or Time Magazine where the logotype and border layout are nearly as distinctive as the cover image that makes sense, and in fact the article Time_(magazine) does include both the logotype and a sample of a particularly notable cover image as does the Economist. -- Horkana (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll note both of those examples includes the logo in the infobox (which are free because they're too simple to be copyrighted) and it's first issue for TIME and an early issue for The Economist, both of which are free because their copyright has expired. The issue is that this was using a non-free image, which per WP:NFCC#1 should be avoided whenever a free image would serve the same encyclopedic purpose, i.e., for recognition of the brand as used in the infobox. Thanks for pointing out the issue with magazine covers and newspapers though, I'll have to talk with some other editors who regularly deal with image copyrights and figure out the best way to work through them and make sure they're not being misused as was the case here. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents - I prefer the logo, since that applies to the magazine in general, which is the subject of the article, not just a particular issue. Much more appropriate for an infobox. It also has the advantage of not being a non-free image, which we should avoid where possible: Wikipedia:Nonfree#Policy_2 Also, call me an old prude, but I'm not entirely comfortable that she was only 17 when that picture was taken - should that matter ? I don't know - but if we can avoid it... But that's just my opinion - let's see what the consensus is ... - Begoon (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means have both the image and the logo, as the Time magazine article does. This case seems no different than Stuff (magazine) and this article has a cover that caused some controversy. The only other cover that might perhaps be nearly as notable would be the cover of the first issue featuring Peta Wilson, which is also mentioned in the article text and included in one of the referenced articles but it is also a non-free image.

Please note WP:NOTCENSORED. There are many different cultural standards of modesty, topless bathing is permitted in some countries and not in others for example, but this image is more modest than that. Wikipedia has images of artwork that include nudity, Venus De Milo, The Birth of Venus (Botticelli), or if you prefer a pop culture reference the album Nevermind. You could just as easily argue the cover image in the article Vanity Fair (magazine) is very immodest, showing so much leg (and I would understand if you did, I would just politely disagree with you).

I have substantially reduced the resolution of the image. It is not quite as small as the thumbnail images that Google have fought and won court battles to claim fair use but it is absolutely no larger than it needs be and only a small part of a full magazine.

I've added a free image use rationale on the image page. It would be a shame if all nearly non-free magazine and newspaper images removed but if the policy was at least consistent and understandable to the average reader that might be some small consolation, than what seems like a giant mess of exceptions you'd need to a copyright lawyer to understand. -- Horkana (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm aware of all that - my comment about her age was just that - a comment (personal opinion). I think the fact that we have an image that isn't non-free which we should use is far more important. There's no source on the image description - you might need to sort that out, not sure. I guess if you just downloaded the original and resized it, you need to say so to avoid the description saying no source. Anyway, I see you feel strongly about this, so let's just wait and see what the consensus is. - Begoon (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with the content of the image, and I appreciate that you shrank the image so that it qualifies as fair use, but the non-free content criteria are explicitly more restrictive than fair use allows for, and my position that the use of the image here fails those criteria remains. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling with what seems like an arbitrary and unfair system. At the risk of making the "other stuff exists" argument this cover image is at least notable and written about in this article and the Jessica Biel, whereas the cover image for GQ appears to have no particular notability and not even mentioned in the GQ article.

VernoWhitney I would appreciate if you could direct me to a higher level discussion on the topic of magazine cover images as mentioned earlier you intend to bring it to the attention of the Administrators. As I said above it would at least be some consolation if this decision was part of a consistent and understandable policy even if I disagreed with it. It would feel particularly unfair if the points I have made here are not even seen by the relevant administrators who are going decide this matter. The tags marking the image as being up for deletion do not make it obvious where exactly to find the precise discussion page on deletion of the image. -- Horkana (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the "source" issue on the image for you in the description, and removed that tag - Begoon (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Horkana (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posed the higher level issue at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68#Non-free magazine covers and will post some other pointers to that discussion in an effort to attract greater attention. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been deleted although the discussion has not yet been resolved. I've asked User:Fastily the admin who deleted to revert and hold the delete. I still believe that even if the image is not going to be included in the infobox it will still be notable enough to include in the article. -- Horkana (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the uploader of the cover image in question, I would ask if a different cover image would be more acceptable? If I scan the cover of a different issue of the magazine, would that satisfy most people, given that it is a non-free image used for the purposes of illustration only? In other words, what limits the use of the cover image: age of the model (obvious), notability, resolution, etc? --Roland (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image was not deleted because it was not "acceptable" but because of copyright issues. Editors are reluctant to include any non-free images in Wikipedia, although this policy is inconsistently enforced.

Annoyingly they deleted a lot of extra information I had added to the page, including "a fair use rationale" that most non-free images are expected to have now. The discussion above seems to have settled that it is better to include the logo in the infobox but it might be justifiable to include a non-free image in the body of the article if it was particularly notable. I believe the Jessica Biel cover is notable enough. User:Fastily has so far declined to revert the deletion and suggested I find the image somewhere and point to it as an external link/external media.

I have been working on the Jessica Biel article and have more sources to establish the notability of the cover image. I even have a source quoting the actor who played her father on 7th Heaven likening the image to "child pornography" which frankly I think is ridiculous but I can understand how someone might have that viewpoint and I am inclined to believe might be representative of a certain demographic. What I don't want to do is include that strong an opinion and risk skewing the article without providing readers some way to judge the image for themselves.

As for other "more acceptable" covers, it is possible that the first cover of the first issue or the issue featuring the womans soccer star might be sufficiently notable, but I really do think the Biel cover is the most notable. -- Horkana (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have chimed in on Fastily's page asking that he undelete the file, since I do think you've done a good job finding enough sources to write more about the cover which would then be fine to include in the body of the article. If he doesn't undelete it you can always ask another admin. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the image is undeleted and in the article so that it isn't redeleted for being an orphan. Now you can put those sources to good use! And of course move, resize, and caption the picture to your heart's content. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to dig through my sources and see which others mention gear. It is often touched on in articles about Biel although usually only briefly. I may be able able to reuse the named sources already in this article. Tricky thing is the magazine is only talked about indirectly, so this article will need to be stitched tight using many small sources.

I'd like the image better at 200 pixels but the smaller size works well for now with the limited amount of text in the article. With a slightly larger image I'd probably mention the date of the issue.

I think the comment I added - although inflammatory - is representative of how controversial some people considered the whole incident, but I do hope the rest of the paragraph can provide greater context. I disagree with that point of view, but I can understand it think it is important it be examined. -- Horkana (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and thank you. VernoWhitney This is the first time image process has seemed almost understandable and fair to me. Thanks for your help. -- 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Thank you very much!--Roland (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unceremoniously removed without discussion or even the very basic politeness of an edit summary. Wikipedia is stacked in favor of Deletionists. -- 109.77.219.146 (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uppercase or lowercase?

The magazine's logo is gear instead of Gear. Does this mean the article should be in lowercase, like eBay? If however, the magazine is registered in uppercase format (e.g., on it's masthead), then it's a moot point, since a logo is not necessarily an accurate representation of the legal form. Does anyone know? __209.179.36.56 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gear (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]