Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 8 June 10 >

June 9 edit

Template:Trixter edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trixter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

fails WP:NENAN The Banner talk 12:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, has enough core links. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only 4 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough useful links for navigation (I only count 4 core links) -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2012-13 CHL season statistics edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012-13 CHL season statistics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and outdated template. Was only ever transcluded on one page. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 17:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mrv edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisting on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 22. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mrv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MRVdiscuss (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mid-Jordan Line edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfied Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mid-Jordan Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, except on lists of unused templates. Was originally for a rail line that was under construction at the time, but that line is now part of a larger route. Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 07:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind: Has been moved to user namespace. –Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 17:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:INOJ edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:INOJ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

fails WP:NENAN The Banner talk 09:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough relevant links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has enough relevant links. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough useful links for navigation. There are 4 core links aside from the main article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, I no longer object to having this deleted. my opinion is not based on any essay, but the connection with the Time after Time cover, and the Ring my Bell cover are weak. there have been so many covers of these songs that we would never put this navbox at the foot of those articles. doing so would open up a can of worms. so, without those, the number of core links is severely diminished. Frietjes (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:All Shall Perish edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All Shall Perish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN The Banner talk 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough relevant links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has enough relevant links. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough useful links for navigation. There are only 4 core links aside from the main article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, I no longer object to having this deleted. my opinion is not based on any essay, but that the albums are properly connected through the succession links in the chronology part of the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Like edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus here, but feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Like (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was discussed many times before but with neglecting the fact the "Like" button is a service mark registered by Facebook Inc. Don't start the "like / don't like" discussion again. This deletion discussion is about whether we are violating Facebook's copyrights! Patrick87 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow this link and search for the serial number "85020068" to see the service marks entry at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. --Patrick87 (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could ask Facebook directly whether they have problem with this template or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Facebook's trademark application was published for public comment on April 17, 2012. Subsequently, and after several extensions of time to file, counsel for TiVo filed an action to oppose Facebook's application for a service mark that includes the thumb's up graphic in combination with the word "like." That action is still listed as pending before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and no final decision on the service mark application's status has been made. Please see the U.S Patent and Trademark Office's webpage here for more detailed information regarding the trademark application and opposition; please see the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's website here for the present pending status of the opposition filing. Please note that the USPTO has not yet granted a registration number to Facebook's service mark application. Bottom line: this TfD, based solely on the USPTO's grant of the service mark to Facebook, is premature. Furthermore, if and when the TTAB rules in Facebook's favor, any copyright, trademark, or service mark infringement problem can be eliminated simply by deleting the work "like" from the thumb's up graphic. We can cross that bridge if any when the USPTO grants final approval to Facebook's service mark application. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tivo and Facebook settled their dispute and on May 28th the TTAB granted TiVo's request to suspend the TiVo proceeding. See here. But I don't know enough about trademarks or copyrights, which I thought were different (?), to comment on this further. AgnosticAphid talk 19:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AA, thank you for your input. My reading of the linked filing is not that the opposition case has been "settled" between the parties, but that TiVo requested that the proceedings be suspended, with the TTAB granting that request and suspending the case until June 27, 2013, at which time the case will automatically resume. Did you see another source document indicating that the parties have actually settled this? I'm a lawyer, but I am not an intellectual property (IP) specialist by any means. I am, however, capable of reading filings, contracts and settlement agreements. Am I missing something obvious here? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand we'll be infringing copyright whichever party wins with the thumb up symbol, don't we? --Patrick87 (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Patrick, we would only be infringing Facebook's trade mark rights, not copyright, if Facebook wins and is granted final registration approval by the USPTO. As you know, Wikipedia treats copyright and trademarks differently, but I still think it would be a very bad idea to be plastering a registered trademark all over Wikipedia. I do not believe TiVo's thumb's up includes the word "like," and the thumb's up graphic we are using is different from TiVo's. Also, if Facebook wins, its service mark will include the thumb's up and the word; without both the USPTO probably would have already rejected Facebook's application as being insufficiently unique. (The thumb's up is a common symbol throughout much of the world, and good luck copyrighting or trademarking the single word "like" by itself.) If Facebook wins, I believe the simple cure for our purposes is deleting the word "like" from the template and continuing to use the thumb's up graphic by itself. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, I thought trademarks were a form of copyright, too (I'm, not a lawyer as you might have noticed). Either way we'd be using somebody else's trademark while not respecting Wikipedia's trademark policies. Even if it might be OK legally, I'd refrain from using any trademarks if there is no necessity to do so (and a – multiply disputed – community discussion template surely isn't necessary). --Patrick87 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is the fifth TfD for this template in two years. The argument regarding WP:NOTFACEBOOK has been advanced on no fewer than three previous TfDs and has been rejected by consensus on each occasion because NOTFACEBOOK simply says that "Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook or Twitter. You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not . . . personal web pages . . . file storage areas . . . dating services . . . [or] memorials." It says absolutely nothing about whimsical templates that are used only in talk space, and not article space. Most experienced editors will recognize the existence of a multiplicity of barn stars, user boxes and other templates that do nothing but foster editor-to-editor communication. In light of what NOTFACEBOOK actually says, I suggest we focus on the nominating editor's rationale of trademark/service mark issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've stated views previously on this, and don't intend to get directly involved this time... partly because I'm too busy with real life. However, I thought it worth noting commons:File talk:Facebook like thumb.png#Trademark violation, and also the fact that image deletion discussions over there seem not to have been closed with the same expectation for uninvolved closers which is expected here on en-wp. -- Trevj (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate, one way or another. I realise it has already many tranclusions, so deletion might be unfeasible/undesirable. If this template is not deleted, I would like its code to be replaced with something which looks more plain, or even ugly, like {{{1|I like it.}}} and then protected. I would also ask that Template:+1 and Template:+n be added to the nomination, since concerns about this template will mostly apply to them as well. My reasons are:
    • While WP:NOTFACEBOOK does not talk about whimsical templates, the spirit of a rule shall trump the letter of it. I interpret WP:NOTFACEBOOK as a reminder that every activity here should ultimately lead to improving content in the article namespace. Templates like this one send the wrong message, they suggest that since "likes" are allowed, then maybe Wikipedia is similar to Facebook in other respects as well. We already have people forgetting what this place is for, and while this template might not be the only, or even a major cause, it certainly does not help.
    • The aforementioned potential legal problems. This unfunny silliness is just not worth the trouble.
    • This template is basically product placement for Facebook. Wikipedia should not advertise for anyone, no matter if they already are #1 in traffic rankings.
I might be the most minor of minorities on this, but… just my 0.02 EUR. Keφr 16:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I propose the deletion of the template and icon, if it helps to find a consensus, I could also support Kephir's proposal to deprecate the template by changing it into something text-only. But even if the template would no longer use the Facebook icon and we would not delete the Facebook icon, the licensing terms of the icon need to be revised. The file is clearly sourced from Facebook, and not the "own work" of uploader Commons:User:Enoc vt. Also, designing an icon like this is clearly above the threshold of originality and far beyond "simple geometry". (Anyone, who has tried to design icons like this will know how difficult it is to create something that is aesthetically pleasing, transports a clear message, helps build some corporate identity, is easily recognizable, and scales down to very low resolutions without too much losses.) The icon is therefore copyrighted (in addition to be a trade or service mark) and clearly not in the public domain, as the license currently states. This problem needs to be addressed at Commons, but until this happens we should simply block the local usage of the file in the English Wikipedia. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not convinced by the deletion nomination. My feeling is that the world has no shortage of lawyers and that if there's an actual legal issue, one of them will say so (formally).

    Procedurally, generally it's expected that a fifth deletion nomination will address the points raised in the previous four deletion nominations. And generally it's expected that the page creator and other significant contributors to the page will be notified of a deletion discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the one that has to argue with the lawyers if they should really decide to pop up, so these kinds of statements come easy. Why risk any legal issues if they can be avoided without any notable effort?
I left out any previous arguments on purpose (this would have led nowhere). Sorry for not having notified the page creator, I actually forgot that. --Patrick87 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In both this discussion and in the previous discussions, I can't help but get the feeling that there's little reason in policy to delete this template. It seems that most users simply don't   Like the template. That's perfectly fine (understandable, even), but that in and of itself doesn't seem like a good reason to delete the template. It seems like a good reason to not personally use the template. That said, the novelty of this template has worn off a bit. Perhaps it's time for a redesign. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The image used in this template was sourced by Commons to Facebook itself, which you can see if you read through the discussion on Commons here, which includes the comments I excerpted below. I'm not sure if that means that someone from facebook uploaded it or someone from commons copied it from a facebook page. The latter seems substantially more problematic than the former. edited comment to say sourced to rather than uploaded from facebook. Sorry I misunderstood. AgnosticAphid talk 16:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...Delete The image is currently sourced to fdcdn.net which is owned by Facebook, consequently the description of this icon is misleading and should, perhaps, read "Facebook thumb" rather than "Facebook like thumb" and it is clear that this was not a separate creation by anyone apart from a web designer employed by Facebook....--Fæ (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No one debated the fact that it's sourced to Facebook itself. No one debated that someone from Facebook probably made it.... Killiondude (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you even read the discussion? It's not necessarily the image on it's own that is trademarked, but possibly the image plus the wordmark (as filed by Facebook). I would have expected a little more attention of an administrator, especially if participating in a deletion discussion and even more since it is about possible copyright violation. Instead you appear more like some "Facebook Fanboy" that already starts undermining the integrity of deletion discussion with inappropriate community templates (that's exactly why we should have deleted it in the first place!). --Patrick87 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick, if I might make a gentle suggestion that you tone down your sarcasm and otherwise deprecatory comments regarding other editors' rationales in this discussion . . . You opened this TfD based on a factually inaccurate presumption regarding the present legal status of Facebook's service mark application, and specifically limited your rationale to that factually inaccurate premise. Now, of course, we are going down the well-worn path of several "I don't like it" rationales, including a misinterpretation of NOTFACEBOOK, which have been previously considered and rejected four times in the last 23 months. Personally, I don't think mocking other editors' rationales helps your case, especially when your nomination started from a position of factual inaccuracy. Let's do our best to discuss this TfD in a manner consistent with WP:CIVIL, please. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least deprecate. Whatever about the legal issues, this sort of template is a nuisance, because it encourages editors to post this distraction to discussion pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Like (sorry - despite what I said above, I couldn't resist the irony)-- Trevj (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep This was nominated 4 times. The rationale here is legal exposure/copyright infringement, which is not something that's being brought up the first time either. The template in question has been used a lot, not to mention it is being used on a couple of other projects besides en.wp. With that said, the template does not have pervasive usage on any wiki, or is being used in any official capacity - more times than not, people use it ironically to mock the "like" button on FB - to that extent, it is the antithesis of notfacebook argument. As far as legal exposures go, I think this would be over-reacting, no one is claiming copyright, an argument can be made that "like" button on facebook has become a cultural mainstay for an entire generation that its usage and reference supersedes any copyright claim originating out of facebook, I believe there is some leeway with freedom of speech to make references to certain brands or features which occupy such a high level of public view - this isn't a clear case of infringement. If there is any semblance of threat perceived by facebook's army of lawyers, they would contact the legal department, and this can be deleted. Either way, this is the fifth discussion in 2 years about this template, there has to be something better to do than argue about the same template over and over again. Considering its impact and influence, this is really not something that deserves this much attention and time. Theo10011 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let people have their fun; it's doing no harm. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again we're drifting into the wrong direction with needless (and inappropriate) comments that obfuscate what really should have been discussed here. This is not fun. This is not about whether we personally like the template or not. This is about copyright considerations! 100 "keep because I like it" answers are worth nothing if it turns out that we are violating copyright. I hope the admin doing the final decision accounts for this and does not headlessly join the "I like it" team. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick, as I have already explained above, and demonstrated with links to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office websites above, there is no "copyright" issue here. It is important to get the terminology correct; please take a minute and review the linked Wikipedia articles regarding copyright and service marks. Facebook has never filed a copyright registration application; it filed a service mark application. That service mark application was published for public comment last year, and the application was subsequently contested by TiVo and that contest remains pending. Facebook's service mark application has not been granted; the service mark is not registered -- please note that there is no "registration number."
For the most part, it is not the "keep" votes that have wandered off your discussion of the USPTO registration application. Most of the "delete"/"deprecate" !votes have raised other questions, all of which have been raised and rejected in four previous TfDs regarding this template. Please don't blame the "keep" voters when they are simply responding to the "I don't like it arguments" raised by other "delete" !voters. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as I have have already explained above I'm not a lawyer so it might happen that I use the wrong terminology. If even a lawyer like you needs a whole paragraph to correctly describe the issue we might have here, I take the shortcut and name it "copyright violation". You can tell me if there is a phrase for the illegal use of trademarks, then I'll use this in the future.
As to the "keep" voters blaming you're accusing me off: I blamed the people that didn't even try to respond in regard of the legal issues that might exist but answered with "I like it so keep it" right away. I'd answer the same way to people just commenting "I don't like it so delete it". --Patrick87 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the more facile arguments I've seen. You admit that you are not a lawyer, then a lawyer is actually describing that there is no legal issue here and your response is - "tl;dr - I'll call it copyright violation because it's taking even you more than 140 characters or whatever self-imposed limit you have, to explain..." It takes lesser words to accuse someone like "thief", "liar", and longer to explain and offer third party sources to the contrary. Your entire argument above is, if you can't fit it in one line than I don't have to listen to it, and I'll continue my objections against an expert opinion and third party sources. From the response above, it seems that perhaps you know the least bit about copyright laws.
As pointed out, there is no legal issue for "keep" voters to defend. They have as much right to ignore your contentious concern as you do to ignore the lawyer above saying that your concern is baseless. You can ignore the lawyer and keep calling it copyright violation, but others apparently can't ignore your opinion and just vote. Theo10011 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how we're cycling. The whole thing you warm up here was part of Dirtlawyer1's first comment and my replies to it. We came to the conclusion that Facebook might not own the trademark yet (since it is checked whether another corporation already owns it!). When the other corporation wins (improbable) we couldn't use any thumb symbol at all! If Facebook wins we'll be "violating their trademark" (this already sounds wrong but probably it's better to sound wrong than to be accused of being wrong *sigh*)! Only in the (improbable) case no trademarks is accepted at all, we would be fine legally (and only then you lucky "keep" voters would have based your opinions on solid ground). --Patrick87 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer1 wrote: "[...] as I have already explained above, and demonstrated with links to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office websites above, there is no "copyright" issue here. It is important to get the terminology correct; please take a minute and review the linked Wikipedia articles regarding copyright and service marks. Facebook has never filed a copyright registration application; it filed a service mark application."
Ehem, Facebook never filed a copyright registration because copyrights do not need to be filed in countries who have adopted the Berne Convention (the USA was slow to sign the Convention, but they did so in 1988). Significantly different from trade marks, copyrights come into existance automatically simply by the act of creation of something above the threshold of originality. They do not need to be filed or declared anywhere (as was needed earlier), they exist and are (by default) owned by the person who created it. (In some countries, f.e. in the USA, copyrights can be transferred to other people/legal entities, while in other countries, f.e. Germany, only usage rights can be transferred (for example to the company a designer works for), while the copyright itself is impossible to transfer, even if the owner would want to). If you ever have tried to create some corporate logo like this one you know that as easy as it may look at first glance and to "normal users" (actually, being easily recognizable is the goal), this icon is not some simple geometric shape (which may not be copyrightable), but is clearly non-trivial in various aspects (see my other comment above). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@MatthiasPaul, in order to have copyright, a work must be of sufficient originality, and the copyright holder must be its creator (or the transferee of its creator). In this case, a tiny thumb's up graphic (a nearly universal symbol in the Western world), combined with the English language word "like," is probably of insufficient originality and creative content to be copyrightable. Hence, why Facebook filed a service mark registration application, and not a copyright registration application. If Facebook's intellectual property attorneys thought they had a strong case for copyright, you can bet your last dollar that they would have also filed a copyright registration application with the USPTO, too. They did not, and they chose to file only a service mark registration application, one which is now being actively disputed by another corporate user of a similar thumb's up icon. (Contrary to what Patrick has misrepresented elsewhere in this discussion, TiVo does not claim service mark rights in the icon; they merely dispute Facebook's right to claim exclusive rights to similar icons.) I might also add that there are serious problems with Facebook's service mark application, not least of which are the multiple instances of the use of similar (thumb's up with "like") icons by TiVo, The Washington Post, Yahoo and numerous others who continue to use similar icons on their websites. These are the very valid reasons why Facebook's service mark application, and TiVo's challenge, are now in front of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. As the several opponents of this template have done in past discussions, they have constructed a tissue-paper argument based on incorrect facts, incomplete information, innuendo and conjecture. I might be inclined to at least give your argument the benefit of the doubt if you could show even a single instance where Facebook has attempted to claim copyright in this or similar icons, but you can't for the simple reason that Facebook has not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to some of the criticism above, my Keep vote was not simply an "I like it" vote as was implied. By saying the template does no harm, I mean that I do not believe that it is a copyright violation as the nominator claims. Also, I should note that I never said that I like the template. I personally think it's silly, and I hope it will be phased out by the new Echo "Thanks" notifications, but that doesn't mean I should vote to delete it. I don't have a problem with other people having a little fun or inserting a little humor now and then, and just because I think it's silly doesn't mean I should vote to delete it. Anyway, all that aside, my keep vote is based on the grounds that it is not a copyright violation and that the nominator's rationale is invalid. (Perhaps I should have just said "Per Dirtlawyer" or something like that to save time.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to Patrick after re-listing)- I really don't care about this silly template as much, and I'm losing my interest in following this discussion all together. But I should point out to Patrick I was replying to his earlier characterization of Dirtlawyer's reasoning, the earlier discussion which I did read, was separate from my point. Second, there is a distinction there between trademark and service mark - one being for goods mostly and the other being for services. Service marks aren't generally recognized as much outside the US. Dirtlawyer pointed out that the service mark was contested by another company upon filing. As it stands, no company owns that right to call the like button truly there, even less to make a legal claim based on it. Your advise here is mostly precautionary, to delete when they win and they register and if they complain - those are giant leaps that can take a long time or not happen at all. There is a higher probability that someone will trademark 'template' or one of the thousands of other words we use in context of Wikipedia. Currently, renaming or deleting 'template' everywhere has the same legal standing as 'like' - neither is registered, and there is a court case pending. If we take your precautionary point-of-view we should be deleting half of en.wp based on what knee-jerk reactions that someone owns a trademark similar to an English noun or verb used here. There are probably thousands of such cases already, unless a claim is made or the company in question exercises their right, we shouldn't jump the gun. Anyway, I don't wanna argue this any further. My point is there for you and others to consider, if they feel this should be still opposed - then go ahead. I don't care much either way. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we should be rather precautionary here. If we made it to policy to allow such possible copyright/trademark/whatever infringements, because we can wait until "they win and they register and if they complain" we'll end up with many of those becoming real copyright/trademark/whatever infringements. And then we'll have a problem. We should keep very strictly to any copyright/licensing/trademark rules, to not end up with tons of infringements.
Regarding your second point: No, it's impossible for somebody to trademark the word "template". And even if there was a trademark involving templates like they are found in Wikipedia (ore every other element that is fixed part of Wikipedia) there was clear evidence it was used on Wikipedia first, therefore we'll be still allowed to use it. That's not the case with the "like" service mark, since we clearly copied that from Facebook. --Patrick87 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I consider anything, that helps stopping our unauthorized use of Facebook's property and that helps to stop further resources being wasted on dealing directly or indirectly with this silly template and icon, as a good thing. Much time, energy and good faith of editors has already been spent on this, and it is likely (absolutely no pun intended) that (donation) money will have to be spend by the WMF in legal matters if we don't stop using Facebook's icon.
I mean, how absurd is this? How can people even start thinking that it would be okay to copy a commercial and proprietary logo from Facebook's server, upload it at Commons under a fake public domain license, build a template around it emulating the visual appearance of the original Facebook logo, and get away with it (or, perhaps already knowing that they won't, at least use it until Facebook becomes aware of it and their legal department knocks on the WMF's door)? Even a basic understanding of international copyright and trade laws should make it obvious that this is not going to work smoothly. Some people even stated that Facebook might perhaps endorse or at least tolerate our usage of their icon here. This is not going to happen either. Facebook's terms are very clear about how they allow it to be used and how not - and what we do with it here is explicitly excluded. As a corporation they are bound to act against any form of violation of what could negatively affect their brand, unauthorized usage of icons certainly included. If they would not act on it, they would weaken their brand and if they allow others to use it as well for unintended purposes, they would risk it to become a common-place item which would loose its value for them and might be challenged by others in the end. Even if they would consider our usage here as "harmless in itself", it is not harmless at all in "corporate thinking".
Also, it is not harmless for us. This template has already proven to be disruptive to our project to build an encyclopedia directly (by influencing our own communication style negatively) and indirectly (by moving the focus of discussion on meta-issues like these deletion-discussions instead of keeping it on improving the encyclopedia). This is not Facebook (the spirit of WP:NOTFACEBOOK) or another "cool forum" to hang around, but a project to create an online encyclopedia. Anything that distracts us from this goal does not belong here. Except for being the personal "fun" of some users (at the expense of annoying other editors), this template does not serve any actual purpose in our Wikipedia culture, therefore it can be deleted safely. In my opinion, it should have been deleted years ago, but per WP:EFFORT this should not keep us from doing it now.
In regard to compromises: As can be seen in the various past debates, there have been several very reasonable attempts to find compromises (f.e. Template talk:Like#Trademark_violation) by replacing Facebook's property with an icon of our own design, so that the functionality of the template would continue to be offered for those who, for some odd reasons, want to use it, while at the same time we would no longer violate Facebook's usage terms (https://www.facebookbrand.com/dos-donts), however, these attempts were always reverted by certain editors after being implemented. While these editors were unable (or unwilling) to answer any of several key questions raised in the discussion, they still insisted on the usage of the Facebook logo and nothing else. Since a compromise was impossible, apparently the only way to clear Wikipedia from this misuse of another party's property is to delete the template with or without the Facebook icon. While I propose the complete deletion to put a firm end to this story, I would also support a compromise in form of a reduced text-only variant of the template. This would have the desired effect of making the template unattractive to those who confuse Wikipedia with Facebook, but at the same time ensure that nothing gets broken.
While the legal status of the icon may not be completely clear in the USA at present, it is in other countries. And one more thing is clear as well: It is not us who owns the logo, and prominent usage in a template like this is not covered by the fair use clause at all. Also, we have to take into account that Wikipedia is an international project, and we unnecessarily expose WP mirror sites in other countries to a potential legal threat even now. While apparently so far they do not in the US, Facebook is already acting against various forms of misuse of their icons and names in Europe (in one of the past discussions I gave some pointers to incidents in Germany).
The very fact that this template and icons have been nominated for deletion several times already is an indicator that in the view of many editors, there's something wrong with it. The fact, that it wasn't deleted so far does not defeat this, not only because some of the past discussions were closed prematurely ([1]) and by an admin who was involved in the discussion himself, who closed it based on his personal opinion ignoring anything else what was discussed, and who never backed up his statements with any kind of proof, although he was asked many times: "Kept: Too simple to be eligible for copyright, also a case of prior art (Facebook didn't design the thumb nor the hand). --Denniss (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)" or "Kept no new arguments of value have been brought up. --Denniss (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)".
FYI. When someone recently attempted to establish this template in the German Wikipedia, it was swifty deleted: [2]. Arguments brought forward over there were: Faked proprietary icon. Toy stuff. We don't need this. We are not Facebook. Highly misleading. Disruptive. Potential source for avoidable and unnecessary conflicts.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the German Wikipedia the wiki that bans color in user signatures? It seems unsurprising that they'd be anti-{{like}}. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. So? Seeing that we are having a fifth formal deletion discussion about this template (and there were a few others not brought to TFD) seems to indicate that they were right at least about the last point. What is the actual purpose of this template — is it to make Wikipedians feel at ease and relaxed by introducing some light-heartedness? The fact that we are having yet another discussion about it on this very page shows that it failed. Keφr 06:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC) [edited 10:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
(Off-topic: I don't think so. Perhaps you are mixing this up with the fact that the German version of WP:SIGNATURE#Appearance_and_color contains information, how to edit the CSS to enforce all signatures to be shown in default colors ([3]). BTW. The German WP is the second-oldest and -largest WP. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
According to Google Translate: "Links in the article namespace, advertising, images, color or other design of the font or the like are not allowed in signatures. External links and frames and color scheme of the background are not allowed in signatures." (Original: "Links in den Artikelnamensraum, Werbung, Bilder, farbliche oder sonstige Gestaltung der Schrift oder Ähnliches sind in Signaturen nicht erwünscht.") This is a direct quote from w:de:Hilfe:Signatur#Hinweise zur Gestaltung der Signatur.
I agree that this is mostly off-topic and I understand that the German Wikipedia is quite old. There's a broader point about different wikis having different cultures and different norms. Yes, the Germans quickly deleted a similar template, but that's hardly surprising given the context, I think.
The rest of your points are reasonable and you make a passionate (perhaps even compelling) case for deletion, but I very much doubt that this discussion will result in anything other than "no consensus." --MZMcBride (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Off-topic: Thanks for the pointer regarding the signature colors in the German WP - somehow I missed that even though it's on the same page. ;-) Sounds reasonable to me.)
Regarding the result of the discussion, given that you proposed a modification of the template to something text-only as well, there are already three of us who think that a text-only template could be an alternative to the proposed deletion of the template. Perhaps that's how to achieve consensus? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm unconvinced by the nom that this has any legal issues (per Dirtylawyer's informative posts). On principle, I don't think this should be deleted but a redesign that would make more people comfortable would probably be fine. Also, it's somewhat funny that the origin of the symbol comes up in these debates. Can't anyone look at file pages for source (and edit history) info? Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:TFDAI states that the result of such discussions is usually either Delete or Keep. However, it may be worth noting that Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Completed discussions includes a number of Merge outcomes. If the template is to be redesigned (as suggested above) that is likely to lessen its indivudality - if plagiarising a logo from elsewhere really counts towards such individuality. Therefore, a redesigned template may be considered redundant (depending on the nature of the redesign), as mentioned in a previous discussion. -- Trevj (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_9&oldid=1142562783"