Talk:Women's United Soccer Association

Latest comment: 16 years ago by Kevinwparker in topic Moving and merging Relaunch section

Fair use rationale for Image:WUSA.gif edit

 

Image:WUSA.gif 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) 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Moving and merging Relaunch section edit

I just created an article for Women's Professional Soccer. Since the WUSA name won't be used and the relaunch section is essentially about the launch of WPS rather than WUSA's relaunch, it makes sense to move it over to the new article. I'm open to suggestions, but unless there's an objection, I can go ahead and make the move --Mosmof (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Make the move the relaunch is irrevelat to the WUSA. The new league is going to be called the WPS. KitHutch (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I removed the relaunch section reflexively yesterday evening, not realizing that this discussion existed, but there seems to be agreement that this was an appropriate move. Kevinwparker (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply