Talk:Atari, Inc. (1993–present): Difference between revisions
David Levy (talk | contribs) m moved Talk:Atari, Inc. (Infogrames) to Talk:Atari, Inc. (Infogrames subsidiary) over redirect: Reverted move. That title incorrectly implies that Atari *is* Infogrames. In actuality, it is a subsidiary of Infogrames. |
→Back to the old-style fuji?: new section |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
This is an automated notice by [[User:FairuseBot|FairuseBot]]. For assistance on the image use policy, see [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]]. --23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC) |
This is an automated notice by [[User:FairuseBot|FairuseBot]]. For assistance on the image use policy, see [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]]. --23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Back to the old-style fuji? == |
|||
Atari Inc's website is using the original style Fuji logo. I'm not sure if this is due to (in)consistent branding, but should the entry here be edited to reflect this? [[User:Sslaxx|Sslaxx]] ([[User talk:Sslaxx|talk]]) 10:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:12, 28 November 2009
Image copyright problem with Image:Atari Logo.svg
The image Image:Atari Logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
#c-FairuseBot-2008-05-09T23:42:00.000Z-Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Atari_Logo.svg){kind=link}
Back to the old-style fuji?
Atari Inc's website is using the original style Fuji logo. I'm not sure if this is due to (in)consistent branding, but should the entry here be edited to reflect this? Sslaxx (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)