 | Daily page views
|
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Possibly useful — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the new proposed top image adequately serves the purposes of visual identification that were met by the previous image. In fact, it takes some squinting to see that this new image is not a mistake.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, and I've restored the original image, which has a perfectly good non-free use rationale. Eric Corbett 19:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- The one to the right with the elephants might work well lower in the article. Incidentally, do we have a Wikipedia article about efforts to establish linguistic communication with other intelligent mammals? Those guys are so smart, I hope we can talk with them someday. I'm sure Hugh Lofting would agree with me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Eric, per the NFCC we should not use any non-free images if "no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." That one is more attractive than the other does not mean the more attractive (yet non-free) image should be used. If you insist on using a non-free cover, I doubt that the file will pass an image review, no matter who gives it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you're the administrator, so by definition I suppose you must be right. Eric Corbett 00:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Funny. By that logic, Drmies must also be right in uploading and using the file. I'm just acting as an editor here, Eric, and trying to help y'all go through the hoops more easily. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you're the administrator, so by definition I suppose you must be right. Eric Corbett 00:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Crisco, if we have to squint to see the relevance of the free image, do you really think it serves the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free one?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- The encyclopedic purpose, as I see it, is to show a cover, which is provided adequately with the free image. That being said, I understand your objection and have spent the last ten minutes trying to upload more images from the Internet Archive. They will show up in Category:The Gorilla Hunters when Commons' upload wizard decides to let it go through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, that cover is probably better than this title page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- More pics for lower down in the article would be great, IMHO. But the encyclopedic purpose of the top image is to show a cover that is easily discernible as such. I'll modify the free use rationale to say so explicitly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- The images are all uploaded. I don't know how the other two people who often review images, Nikkimaria and GermanJoe, would take that FUR. I don't think I would, but having contributed so many images now I doubt I'd want to do the image review (fear of COI). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nice pics. I'll leave it to Eric and Drmies which ones to include (I have barely edited this article). I hope they include at least one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- More pics for lower down in the article would be great, IMHO. But the encyclopedic purpose of the top image is to show a cover that is easily discernible as such. I'll modify the free use rationale to say so explicitly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Crisco, if we have to squint to see the relevance of the free image, do you really think it serves the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free one?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Eric, per the NFCC we should not use any non-free images if "no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." That one is more attractive than the other does not mean the more attractive (yet non-free) image should be used. If you insist on using a non-free cover, I doubt that the file will pass an image review, no matter who gives it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- The one to the right with the elephants might work well lower in the article. Incidentally, do we have a Wikipedia article about efforts to establish linguistic communication with other intelligent mammals? Those guys are so smart, I hope we can talk with them someday. I'm sure Hugh Lofting would agree with me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, and I've restored the original image, which has a perfectly good non-free use rationale. Eric Corbett 19:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the new proposed top image adequately serves the purposes of visual identification that were met by the previous image. In fact, it takes some squinting to see that this new image is not a mistake.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
