I was going to add this directly to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, but wasn't sure if it was appropriate to do so since it involves broader issues than the use of a single file, so I decided to add it here instead.
.svg){kind=link}
I've removed similar logos from child articles in the past. In many cases, however, these are simply re-added by someone despite them being advised about No. 17. The arguments in favor of usage always seem to be "Our WikiProject says its OK", "Similar images are used in other articles", "They're really independent of each other and are just using the same logo", etc. Whenever I remove one of these, I always do search to see if I can find something more specific for the child article, and I do add a logo when I can find one. However, in many cases the child entities really do not have their own branding, so by default they use the parent's logo. Moreover, every time someone creates a new child article, they simply copy-and past the image from the parent or another child along with the infobox into the new article. If they do add a new nfur to the file's page (most times they never get that far), they just copy-and-paste one only changing the article name. It's not uncommon to see the same logo being used on 10 or more articles with a nfur provided for each for these types of logos.
Is there a way to get the community as a whole more involved in a discussion of No. 17 and how it should be applied? As currently worded, No. 17 does not seem to allow for any exceptions, but it's not clear if this the result of a local consensus of a few editors at NFC or if it is the result of a broader community-wide consensus. I tried discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Clarification requested regarding UUI#17, but it only generated a few comments before being archived. Maybe it's time to for the community as a whole to try and resolve this once and for all. Either No. 17 is fine as is and should be enforced across the board with no exceptions, or it should be reworded/deleted to more accurately reflect what appears to be common practice of how such images are being used. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I was going to add this directly to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, but wasn't sure if it was appropriate to do so since it involves broader issues than the use of a single file, so I decided to add it here instead.
I've removed similar logos from child articles in the past. In many cases, however, these are simply re-added by someone despite them being advised about No. 17. The arguments in favor of usage always seem to be "Our WikiProject says its OK", "Similar images are used in other articles", "They're really independent of each other and are just using the same logo", etc. Whenever I remove one of these, I always do search to see if I can find something more specific for the child article, and I do add a logo when I can find one. However, in many cases the child entities really do not have their own branding, so by default they use the parent's logo. Moreover, every time someone creates a new child article, they simply copy-and past the image from the parent or another child along with the infobox into the new article. If they do add a new nfur to the file's page (most times they never get that far), they just copy-and-paste one only changing the article name. It's not uncommon to see the same logo being used on 10 or more articles with a nfur provided for each for these types of logos.
Is there a way to get the community as a whole more involved in a discussion of No. 17 and how it should be applied? As currently worded, No. 17 does not seem to allow for any exceptions, but it's not clear if this the result of a local consensus of a few editors at NFC or if it is the result of a broader community-wide consensus. I tried discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Clarification requested regarding UUI#17, but it only generated a few comments before being archived. Maybe it's time to for the community as a whole to try and resolve this once and for all. Either No. 17 is fine as is and should be enforced across the board with no exceptions, or it should be reworded/deleted to more accurately reflect what appears to be common practice of how such images are being used. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)