File talk:BSG Ranks New v3.jpg: Difference between revisions
Discussion page of File:BSG Ranks New v3.jpg
More actions
No edit summary |
Spencerian (talk | contribs) Source? Copyright? Best formatting? |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
These images are a lot better than the ones we have atm on the ranks page. Perhaps this could be cut up and used instead? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 08:43, 19 May 2006 (CDT) | These images are a lot better than the ones we have atm on the ranks page. Perhaps this could be cut up and used instead? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 08:43, 19 May 2006 (CDT) | ||
:As with all content per new policy, we cannot display unofficial rumor or conjecture. Technically the ranks that are "guessed at" with the current article should be removed, if I interpret things right. I also don't like how this graphic is displayed. While polished, the information on the creator and the copyrights leave me ill at ease and makes it look unblended in the article. (This was the reason I reverted a page containing this same image that another contributor added earlier this week.) | |||
:Also, we need to mark this in some way that indicates its source and copyright, so cutting it apart is out of the question until we get the source and appropriate permissions of the image's copyright holder. If we can't get this shortly, however nicer this is, we can't manipulate it to the benefit of the article, nor can it stay in our image library, if I interpret policy correctly. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:27, 19 May 2006 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:27, 19 May 2006
These images are a lot better than the ones we have atm on the ranks page. Perhaps this could be cut up and used instead? --Mercifull 08:43, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- As with all content per new policy, we cannot display unofficial rumor or conjecture. Technically the ranks that are "guessed at" with the current article should be removed, if I interpret things right. I also don't like how this graphic is displayed. While polished, the information on the creator and the copyrights leave me ill at ease and makes it look unblended in the article. (This was the reason I reverted a page containing this same image that another contributor added earlier this week.)
- Also, we need to mark this in some way that indicates its source and copyright, so cutting it apart is out of the question until we get the source and appropriate permissions of the image's copyright holder. If we can't get this shortly, however nicer this is, we can't manipulate it to the benefit of the article, nor can it stay in our image library, if I interpret policy correctly. --Spencerian 09:27, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
