Jump to content

Talk:Georgia State University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Citation source

Veritas Valet Et vincet as the school's motto took some research but it is easy enough found. The school also has a coat of arms that is just as obscure. I am searching for better sources but for now the GSU website itself vaguely refers to in pdf archives for student organizations. Angrynight 05:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Very cool- I couldn't find the school motto before. The campus PR or publications office might be willing to provide a copy of the coat of arms that can be scanned. If I have time in the next month or so I'll try to swing by there and see. Rjhatl 03:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Need confirmation

Notable Alum

Could not find any confirmation, and he is not listed in the Alumni directory. Samatva 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He's not a graduate; his GA House bio[1] says he went 2 years there. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 20:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Urban Geography?

GSU no longer has a geography program (I majored in geography there), so I don't see how it is revelant now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.209.183.182 (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

The Geography and Anthropology programs were split. Geography was paired with the Geology program and is now part of the Geosciences. So, there's still geography at GSU. Rjhatl (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Growth

I think there should be something in the article about the Mainstreet Master Plan and the new additions coming soon. Its crazy how the school wen from no dorms ten years ago and one main building to the new commons and the sprall of buildings it has added. GSUdorf 05:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of the new science building in this article. The Petit Science Center opened up I think in May 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.40.134 (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Georgia-State-Logo.svg

Image:Georgia-State-Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

History of GSU

I like a brief history being on this page. I'm not sure that splitting the history off to a separate page/article is necessary. That being said, if the history is quite extensive, then that might warrant a separate page. Regardless, I think this page should always have a brief history of the institution.

Carsonmc (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge here of Georgia State University Foundation

  • Propose merge here, on the basis that it is only a short article, currently tagged as having multiple issues, and the text would fit fine as a section in this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File:NewGSU1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NewGSU1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:NewGSU2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NewGSU2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:NewGSU3.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NewGSU3.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:GSUcoatofarms.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:GSUcoatofarms.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:GSUcoatofarms.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(non-admin closure) There are two questions asked here. The first is whether the seal should be used on this page, and the second is whether the seal qualifies under fair use rationale.
On the first question, consensus in this section appears to be that, provided the image is appropriate to use under Wikipedia's policies, it should be used on this page. WP:UNIGUIDE supports this view.
The second question has been fielded already at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Georgia State University Coat of Arms Logo.png, where consensus appears to agree that the fair use rationale for this seal is valid.
This should mean there are no problems using the image in the article infobox. If the fair use rationale is disputed, there are more appropriate processes such as WP:SPEEDY and WP:FFD, which both fall outside of the scope of this RFC and should be raised separately if needed. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Should we use a free-use image provided on the GSU website, or use a copyrighted image, and claim fair-use? Fomeister (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC) In keeping consistent with the other major university articles on Wikipedia, i have uploaded the official Georgia State University seal with the correct permissions. This has been set to the heading logo replacing the trademarked blue flame logo. The blue flame logo does not have the correct permissions attached to it, nor is it of sufficient quality to be used as the heading picture. Please refrain from changing this picture back to the blue flame logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.124.153 (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The University Seal Seal Use of the approved Georgia State seal will be limited to official material such as diplomas, diploma frames, class rings, certificates, invitations to official university functions and ceremonial banners and flags. All usage will be approved by the Division of University Relations.

The Georgia State University seal is the official hallmark indicating authenticity in both the ceremonial and legal senses. It is used exclusively by the president, provost and the legal and financial affairs departments. The seal is appropriately used on certificates, diplomas and invitations to official functions. The university seal should not be used as a logo or as a marketing tool.

The flame graphic mark is an abstract representation of the letters G and S. But the function of this mark is not that it can be read as the school's initials, but that it is a strong visual symbol that is easily recognized, remembered and associated with Georgia State University. Further symbolism may be read into the mark. There is a flame-like aspect that can be seen as symbolizing both the traditional flame of knowledge as well as the mythical phoenix, the symbol of the post-Civil War resurrection of the city of Atlanta.

Refer to Georgia State University Visual/Identity Guide: http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwidg/index.html If you have any further questions, contact: Ms. DeAnna Hines, VP University Relations (404) 413-1350 MLSGSU (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

First, we don't work for the university so we're not bound by its rules and policies. We've established our own local policy of using the seal of the college or university as the topmost image in the infobox. If you believe we should make an exception for this article, please let us know why. If your only argument is that it's against university policy then I doubt that you will be successful but you're welcome to try!
Second, based on your username and previous edits it seems likely that you have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article. If that is indeed the case, please be cautious when editing this article and review our policies related to neutral point of view. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
No conflict of interest exists. On a copyright image/logo, you need to contact Georgia State University Department of Relations at 404 413-1350 immediately for approval of the seal image you seek to use. See link above: http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwidg/index.html that spells out when and how a university seal can be used. This is public knowledge and should be followed to avoid content that violates any copyright image. Although you claim you do not work for the university, you are bound by copyright laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLSGSU (talk • contribs) 23:47, June 4, 2012‎
With respect to a conflict of interest: Can you please share what your username means or why you chose it? It seems to imply that you are an employee or representative of this institution.
And there aren't any copyright concerns here. We don't need permission to use this image as our use clearly falls under fair use. Please read up on that concept and how it's ingrained in U.S. copyright law. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
ElKevbo, you are 100% incorrect in that statement. You cite fair use but Wiki has an explcit policy. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines. This image does not meet the requirements set forth, namely that all images have a description explaining the copyright status. Ironically, even fair use requires that creditible source of the work be established and given. As a seasoned experienced Wikipedian, I would encourage you to consider that last comment. For my part, I have contacted the Vice-President of Media Relations at Georgia State University and will be receiving a letter and image for use here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The image does have such a statement so I'm not sure what you're talking about... ElKevbo (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry that I was not clear. statement is not correct. That is why I contacted GSU and they are sending an image from their press kit. The logo that appears now is not the logo of the university. The "source" and "purpose of use", as well as the comment in "Replaceable" are egregiously incorrect. GSU does have a logo (the image is not their logo), they do allow a free version of their logo. In fact, in the description file the following is absolutely horrific "There is no free equivalent, because one cannot be produced. The only allowable logograph is this logo, and any reproduction, digital or otherwise does not represent the university." The only allowable logograph available is the free one provided by the university. The image currently in use is not that one, nor is it even the current logo of the university. While I like "throwback" uniforms in baseball and football, you cannot simply decide to use a logo from the 90's when the University in question has an official logo and shares it freely. That, is what I meant to say. Fomeister —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I still don't quite understand. Is the problem that the seal in the article doesn't have quite the correct colors (compare with the one at the bottom of this page)?
Incidentally, all of the text you cited from the image's description is from a commonly-used template. I'm still not quite sure what the issue is since the description seems to be accurate in the context of the university's seal. And please note that I am discussing the university's seal, not its logo or wordmark. Is that the confusion? Are you contending that we should be using the logo or wordmark instead of the seal? ElKevbo (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
ElKevbo - I appreciate your response. My issue is that we are not following Wiki guidelines. There is a "free" image associated with GSU. [1] While your thoughts of "we show the seal", not the logo are appreciated, this is not Wiki policy. If you want to change policy, then I am sure you know the proper routes channel your efforts. In this case, an organization has provided a free-use image, and explicitly requested it be used accompanied by the following explanation: "The Georgia State logo communicates the character and reputation of the university. It creates immediate and positive recognition. The university has several variations of the signature logo to meet different design needs, but the stacked logo (Figure 1) is the primary logo and should be used whenever possible. " Italic text[2] While you may not agree with this, I need a reasonable explanation as to why you would ignore it. I will wait 72 hours for an explanation, and then I will make the edits I deem to be necessary and for the correctness of this article, the images associated and Wiki policy. There is no verifiable reason, policy, or precedent other than to use the free-use image and credit it appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 06:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. We've standardized on using the seal of colleges and universities as the topmost image in their infobox. I'm sorry that you disagree with that idea but it's a very well established consensus. I'm afraid your argument of "the university doesn't like it when people use the seal" isn't sufficient as we don't work for the university. We're well within the realm of fair use to use the seal even if the university doesn't like it.
Here is a good place to go if you'd like to make your case in a more visible area where you may get more responses from different editors. I don't think that you'll get a different response but you're certainly welcome to try!
Finally, I strongly advise that you drop the threats. This is a collegial, communal project and threats don't work well in this environment. In fact, making threats - particularly when you're fighting against long-standing consensus - often results in the opposite of what you'd like. They certainly don't help your cause and they definitely irritate your fellow editors. ElKevbo (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have not made any threats. See above. I simply stated that I would wait 72 hours for an explanation, before restoring the image. Argue the edit, not the editor. As for your links, neither had the word "seal" on them so I see no relevance much less consensus. If you could link me to a specific page I would certainly observe wiki spirit. In so for as consensus goes, I would suggest that you, ElKevbo (talk put this before a 3PO. The standard (de jure) for inclusion of any image on wiki is very clear. What is not clear, is what image should be shown. In the absence of any rules that differ, I choose to follow the free-use rule. In this case, Georgia State University provides a high resolution image to identify their organization. The decision to instead use a seal (which by the way is not the even their current one), is without merit. A question: IF the de facto standard is to use a "seal" rather than a logo, as you say, that why is it you restored an edit with a seal that is not current?
As I said in the beginning, I was not making a threat. I was merely letting everyone watching this talk page my intention. Since that time, there has been no information, or explanation, or discussion about my edit which restored the free-use image.I will therefore reverse the edit after posting this response. I will not wait for a 3RR if there is a reversal of this, based upon the complete lack of explanation or justification provided. If something relevant (consensus) has been established, then please link to it,rather than lining the University Project main article. Fomeister (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is the relevant guide. And as far as I can tell the seal is correct but you're free to upload one that is of higher quality. ElKevbo (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I support ElKevbo here; he's one of the hardest working Wikipedians that I am familiar with. We don't work for GSU, and the inclusion of the seal is a consensus that has been established for basically all university pages. Proceed at your own risk. Disavian (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
While I appreciate comments and talk about this subject, wouldn't you agree that they should be about the edit, not the editors?Fomeister (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
You ask for evidence that there is a consensus on this issue (without bothering to examine other articles or the relevant guidelines) and now you dismiss another editor who has agreed with me and provided de facto evidence of existing consensus? ElKevbo (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I did not "dismiss" the other editor, I only stated the he contributed no citation, or discussion of the topic. He merely voiced his opinion of you, which I do appreciate, and told me "to proceed at my own risk". This is plain to see for anyone who reads this Section. I did ask for a reference of consensus, and only in your last response did you give one. However, I maintain that an article such as this does not overrule POLICY. I gave an example in the dispute secion, along with an example. I would ask you to speak to this, rather than my comment to another editor. IMHO, there is 0% possibility for an article on UNIGUIDE can override POLICY. I made my first edit on this talk page telling you that you were 100% incorrect in your statement about wiki, and copyright laws. Perhaps you should read up on policy, and this.. And I quote verbatim, with no words changed: Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, the copyright laws) of the United States and of the U.S. state of Florida, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located. This is wikipedia POLICY, and the law. I have requested RFC on this matter. Please understand that habits of the editor community and UNIGUIDE articles, do not make POLICY or override the laws that this organization must adhere to as an entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 21:30, July 26, 2012‎
I'm very sorry that you still have a different understanding of fair use than the majority of your fellow editors. You're welcome to seek additional input from even more editors but you're going to get the same answers you've already been provided.
I respectfully suggest that you move on and spend your time and energy working on other issues with this article or other articles. ElKevbo (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your kindness, and while I appreciate your concern for my energy and efforts. I cannot understand why you are expending the effort to do than rather than engaging in BRD. Having a certain number of edits, or even being an administrator does not relieve any editor from that responsibility. I have given two illustrations of my point, as well as an example that the image violates the Five pillars, Wikipedia POLICY, and the law. And still I see no BRD. This is an important, vital discussion that I have requested. As I mentioned, I have requested RFC, but it shames the that someone would revert and edit and move on without discourse. In the sake of BRD, let me make these points and ask you to speak to them. 1.) "Level of consensus Policy shortcuts: WP:CONLIMITED WP:LOCALCONSENSUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs)

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Further, as I have mentioned before(bold emphasis mine): 2.)Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more. The policies, guidelines, and process pages themselves are not part of the encyclopedia proper. Consequently, they do not generally need to conform with the content standards. It is therefore not necessary to provide reliable sources to verify Wikipedia's administrative pages, or to phrase Wikipedia procedures or principles in a neutral manner, or to cite an outside authority in determining Wikipedia's editorial practices. Instead, the content of these pages is controlled by community-wide consensus, and the style should emphasize clarity, directness, and usefulness to other editors. These pages do, however, need to comply with Wikipedia's legal and behavioral policies, as well as policies applicable to non-content pages. For example, editors may not violate copyrights anywhere on Wikipedia, and edit warring is prohibited everywhere, not merely in encyclopedia articles. I am therefore, again informing you that IMO the content you have posted violates the copyright of GSU, and though not necessary, I have request RFC on the matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs)

RFC Responses

Because there was a significant amount of discussion on this topic prior to the initiation of the, I am starting a new subsection for clarity. VQuakr (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As discussed at WP:Image_use_policy#Fair_use_images and Wikipedia:Non-free content, there are times when it is acceptable to use an image without permission from the copyright holder. The University logo in question appears to have a valid fair use rationale. The page Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Article_structure, while not policy, appears to represent a reasonably wide spread and commonly used consensus about the appearance of an article about a University should look like. Both the inclusion of a fair use image in the infobox and the selection of the seal as the first image appear valid, within policy, and editorially favorable. VQuakr (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help resolve this dispute, and I apologize for the time it is taking away from your other contributions to Wikipedia. In response to your comment, and I apologize if it is a repeat from the previous Section, I would like to re-state the reasoning of my BOLD edit, in order of precedence:
1.) ...respect copyright laws...[3]
2.) ...editors may not violate copyrights anywhere on Wikipedia... [4]
3.) Nothing, even a Project Wiki uniguide trumps POLICY. ...participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.[5]...
I ask all other editors to speak to this argument that I am making. There is a free use image to be used to represent GSU. The reason I have asked for RFC, is that an editor has, IMO, alleged that we are not bound to follow copyright laws. This was the reason that was cited in the reverting. A previous user, who I do not know, and myself have both reverted to the fair-use image, and it has been reverted twice in favor of a copyrighted image,. This is not the spirit, nor letter of the law when it comes to wikipedia. Again, my example before: If the uniguide decides tomorrow to include the "Fight Song" of a college or university, does that mean that we as editors should allow a copyright MP3 to be included when a free-use .MID midi file is available. The answer is no. The Five pillars are POLICY. Any additional so-called "consensus" cannot trump that. See #1, #2, and #3 above. Well I do not argue that a seal of a university is "cool", as an MP3 is cooler than a .MID, wikipedia has expressed in the Five pillars, and as a legitimate legal entity that copyright is rule #1. Further, POLICY (#3 above) has stated that a Project Wiki cannot overrule this basic standard. The "wiki has no hard fast rules" concept is applied on most everything, but this basic tenant cannot be revoked as explained in every single reference I have given. I await comments that speak to these specific three arguments, and with reason by editors who take the time to understand the responsibilities of this foundation and why those Pillars exist. Fomeister (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Fomeister, I think that you and I have already made our case in the above section(s). It might be best for us to allow other editors to make their case now without either of us appearing to be badgering them, especially if no new points are being raised. It's your call but when one asks for others to offer input it's usually wise to give them the space to do that. ElKevbo (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
With that said, I again ask you to familiarize yourself with copyright law and how it's interpreted here before you again accuse me of "alleg[ing] that we are not bound to follow copyright laws." Fair use is a critical part of U.S. copyright law and we're well within its boundaries. If you don't understand copyright law and fair use - and your accusations and analysis above indicate that you don't - then you should gracefully recuse yourself from further discussions of those topics until you are up to speed on them. ElKevbo (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Fomeister I think it would be a good idea to let other editors express their comments rather than attempting to reply to everyone who responds to the RfC. But to repeat, fair use of copyrighted images is not a violation of Wikipedia policy or United States copyright law so your statement at Nothing, even a Project Wiki uniguide trumps POLICY is moot. VQuakr (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution, and I appreciate your assistance VQuakr. I only posted my opinion above, and requested RFC on this section because there was no link to it anywhere else in the system. I humbly await the opinion of other editors, however, I must state that I 100% disagree that your opinion that a uniguide can supercede POLICY with merit. I can only hope that you, and others would take the time to reference the three citations I provided which are the backbone of wikipedia, and since they are my arguments I requested the RFC, I would like to think everyone can speak to them directly. Thank you again for your time and effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 06:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
...your opinion that a uniguide can supercede POLICY with merit. I did not say that. Please strike through your inaccurate characterization of my comments. VQuakr (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with ElKevbo's and VQuakr's appraisal of the situation. Wikipedia is not bound by a university's policies and we don't change our content to match a university's current marketing efforts. The seal image is covered by fair-use policy and it is unlikely that a free image of the seal exists. Attempting to replace the seal with a different logo entirely does not communicate the same information. -Mabeenot (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • ElKevbo is correct. The institution's rules do not apply outside the institution. Copyright law includes fair use, and the use of the seal here qualifies under that protection.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed that ElKebo is correct. The image's file page clearly lays out the fair use rationale for why editors believe it is legal and ethical to use such a low-resolution image on Wikipedia. The use and placement of a university's seal and logo are extremely well established norms within WikiProject Universities. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 01:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments, they are much appreciated. I would ask each of you, to spend a couple of more minutes to comment on the following: I have said that WikiProject Universities cannot, even with consensus, over-ride POLICY. This is 100% inarguable. ...participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.[6]... So I am asking for consensus to agree with this statement. ...participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.[7]...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs)
I'm unclear what policy you believe is being violated. The fair-use rationale laid out on the file's page is a standard Wikimedia rationale, not something unique to WikiProject Universities. Are you suggesting that what is laid out in Template:School rationale is bogus? If so, thats a discussion for elsewhere, imho. As far as a free alternative being available, a university's seal is distinct from its logo. I think you will find that there is consensus that it is not the case that any Wikipedia policy is being violated. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 01:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not saying that it is bogus, I am merely stating that Template:School rationale , cannot overrule POLICY. I have stated above my three reasons as to why the image on this place should be removed. If anyone would care to speak to those, I am most certainly appreciative. I will be BOLD, one more time and ask. Is anyone here saying that Template:School rationale or Wikiproject Universities can override POLICY. Simple question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I am claiming that this is a copyrighted image, and that it's inclusion in the article violates policy. I have made my reason clear above, and I am seeking comment. One cannot simply state "fair-use". We have POLICY, and it states (bold emphasis mine): ...To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. For a file in use in an article that was uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days. 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. While I respect any and all comments which facilitate a resolution. I will not stand by while POLICY is violated. POLICY states that the uploading editor or another Wikipedia must deliver a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. I have yet to see it. In order to avoid further disruption of wiki, and in hopes that someone will help, I will wait 72 hours before tagging the image. At that point, someone will _have_ to speak to each of the 10 criteria, and hopefully this can be put to rest. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
DanielKlotz, thank you for your input. It is sincerely appreciated. However, the BOP is on the uploader, not me, you, or anyone else. At most, 1 of the ten has been spoken to, that being "fair use" no free one exists. But again, there is a reason why _all_ ten must be addressed. It confounds me that no other editors have spoken to it, but I still hold out with hope. Thank you again for the comment. Fomeister (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with both sides here. As ElKevbo and others have pointed out, there's no reason we can't use the seal image, free or not. That's what "fair use" is for. However, Wikipedia is not a catalogue of official university seals, though that's often the image chosen to represent the university in the infobox. Instead, we're trying to find an identifiable image that can "stand in" for the university--that's what logos, seals, et al. are for. If there is a free version of a logo available, that seems to me to be more in line with the spirit of the non-free content criteria than using a non-free seal. However, I long ago learned that I'm flogging a dead horse on the logo versus seal debate (especially when both are being used in an infobox). Esrever (klaT) 17:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Esrever - Thank you, and all others for your comments. IMO, it doesn't matter the opinion, but how many of them. We should be working to make consensus here. At this point, the flogging notwithstanding, I have waited the 72 hours (which used to be the accepted norm) before acting. I will summarily state, that no infobox, consensus, nor project (see above) can override policy. You may not like it, but it is fact. I am therefore citing the image to be a violation of copyright laws and POLICY.

I will also ask for a hold on the page until by POLICY there is a response to all 10 requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 13:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Justification for use of seal per Wikipedia policy

Here, as I understand it, is the 10-point justification Fomeister is requesting. The question he has raised is whether or not display of the university's seal in this article meets all 10 points of Wikipedia's non-free content policy. I believe the answer is yes, it satisfies those requirements. I encourage other editors to discuss below whether they agree or disagree with the justification I am articulating here.

  1. No free equivalent. - This is obvious to me. A university's seal is separate and distinct from its logo. Georgia State University's official identity guide recognizes this, providing separate information for the logo and for the seal, both of which it recognizes as representing the university's identity, in different ways.
  2. Respect for commercial opportunities. - A low-resolution version of the seal is used in this Wikipedia article. It could not, for instance, be reprinted on T-shirts or mugs. It is not the case that "one item can convey equivalent significant information." The school's own visual identity policies make clear that the seal conveys different information in a different way, which is why the seal, and not the logo, is used on "material such as diplomas, diploma frames, class rings, certificates," etc.
  3. continuation of respect for commercial opportunities
  4. Previous publication. - Do a Google image search to see it published on multiple public websites.
  5. Content. - It is clear to me that the university's seal "meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic." It's information, not offensive, and accurate.
  6. Media-specific policy. - All the specifics of how this image meets Wikipedia's image use policy are clearly presented on the image's file page. This includes justified rationale related to Wikipedia:Logos. It also meets the Wikipedia:File copyright tags guidelines.
  7. One-article minimum. - That's this article.
  8. Contextual significance. - Since the seal conveys different information than the logo, and since the seal appears in public in many places where the logo does not, it it fair to say that including the seal does "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This case is further made by the fact that is an accepted practice of many experienced Wikipedia editors (via their participation in Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities) to include a university's seal at the top of the info box and the logo at the bottom. Those editors clearly have consensus that including the seal aids understanding. It is also useful for GSU's article to be consistent with other universities' articles, as users view multiple articles and compare.
  9. Restrictions on location. - Does not apply. The image appears in an infobox for an article, which is an appropriate location.
  10. Image description page. - The file page meets all these criteria.

So, that's why I believe this university seal and hundreds of others now in place across Wikipedia is in line with Wikipedia policy. Please indicate agreement or disagreement below. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 17:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

DanielKlotz - Thank you for your edit, and comments. Hopefully this discourse will either end the debate, or tire us out. I for one have other things to be editing. I do however disagree with your justification, as a I believe a few points might be mistaken as POV. So I have posted the actual requirement for fair use before the following:

No free equivalent. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Note the "...that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose..." The article is about a University. As far as encyclopedic purpose goes, the purpose of this encylopedia is clear, but for those not engaged I have copied and pasted it below: "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge."

Previous Publication. –Thank you for the link, I am still muddling through how to do that. While the link is valid, the statement is not true. Click the link. That image appears on exactly 1 site other than wiki through the first 14 pages of images. The link is on the home page of an alumnus. There are zero published images found. Contextual significance. - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Even if, someone to dismiss my first two statements, and if, somehow you argued fair-use. "Contextual significance" says a non-free use image can only be used if it significantly increases understand of the topic, AND it's omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Does anyone truly, truly believe that the the Seal significantly increases the readers' understanding of the topic? And, are you explicitly saying that it's omission would be detrimental to that understanding?

I think more highly of wikipedians than that, don't you? I will wait 72 hours for a response, barring none, and no image reversion to the Seal, I will consider this matter complete. Fomeister (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the free image exactly that you're proposing to replace the seal with? The logo you linked to was nominated for deletion on Commons because it seems to not be public domain. That's a discussion for over there, of course. I'd encourage you to read over WP:OWN a bit in addition to all your other policy reading. Just because you declare an issue resolved doesn't mean it is. If, at Hour 73, someone else changes back to the seal, it doesn't automatically get changed back to the logo because you decreed it. That's not how consensus works, I'm afraid. Esrever (klaT) 20:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I have made several points. And to this point I am satisfied that there a has been discussion. If, you had not noticed in the earlier page, I always wait 72 hours before taking an action. It gives editor time to comment and discuss. But I will tag the image again. It has been tagged, and if anyone submits again without following pf7, than they are certainly violating policy. I feel 72 hours should be enough time for an editor follow through the procedures and justify re-inclusion, on that page. Not here. The burden of proof is on the uploader, not the remover. Esrever Thank you for your comment. I have not linked any logo to this site. Ever. I flagged and removed copyrighted material after much discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs)
Publication on the Web is still publication for the purposes of copyright, so it has been published elsewhere. It doesn't matter if it's the web page of an alumnus or the New York Times. It was also previously on the website of GSU, without a watermark.
Knowing the official image of a university is not an insignificant contribution to a person's knowledge of that university. (Think of the seal of the president of the United States. Knowing that seal enhances a person's knowledge of the office of the president.) If it's not insignificant, it's significant. That's why most university articles on Wikipedia include the seal. To say it's ridiculous to think it's significant is to insult the judgment of dozens of Wikipedia editors.
It makes perfect sense to me that an encyclopedia article on a university would includes its official seal. In fact, since a seal is much less commercial than a logo, I would not be surprised to see a seal and not a logo. A seal graphic seems as encyclopedic as, say, a photo of a prominent building on campus. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 20:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Again I appreciate your taking the time to discuss, but if you read our POLICY, and include common sense, you may find that while you make an argument, you casually gloss over POLICY:
Contextual significance. - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Can you understand that _both_ of these have to be true? And in the case of this image, neither is true. Fellow editors, this is very, very simple. Let's not waste precious editing time and energy on this matter. As I said, I tagged the file for copyright violation per pf7. Go to that page and ask to re-upload/revert. This is not a seal/logo debate page. There is no "Seal" policy for wikipedia. There is a "logo" policy, and it is specific to a logo. the "Seal" uploaded is an image, that does not pass all 10 requirements, by any stretch of the imagination. If you would look above, I have linked repeatedly that no ProjectWiki has the ability, nor does consenus give validity, to overcoming POLICY. Ever. Five pillars people...Fomeister (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwidg/logos.html
  2. ^ http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwidg/logos.html
  3. ^ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:CON. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  6. ^ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:CON. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  7. ^ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:CON. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Active Disagreements

LOGO

I recently was BOLD and did some editing on the GSU page. I changed the colors deom HTML "red" and "blue" to match the GSU Style guide. I also changed the logo to match the same. I feel that it is always appropriate to follow copyright law, and only use a copyrighted image if there is no free-use image available. My edits were reversed, without comment. I went to the talk page and explained my reasoning. My edits were reversed again, this time with a link to the University project home page, and I was told there was consensus to do so.

There was no discussion, much less discussion on the talk page. There was another editor to comment on me, the editor, but not the worthiness of the edit.

If any editor, or group of editors, wants to change POLICY, there is an avenue to do so. Lacking that, we should follow the spirit and letter of the law.

If editors decided tomorrow to put a copyrighted MP3 version of the "Fight Song" of a University or College on Wiki, and claimed "no free-use was available" while there was a free-use non-copyrighted midi version, that would not follow POLICY. Wiki POLICY is to not use copyrighted images, if a free-use image exists.

The IP/Copyright owner of all images at GSU, namely GSU, has made available one and only image to be used in the public domain. Our refusal to do so is in violation of POLICY.

Not to be contentious, but even if the Seal was free-use, the one on the page is not the current one.

I humbly request that you consider the facts presented, and comment. 01:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This dispute involves more than two editors (User:MLSGSU, User:ElKevbo, User:Fomeister, and User:Disavian), and does not qualify for Third Opinion, which is limited to disagreements between two editors that have come to a standstill. Although I understand your desire to resolve this dispute, Third Opinion is not the preferred forum for it. Other options include a request for comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, or a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ.--SGCM (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

False pretenses

A user (who will remain nameless) removed the seal (diff) with an edit summary of "Previous image removed per {{db-f7}}." This was a obviously false, because that image is still present at File:Georgia State University Coat of Arms Logo.png, nor was it ever nominated under DB-F7. I don't think this action represents a good faith attempt at achieving consensus.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's a bit unfair. The user in question, User:Fomeister (it's silly to try to anonymize someone whose edits one can clearly see in the article's history), has an account that's less than a fortnight old. I don't have a tough time believing a relative newcomer isn't entirely familiar with the CSD process, and simply thinks "{{db-f7}}" represents some sort of rule by which an image can be removed. I'm not saying it's a valid reason not to just revert back to the old image with a good edit summary, but I don't think we have to throw AGF out the window, either. Esrever (klaT) 22:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I did it wrong. Though I failed to execute it properly, it was my intention to remove based upon DB-F7. I thought putting the tag there would do it. In regards to "good faith attempt", I believe I brought my discussion here and have continued in discourse. It appeared to me that Esrever corrected the template I broke? Fomeister (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
File deletion nominations go on the file page, not the article. Please note that per WP:CSD#F7, even if the fair use rationale was incorrectly applied, the nomination should be in place for 7 days before the image is deleted to give editors a chance to correct it. But, since the fair use rationale is, at a bare minimum, arguably valid, the file is not a candidate for speedy deletion. VQuakr (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Your reasoning has been rejected by every editor who has offered input into this discussion. That you continue to disagree does not give you permission to attempt to ignore and undermine the clear consensus by unilaterally deleting or removing the image.
You've made your points but you clearly have a minority opinion at odds with the consensus understanding of this issue. Drop it and move on. ElKevbo (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you VQuakr for the clarification. I have since then proceeded through the appropriate methods. Thank you.Fomeister (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
ElKevbo, I appreciate your point as well, but I disagree. It would appear that we are at an impasse, and therefore I am going through the Dispute Resolution Process that is an integral part of the Wikipedia community. Fomeister (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted to WP:DRN, which was closed as premature. It was highly recommended to post it to WP:NFC which I have done. In regards to the comment on WP:DRN that I was "forum-shopping", I would kindly ask that you retract the remark now, or in the event you do not understand this process, please read up here. Fomeister (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The listing there has been closed as premature, but I'd like to note that the proper place for this dispute to be determined is at Non-free content review, which is the venue intended for this kind of determination. The folks who work there do little else besides review free use media claims and are experts on such matters. I'd strongly recommend taking the image there for review. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you TransporterMan, I will do so now. Fomeister (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I do not want to mess it up, can someone point/guide me through filing the "Non-free review" ? I know it needs to be on the media page, but not this page (like I just did). Which URL to the media page for the file?- Thanks Fomeister (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you click on the image itself, it should take you to the image's page here.
I believe that I have done it correctly.Fomeister (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFR comment by ElKevbo

Based upon my understanding, WP:NFR is not a place to discuss "how" an image got posted there. I posted this matter to WP:NFR, as suggested by WP:DRN. Following the procedure of that forum, I posted the specific reasoning as listed on the top of the page. WP:NFR is for the purpose of discussing the specific reasons provided in the submission. I am seeking guidance here, It it appropriate for someone involved in this talk page to comment on a WP:NFR in this way? I will act upon my own opinion, but I would like to hear thoughts on this matter. Wikipedia is not about winning, and I for one believe it is not really appropriate to make a comment on WP:NFC unless it is specific to the criteria specified to be discussed there. WP:NFC is not a place to complain how something was submitted, and I kindly request that everyone respect each other and follow policy. This is a talk page, WP:NFR is not the place to have this discourse, IMO. Thank you. Fomeister (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your specific point regarding the image. And it's germane to that discussion to note that others have already addressed and discussed the issue in a different venue. Please, move on. ElKevbo (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me for pointing out something you may have missed, not one single editor, yourself included, has stated that this is a "free use" image. WP:NFR is for determining if an image is "free" use, NOT "fair-use". I submitted it as "Non-Free-uUse". Your comment on WP:NFR, IMO, was not germane, nor did it discuss the purpose of the forum. Non-Free-Use. Again, while I appreciate your input not only as a member of WikiProject:University, as well as a long-time editor, I humbly submit that you are not being fair to the wiki process and I find your continued closing remark "Move On" to be quite unfriendly? Fomeister (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I hesitate to keep wading into this, but here I go nonetheless. Where, exactly, does the GSU website say that the logo is free-use? As I've noted above, I think the use of the seal, however silly, is perfectly allowable under US fair-use provisions. But User:Fomeister's argument seems to be that a free version of the logo is available. My question, then, is where do we find that free logo? Esrever (klaT) 22:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Esrever, I appreciate your wading in to the discussion. I posted the link on WP:NFR, the logo's GSU have provided here. On that same page, at the bottom, they have watermarked copies of the seal. Since FBIasco, the revised policies of Wiki are very clear. There is a logo, and there are several to choose from on that page.
This particular discussion, is that there is a consensus that we skip WP:NFR, as there is a consensus that is "okay" to use a non-free image, in place of a logo. Wiki has been proven right, time and time again that we can even use a copyrighted logo, provided fair-use rationale is given AND there is no free use logo available. What I see happening here, is that WikiProject:Uni _wants_ to use the seal, rather than the logo.
There is a reason that wiki has a more narrow view of "fair-use" than US copyright laws. We want to have a free-content based encyclopedia. That is why WP:NFR exists, to discuss an image status. It is not something to be decided by consensus on a talk page.
While understand the points raised in opposition to my opinion, I don't agree with them and am doing my best to follow wiki policy. Since there is an impasse regarding POLICY, which cannot be determined by consensus, I keep moving slowly along through all of the steps outlined in POLICY regarding dispute resolution.
Anyone of the editors on this talk page could have submitted the image, received a response, than posted/tagged/removed the image accordingly. However it would appear ,and this is just my opinion, that some think it is "cooler" to have the "Seal" image and they are bound and determined to make that stick.Fomeister (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my question. Where on that logo page does it say that the logo image is provided for free use? It appears to be under the same copyright restrictions as the seal. Free in this case doesn't mean "no cost" or "freely available"; free means "without copyright" (that's an oversimplification of US copyright law, but c'est la vie). Esrever (klaT) 23:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
To make myself more clear, I'm wondering where the free logo you want to use is. If both the logo and the seal are both copyrighted, then your argument is moot. Esrever (klaT) 23:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It is listed on their reproduction page. I apologize for not linking that for you previously. The specific paragraph says- "The logo is arranged in four approved configurations in a designated range of approved colors and color combinations. The two parts of the logo — the mark (flame) and logotype — are always used together (with rare exceptions, as noted in this guide). Neither the mark nor the logotype may be manipulated or changed. Since each of the approved logo configurations is a complete unit, each must be used exactly as shown in this manual.".Fomeister (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, thank you for cleaning up my lack of indentation, and corrected my misspelling of your username. Cheers.Fomeister (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Esrever isn't asking where the university says how the logo is to be displayed, but rather where the university licenses public free use of the logo. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 23:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, but the page you've linked to (the reproduction page) does not indicate that the logo is in the public domain or available under a free license. The presumption, then, is that it's also copyrighted. In other words, under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, it is treated exactly like the seal. You may prefer the logo over the seal (I know I do), but that doesn't make it a free replacement for the seal (again, free in this context means "content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially" (from WP:FU)). Esrever (klaT) 23:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this particular discussion has not been framed as "should we use the seal instead of the logo" but "can we use the seal at all." Those are very different discussions. If someone wants to reopen the logo vs. seal discussion, please do so; I'd be happy to restate my preference for the commonly-recognized logo although I don't think that is the prevailing opinion as previous discussions have shown me to be in the distinct minority. ElKevbo (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment Esrever. I cannot argue that the logo is fair-use, that argument was settled in LOGOs. I humbly request that anyone who disagrees that the use of an organizations' self-described logo is not fair use, they submit it to NFR for consideration of NFCC.
However, I know that as a LOGO, it will pass as fair-use. It is explicitly listed as a LOGO, and a LOGO's use has been determined fair-use since 2007 by POLICY. This attempt hoever, which will end up having been in vain, to supplant an image of the seal of the school, is what I have asked to be resolved on WP:NFR.
I even took the time last week to send the request to GSU for the seal, and or the LOGO in the interest of our wikipedia policy via post. But without their consent, we can confidently use the LOGO.Fomeister (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
And the best part about fair use is that we can also use the seal without their consent. That's how fair use works. Esrever (klaT) 01:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Esrever, thank you again for the interaction and comments. While I respect your position, I tend to believe in the concept of a "free to copy and share" encyclopedia worldwide, which is a pillar of wikipedia, that can used anywhere in the world without a user having to explain "fair-use". Hence, my arguments above. We should never consider using a copyrighted image, even by claiming fair-use, unless it is absolutely essential to the understanding of the content. Thank you again for your help, comments, and interaction on this topic. Much obliged. Fomeister (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, of course. The problem is that both images in this discussion are copyrighted. I appreciate your passion for this issue, but WP:UNI consensus seems to be for the seal to be at the top of the infobox. Since there is no non-copyrighted image available, it appears that the GSU seal represents the best choice. Esrever (klaT) 03:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
No disagreement on this point Esrever, as to copyright status. I think that GrapeApe explained my reasoning on the NFR page.However, I politely disagree on the WP:UNI consensus overriding POLICY however. WP:NFCC is Rule #1. There is a reason that WP:Projects are not allowed to give consensus over policy, in this case WP:NFCC. So, don't you agree that the image needs to be judges on NFR? And if NFR discussion determines that it is fair-use we move on from there? I know this is taking a lot of time from editing, from all of us. And on NFR, due consideration is supposed to be considering WP:NFCC. Again, I have sent the request so that wikipedia can enjoy a free use. In the interim, WP:NFR should decide based upon WP:NFCC. Thank you again for all your effort here, and I am now off to sleep. Regards. Fomeister (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I am so, so puzzled. Esrever (klaT) 04:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, Fomeister - Now that we've established the logo isn't free-use after all, the only contention is on point number 8 of the non-free content criteria, correct? That is, you don't think including the seal makes a big enough difference to this article to warrant including it. Is that right? -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 11:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that even if a free-licensed logo was available, a logo does not qualify as the "equivalent" of the seal per criterion #1. VQuakr (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I just received an RFC notice for this, though it appears as if the discussion has already concluded. This is not really my area of expertise, nonetheless, I have two questions for Fomeister:

(i) Employing the same standards you used here, I wonder how many other (if any?) seals/logos of other organizations would be similarly affected?
(ii) While the adherence to the non-free content policy is, as far as I can see, still up in the air (excluding the Commons decision), I do not see how this would contravene (in spirit and letter) of USC Title 17, § 107:
§ 107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or :::by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom :::use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the :::factors to
be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

In addition, USC Title 17, § 108 appears to strengthen the argument.

§ 108 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if—
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives :::or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the
Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright § 108 20 Copyright Law of the United States provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may :::be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.

Thanks. --Misha Atreides (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of unnecessary material

I've removed parts of the introduction that give information about other universities only loosely connection to Georgia State (namely the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech). This article is for information on Georgia State University, not for the university system as a whole. By the same token, it is unnecessary to include every published incident that occurs on the universities premises. This is not a news website. Skapunkskatedude (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This issue has occurred again regarding the inclusion of crime reports in the campus security section of the article. This section is a report on the security offered on campus, not a run down of crime committed on the Georgia State campus. If you want to report on that information, you should make a new article entitled "List of Crime Reported on the Georgia State University Campus in 2012." Also, a lot of the information being added is 1) nothing to do with the University other than it involving students (included was crime committed off campus in an entirely different neighborhood), 2) extremely vague and non-specific to any event (all the sections added began with "a number of crimes were reported", and that type of language is simply uninformative and misrepresents information, and therefore is inappropriate on this website), and 3) are incorrectly cited (every citation only included a single link with no author information, no information on the publisher, or the media on which it was published. Also parts were not cited at all). Due to these problems, i've removed the 2 lines that this covers. Before changing my alterations, please take the time to explain how this is proper usage of this page. Skapunkskatedude (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Georgia State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Georgia State University. 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) 19:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Georgia State University. 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) 11:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Two editors are adamant that the current use of the student newspaper logo in this article is compliant with our Non-free content criteria policy. I disagree. Specifically, the image as currently used in this article fails criterion 8 of our policy: "Contextual significance. 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."

The student newspaper is not the topic of this article so editors have to (successfully) argue that the logo of the student newspaper "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of [Georgia State University]." I certainly don't see any way that the logo of this newspaper significantly increases my understanding of this university; if it's intended to do so, it's certainly not addressed in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(About a week ago, I asked our colleagues at Media copyright questions. The one editor who replied agreed that "use in [this] article sounds excessive." He also pointed out that the image is low-quality and probably an outdated logo, too. ElKevbo (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC))

Reinstating The (Apparently) Highly-Controversial Context for the Carnegie Classification System

I would like to see the previously-included context for the Carnegie Classification system introduced in the second paragraph reinstated. The sentence formerly read “The Carnegie Classification framework places Georgia State within its ‘R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity’ category, the framework's classification for universities in the United States that engage in the highest levels of research,” but the seventeen-word context in that sentence following the classification itself - “the framework's classification for universities in the United States that engage in the highest levels of research” - has been deemed by another editor to be “too many words” and “verbose and unattractive.” I disagree - for the casual, non-professional Wikipedia-er, this context is a meaningful explanation of what being an “R1” university entails, since the classification itself only specifies that R1 equals “very high research activity,” and not that it is in fact the highest classification in the framework. How this became controversial, I have no earthly idea.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like claim that needs to be supported by WP:reliable sources . "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, it looks kinda promotional in tone, rather than using the neutrality required in an encyclopedoia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The Carnegie Classification website makes it clear that R1 is the highest classification in the framework: https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php. Does that count as an unconnected source, since it’s obviously connected to the Carnegie Classification system but not to Georgia State University? As far as the “promotional” tone goes, it’s in keeping with the opening section of other university pages on Wikipedia, which seemingly without exception are used to list strengths and accomplishments of the university.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
There are no "higher" or "lower" classifications; it's a classification framework, not a ranking system. ElKevbo (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
What? It’s in the description provided by the Carnegie Classification system itself - R1 equals “very high research activity” and R2 equals “high research activity.” Clearly, “very high” is higher than “high” in the framework. What are you even talking about? TBPJMRamirez (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still think the language you've proposed is unnecessary in a portion of the article that is meant to be kept very concise; readers who want these technical details can read the article about the classification. ElKevbo (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
It’s a helpful, brief bit of context for casual readers. Requiring readers to click on a link and scroll down another article is reader-unfriendly when seventeen words in the original sentence - “the framework's classification for universities in the United States that engage in the highest levels of research” - can do the job just as well. Providing that brief bit of context in the sentence is the exact opposite of cluttering the paragraph with “technical details” - it’s including reader-friendly language for the purpose of making the technical jargon of “R1” meaningful for casual readers. Most readers of this article are not likely to be familiar with the Carnegie Classification system. Furthermore, your argument that these few words make the introductory portion of the article overly long doesn’t hold water, as most university articles seem to have significantly longer introductions - check Harvard, the University of Georgia, and the University of Florida, or for that matter any other university. There’s just no rational argument for insisting that this brief, helpful context be stripped from the sentence. TBPJMRamirez (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
In the context of the lead it's not brief. If any one wants an explanation, they can click on the wikilink--that's why God gave them to us. You are totally missing the point on the lead--the Harvard lead is longer cause, well, you know, Harvard is older and there is more to say about it. In this case, that explanation was too long for this lead. In the Harvard article, the thing you think so important isn't even in the lead, it's halfway down the article, and the fact that you want this in the lead in so many words again makes me wonder about your neutrality. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean that “in the context of the lead it’s not brief?” The sentence immediately following that one is even longer - should we pare that one down too? And nice dig at GSU - it’s neither especially old nor especially prestigious, so it gets fewer words? Is that a Wikipedia policy? How about the University of Central Florida’s article - its lead is about as long as GSU’s and it’s probably in roughly the same tier in terms of age and prestige. If its lead should start to grow as long as Harvard’s, will you start arbitrarily hacking away at it too? And with regard to the GSU article’s lead touting GSU’s strengths and accomplishments, do you think that it’s at all unusual or out of keeping with the established Wikipedia norm? And as far as your last concern goes, I’ll do you a favor and end your wondering right now: I am an alumnus of GSU, and I like GSU. Would you say that it’s unusual for alumni to edit their alma mater’s article? I’ll do some wondering now: I wonder what percent of university articles are edited by individuals with no connection to that university - I’m guessing it’s a small figure. If university articles could be edited only by individuals with no connection to that university, I’d imagine you’d see a large number of significantly outdated articles. In the end, you’re applying some exceptionally tortured logic to your decision to delete my work, all with the ultimate result of just making the GSU article less reader friendly to casual readers. My contribution makes the article better - yours makes it worse. The article gains nothing from your edit - you weighed in to delete another editor’s work and make an article worse with only the flimsiest of rationales for your action, and nothing whatsoever to show for your action. This is poor administration. TBPJMRamirez (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think that most editors would consider you to have a conflict of interest if you're making controversial or contested edits to articles associated with your alma mater. So I strongly recommend that you review that policy and adhere to it. ElKevbo (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I think it’s quite a stretch to claim that editing the article of my alma mater is a conflict of interest, and even more of a stretch to claim that my edit was controversial. If editing the article of one’s alma mater is a conflict of interest, then surely the vast majority of university articles have been and always will be edited by those who have conflicts of interest. Looking through the conflict of interest article you linked to, which example in any way resembles a graduate of a university editing the article of his or her alma mater? You have some small authority in this space and I have none, but your arguments are arbitrary. I reject your recommendation and I’ll be seeking the review of a more reasonable administrator via the dispute resolution process TBPJMRamirez (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgia_State_University/Archive_1&oldid=1170921480"