Template talk:Newspapercover
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Photos to CSD?
I think (by reading the license), it can be assumed that photographs (with no text) uploaded under this license are to be tagged with {{db-badfairuse}} (CSD I7) since they are clearly not a "scan of a newspaper page or article".
Examples in Category:Fair use newspaper covers (if not now deleted):
- Image:Aun ibn Abdullah.jpeg
- Image:Aural-0342-kiss-tommy01.jpg
- Image:0,1445,252760,00.jpg
- Image:02j2andres-1475 o.jpg
- etc.
feydey 15:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's a correct interpretation of it. None of those images are correctly tagged. --Fastfission 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative weeklies?
From the article on Alternative weekly:
An alternative weekly is a type of weekly newspaper that eschews... (snip) The typical alternative weekly is tabloid-sized and printed on newsprint.
This would indicate that alt weeklies are indeed newspapers, and front page images added to such articles should be tagged with {{Newspapercover}}. However, sometimes the distinction is not clear, as some publications which could be described as altweeklies (often members of the Association Of Allternative Newsweeklies) intentionally brand themselves as "magazines". The tabloid format of altweeklies gives them a similar size to most magazines, but I would suggest that any publication printed on newsprint (and usually without staples or binding) meets the definition of a newspaper, regardless of branding, but I'm sure some would disagree. Also, not being able to hold a physical copy in my hands of far away publications mean I really don't know whether or not they have bindings or are printed on newsprint. I guess I'm just hoping someone could offer a bit of insight here. Since I've been adding front page images to many newspaper and altweekly articles, I'd like to know if I'm using the correct fair use rationale to comply with WP:FU, and perhaps should be using {{Magazinecover}} instead. Of course, if the two rationales are interchangable then this may all be just pointlessly semantic. Any thoughts? -Tobogganoggin talk 01:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
