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 page.
I have removed most of the deadlinks, and grouped together the public and private stations to reduce its height a bit. This template is bound to be useful, and can be organized better like {{American broadcast television}}. –
Pomte21:42, 7 May 2007 (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.
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 page.
SVG logos are, by definition, incompatible with our "fair use" provisions. Fair use requires that images be "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity" (see the
official policy on non-free images, 3b). SVG images are, by definition, high-fidelity and can be reproduced in high resolution. They automatically fail as "fair use" for the logo concerned. Asking people to keep the images small when using them is ludicrous - whatever size they appear at, they remain clickable to their infinite resolution, thus breaking the copyright-fair-use template on the image page which begins "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images..." (emphasis in the original). This template is enabling the use of high-fidelity, high-resolution copyright and trademarked artwork that Wikipedia cannot use and specifically forbids the use of. It must go. —
⋐⋑ REDVEЯS19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I brought that same point up when nominating several SVG logos for deletion, putting
this template warning on them, and I ended up being
WP:POINT-ed and that template was nominated for deletion. Smell a contradiction of policy here? In the meantime, I say keep this template. -- Denelson8301:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. We've been over this before, and the proper place to discuss the issue is
Wikipedia:Logos, not TFD. SVG images are not "infinite-resolution"; that's impossible, since an infinite-resolution image would require infinite storage space. They simply scale better. Although there has been much debate over the issue, there is not and never has been a consensus to get rid of SVG images. Furthermore, as to legality, the primary issue with logos is trademark law rather than copyright. And under trademark law, the issue is how the trademark is being used, not what resolution it's being rendered at. If an actual representative of the Foundation says that these logos violate fair use policy, or Foundation counsel says they could present copyright problems, then I am willing to accept that. But I feel that the attempts by ordinary users with no legal training to delete these images constitute disruptive
copyright paranoia. *** Crotalus ***01:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Whether it's a trademark or copyrighted, it's still non-free. All non-free images must comply with
Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, particularly 3(b): "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace." I fail to see how an SVG version of a non-free image complies with our policies. Pagrashtak05:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't believe that
WP:TFD is the appropriate venue to determine image use policy. This template should be removed if and when there is a consensus on
WP:LOGO and/or
WP:IUP that SVG-format logos are inappropriate, or if and when the Foundation says to stop using them. Anyway, if the template is deleted through this process, that does not give justification to delete every image that it is attached to. They mostly (if not all) have the standard {{Non-free logo}} template as well. *** Crotalus ***19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. Logos are copyrighted by their owners as
works for hire and thus our fair use policy applies. Trademark is just not an issue. We have been encouraged to use transparent .PNGs or .GIFs for logos where possible and this is working out well in my experience.
Daniel Case14:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, speedy close. This is not an appropriate discussion for Tfd. Tfd is not the place to discuss what sorts of images we can use as fair use. ---
RockMFR04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, image use policy is not hammered out on TfD, so if you want this deleted you need to have SVG logos banned first. Until such a time, this is a perfectly valid template. --
tjstrftalk08:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. SVG logos scale better, even when you're scaling down. To avoid copyright problems, you can simply avoid scaling up. --
King of♥♦♣♠04:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment There is a serious problem with this template. Only copyrighted images are supposed to be rendered in low-resolution. The reason is that there should be no devaluation of the copyright when used as
fair use. There is no such problem with
trademark fair use, which is mainly concerned with using the trademark in correct context and preventing the false appearance of endorsement by the trademark owner. If you read the Wikipedia
disclaimer, you will understand that content can be
free, but still subject to trademark restrictions. Therefore, if kept, this template must be changed to emphasize that it is copyright, not trademark issues, that demand that the image be in low resolution. (Unless we also start applying it to article text. Perhaps every occurence of the word "Hoover" should be in low resolution!)
nadav05:35, 16 May 2007 (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.
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 page.
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.
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 page.
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.
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 page.
I have removed most of the deadlinks, and grouped together the public and private stations to reduce its height a bit. This template is bound to be useful, and can be organized better like {{American broadcast television}}. –
Pomte21:42, 7 May 2007 (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.
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 page.
SVG logos are, by definition, incompatible with our "fair use" provisions. Fair use requires that images be "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity" (see the
official policy on non-free images, 3b). SVG images are, by definition, high-fidelity and can be reproduced in high resolution. They automatically fail as "fair use" for the logo concerned. Asking people to keep the images small when using them is ludicrous - whatever size they appear at, they remain clickable to their infinite resolution, thus breaking the copyright-fair-use template on the image page which begins "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images..." (emphasis in the original). This template is enabling the use of high-fidelity, high-resolution copyright and trademarked artwork that Wikipedia cannot use and specifically forbids the use of. It must go. —
⋐⋑ REDVEЯS19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I brought that same point up when nominating several SVG logos for deletion, putting
this template warning on them, and I ended up being
WP:POINT-ed and that template was nominated for deletion. Smell a contradiction of policy here? In the meantime, I say keep this template. -- Denelson8301:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. We've been over this before, and the proper place to discuss the issue is
Wikipedia:Logos, not TFD. SVG images are not "infinite-resolution"; that's impossible, since an infinite-resolution image would require infinite storage space. They simply scale better. Although there has been much debate over the issue, there is not and never has been a consensus to get rid of SVG images. Furthermore, as to legality, the primary issue with logos is trademark law rather than copyright. And under trademark law, the issue is how the trademark is being used, not what resolution it's being rendered at. If an actual representative of the Foundation says that these logos violate fair use policy, or Foundation counsel says they could present copyright problems, then I am willing to accept that. But I feel that the attempts by ordinary users with no legal training to delete these images constitute disruptive
copyright paranoia. *** Crotalus ***01:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Whether it's a trademark or copyrighted, it's still non-free. All non-free images must comply with
Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, particularly 3(b): "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace." I fail to see how an SVG version of a non-free image complies with our policies. Pagrashtak05:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't believe that
WP:TFD is the appropriate venue to determine image use policy. This template should be removed if and when there is a consensus on
WP:LOGO and/or
WP:IUP that SVG-format logos are inappropriate, or if and when the Foundation says to stop using them. Anyway, if the template is deleted through this process, that does not give justification to delete every image that it is attached to. They mostly (if not all) have the standard {{Non-free logo}} template as well. *** Crotalus ***19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. Logos are copyrighted by their owners as
works for hire and thus our fair use policy applies. Trademark is just not an issue. We have been encouraged to use transparent .PNGs or .GIFs for logos where possible and this is working out well in my experience.
Daniel Case14:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, speedy close. This is not an appropriate discussion for Tfd. Tfd is not the place to discuss what sorts of images we can use as fair use. ---
RockMFR04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, image use policy is not hammered out on TfD, so if you want this deleted you need to have SVG logos banned first. Until such a time, this is a perfectly valid template. --
tjstrftalk08:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. SVG logos scale better, even when you're scaling down. To avoid copyright problems, you can simply avoid scaling up. --
King of♥♦♣♠04:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment There is a serious problem with this template. Only copyrighted images are supposed to be rendered in low-resolution. The reason is that there should be no devaluation of the copyright when used as
fair use. There is no such problem with
trademark fair use, which is mainly concerned with using the trademark in correct context and preventing the false appearance of endorsement by the trademark owner. If you read the Wikipedia
disclaimer, you will understand that content can be
free, but still subject to trademark restrictions. Therefore, if kept, this template must be changed to emphasize that it is copyright, not trademark issues, that demand that the image be in low resolution. (Unless we also start applying it to article text. Perhaps every occurence of the word "Hoover" should be in low resolution!)
nadav05:35, 16 May 2007 (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.
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 page.
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.
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 page.
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.