Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 27

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 result of the debate was deletion of {{Disputedtag}}, keep {{disputedpolicy}}. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC) "The status of this page is disputed". The usage of these templates is based on a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia policy and guidelines work, and how they are created. Specifically, they are used either when there's consensus for a policy or guideline but someone disagrees with that consensus (because if there wasn't a consensus, the page wouldn't be policy or guideline), or when someone believes that a page hasn't followed the "official process" of becoming policy or guideline (which is a vacuous truth since we don't have such a process). The vision of essay/guideline/policy as a "hierarchy" between which pages can be "promoted" is simply not how Wikipedia works. See also WP:POL. >Radiant< 07:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There are often edit wars over whether a page is guideline/policy/essay/concept or whatever (for instance, WP:IAR and WP:AFDC have both had tag-changes). It helps to have some interim tag to use while the dispute is resolved. --ais523 10:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are edit wars, but those are almost always the result of people not understanding how Wikipedia policy works or is created, and this template does nothing to alleviate that. IAR was declared policy by Jimbo, so there's no argument there; AFDC is a textbook example of how not to create a guideline. >Radiant< 10:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, WP:AFDC is a process, not policy, guidline, essay, or WikiProject. WP:DPR is at present untagged and catted only in Category:Wikipedia deletion, which is probably what's right for AFDC; in fact, I'll go and change it. Your comment above is not very persuasive; "there are edit wars, but they're the result of people disagreeing with me" would be a slightly different but equally unpersuasive argument. The problem here is that often all sides in an edit war think that the answer is obvious and that other participants are just don't understand policy/process/whatever (often, some of them will be right, but many of them may also be wrong); the tags are needed whilst the argument is ongoing. I don't think {{NPOV}} would be deleted on the basis that "POV-pushing is almost always the result of people not understanding the NPOV policy", so your argument doesn't convince me. --ais523 10:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Obviously, the way articles are written is entirely different from the way guidelines or policy are created. We have a host of quality-related tags for articles that could not be meaningfully applied to guidelines, and this is one of them. >Radiant< 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is helpful, in my opinion to tag policies, guidelines and essays that are disputed, or currently in dispute. Sometimes all looks serene and calm on the front page, and then when you go into the talk page, a raging storm of argument is uncovered. There needs to be a way to address this. Carcharoth 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Category:Wikipedia_rejected_proposals and Template:rejected - how does an essay, policy or guideline go from one end of the spectrum (fully working) to the other (rejected) without some intermediate stage like being tagged as disputed? Consensus changes over time, and there needs to be a way for policy change to take place (though not too fast). Carcharoth 12:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't. It goes from proposed either to guideline (if accepted), historical (if nobody cares and debate dies out) or rejected (if consensus disagrees). The difference between the latter two is somewhat vague; 'rejected' tends to mean some people insist on beating the dead horse. I know of no policy or guideline that became accepted, disputed and then rejected - we simply don't go by that bureaucracy. >Radiant< 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Though a disctinction should be made between proposals that are disputed and eventually rejected, and accepted proposals/essays/guidelines/policies that are later rejected (the community changes its mind). Carcharoth 12:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's {{rejected}} vs {{historical}}, I believe. I've got no idea how enforced this is. --ais523 13:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• See above. The difference between those two isn't really important, though. >Radiant< 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both but for different reasons. I say delete template:Disputedtag. This one only serves to make the existence of edit conflicts MORE disruptive in an article. The tag, whatever it is, already points to the talk page, and this just allows for a counterweapon and more edit disruption, bad idea. On the other hand, we should delete Template:Disputedpolicy because changes to policy pages should be made only with discussion: this encourages the use of this tag before discussion takes place. If the policy is disputed by one editor it's still policy. If policy really is disputed by many editors, it should maybe just become an essay directly. Mangojuice^talk 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Template:Disputedpolicy as I can see its usefulness when edit wars break out over policy and guideline pages, which I've seen happen a few times. I understand where mangojuice is comming from. Everything should occur only with discussion, but that's true for articles too. Yet everything is not as perfect as we'd like it to be and discourse and disputes comes up over guideline/policy page as well as articles. As for {{Disputedtag}}, that's almost a joke. I can just see this for {{NPOV}}: The disputed NPOV of the page is disputed! What if someone disputes the disputed status of the {{NPOV}} tag? The disputedtag should be deleted and the disputedpolicy kept. --Kevin_b_er 19:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both -- It's better to show the existence of a dispute over the tag or status of a policy or guideline with these templates than with an edit war or template:protected. John254 11:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Or we end up with edit wars between guideline tags and rejected policy tags. We nees "status disputed" templates. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both - didn't know "Disputedtag" till today, and couldn't say where its use is explained. This template seems more likely to be contraproductive than anything else.
  I think I already tried to get rid of the "Disputedpolicy" template some time ago, a month or so after it was created. As far as I remember there was few interest in keeping it then, as there was few interest in deleting it (basicly one person against another, so it was kept on a 50%-50% draw of two persons). But happily I can't remember it ever been actually used (here's a candidate maybe: [1]), so for the time being it equally doesn't "hurt" to keep it. It can be offered as an alternate "possibility" when people start posting dispute templates for article namespace in project namespace. The fact that it "exists" often deters enough not to use either type of "dispute" template in project namespace. --Francis Schonken 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is used: [2]. I'd be surprised if I was the only person who'd used this; it might have lead to an edit war if I'd simply removed the policy tag. --ais523 10:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both -- These tags should be retained to show that something is disputed. They should only be removed when at least 4 out of 5 people agree that the tags are not appropriate. This permits legitimate minority views to be recognized and helps maintain good dialog and consensus building. --Blue Tie 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  This is not the place to debate policy-making process, which is what you're doing. The Land 17:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm. I was not aware I was doing that. I thought that the wiki process involves a system like this where a user's thoughts were taken into account. In this particular case, I was not debating policy making process but rather the use of the tags. Where do you see me debating the policy making process? Or were you trying to minimize and denigrate my contribution to the process as you have done elsewhere? --Blue Tie 17:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  By proposing an 80% support threshold for a 'disputed policy' tag to be replaced by a 'policy' tag that is precisely what you are doing. Policy is determined by founding principle or by consensus; that is all we need to say. The 'disputed policy' tag would undermine that; the idea of a numerical threshold for its replacement would undermine it even further. Wikipedia is not a game of Nomic. The Land 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps, then, I was not clear. I was not proposing an 80% support threshold to "replace" the policy tag, but rather to "remove" the disputed tags (both policy and article) that are under discussion. I was not commenting at all on the placement of a policy tag, which I assumed was in place on the policy page. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify. Thus, my comment is focused on the tag itself and its useage not on the process for developing policy. However, in the interest of concensus, the disputed tag is particularly helpful in providing both the opportunity for feedback (that is, as I understand it, a critical element of consensus) and also provide impetus for people to resolve disputes. As far as the 80% figure that was just part of my opinion on the use of that tag. Going into details on that (defending myself against your accusations) would require a debate on policy process, which you have already declared to be off-limits. So, by the groundrules you have established, I am not permitted to respond. --Blue Tie 17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Template:Disputedpolicy, the purpose of which Radiant has inaccurately described. Its correct use is not to express disagreement with consensus, but to contest the claim that consensus (or a declaration from above) exists. The fact that it might be abused for the former purpose (just as any template can be misused) is not justification for deletion. Delete Template:Disputedtag, which seems entirely useless. —David Levy 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Disputedpolicy is a useful way for someone to bring up any gripe on a policy's talk page, and then slap this tag on it and claim that the policy doesn't have validity while disputed (regardless of the merit of their arguments). Take a look at the talk page of the very widely accepted WT:3RR. Now imagine each of those people complaining about it used this tag and disrupted the actual policy page over their failed attempts, rather than be restricted to the talk page. This tag is a haven for trolls, and has very little use besides. Disputedtag is just ludicrous, and while I might enjoy someone trying the tagging of a page ad infinitum with this tag, I don't think we should keep templates around for our twisted enjoyment. I can't imagine a productive use where it isn't either used to accomplish a fait accompli, or to troll. Dmcdevit·t 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, the intended purpose of {{disputedpolicy}} is not to express disagreement with a policy/guideline. It's to contest the claim that something is a policy or guideline. Like any dispute tag, this is subject to abuse, but that is not a valid reason to delete it. —David Levy 17:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That may be its intent, but it's not the way it's used. >Radiant< 18:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's how I've seen it used. I don't doubt that it also is abused in the manner that you describe, but most dispute-related templates are misused in one way or another. —David Levy 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both. We do not need these tags. Arguments about whether particular documents are policy, guidleine or essay are to be expected: however these tags do not help the problem, in fact they make it worse. They also open a whole world of wikilawyering, which some users seem to be rather keen ot get us into. WP:NOT a game of Nomic. The Land 17:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've witnessed several instances in which this tag was successfully used to halt edit wars between users claiming that a document was backed by consensus and users with legitimate arguments to the contrary. —David Levy 17:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please show us where? >Radiant< 18:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

An example that immediately comes to mind is Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. I was among those who believed that the guideline was backed by consensus, while others believed that consensus had never been established. Both sides agreed to use the {{disputedpolicy}} tag, thereby ending a major argument regarding how to tag the article while the greater issue was under discussion ({{guideline}}, {{proposed}}, {{rejected}}, et cetera). This also attracted additional users to the talk page, thereby aiding in the dispute resolution process. —David Levy 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep per ais523. Haukur 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Alaska Communities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused template. Docu 06:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - Unless somebody can find a use for it. If there is a use in the mainspace found for it, then consider this a Keep. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:UserWP Avril Lavigne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A strange template, which reads more like a userbox. Not currently in use by any editor. Created along with Wikipedia:WikiProject Avril Lavigne, which is also currently nominated for deletion. -- Longhair\^talk 07:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Give the WikiProject more than a week to get off the ground. Delete it if the project remains inactive for a more reasonable period of time or the author supports its deletion. Neil916 (Talk) 15:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Return later When the MFD for the wikiproject has cleared up. It's a bit unfair to delete a project's userbox unless the project is deleted. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional delete if the project is deleted, conditional keep or move to a subpage of the WikiProject if the project is kept. --ais523 08:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional delete or keep depending upon the decision regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Avril Lavigne; whatever happens to the project happens to the userbox. Badbilltucker 17:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:RTEp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a big unwieldy template called "Successful television programmes produced by Radio Telefís Éireann". Its really a matter of opinion what constitutes successful, and it looks a bit like an advert for RTE. This would quickly become unworkable if extended to other television companies. JW 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep - Seems useful, and it may be workable for other companies if the right editors are around. Note in the 'what links here' that the template is most certainly in use. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, I've trimmed the excess whitespace to make it less unwieldy, and changed the name to a less POV title. It seems like it could be a useful navbox. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep It's a useful way of grouping Irish programmes from the same genre together. Ian Cheese 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep On condition that it's changed to include all RTÉ programs with articles. - ^Рэд_хот 13:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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.

Speedy Kept no strong argument was put forth for its deletion, obvious consensus is to keep.  ALKIVAR™ 02:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Birth date and age (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A template just to add one's age is superfluous; the birth date is already listed there. Shannernanner 12:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I don't see how it isn't useful. It helps the math(s) challenged. - Dudesleeper 12:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Definitely very useful. Sloan21 12:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep modified version. Per the guideline WP:ASR, we don't want this in printed versions (as it'll get out of date too quickly), and mirrors won't understand it. {{age}} was kept at TfD twice, but some !voters expressed the opinion that it would be better if it were hidden when not on Wikipedia. I've changed it so that the 'age' portion is selfref'd out, so hopefully that will end any WP:ASR problems, and I see no other reason to delete it. --ais523 12:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, per ais523 What does it hurt? And it is self-updating. But it should be hidden when not at Wikipedia.--Esprit15d 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per ais523. It doesn't hurt anything and it's nice to see the age instead of having to do the math. Dismas|^(talk) 02:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Useful Template and is also important for famous person's birth date and age. Daniel5127 (Talk) 04:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. --WikiCats 08:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Might I point out that an infobox, in most cases, ideally should not have anything in it which is not in the article. If an item cannot be easily integrated into the article, it probably doesn't belong in the infobox either. Does "And John Doe is currently 53" belong in the body of an article? -Shannernanner 10:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per the general consensus here. It is useful. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- useful template. - Longhair\^talk 12:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, whats wrong with it? -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 21:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- useful template--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - several people have said it's "useful" but nobody has explained how. I see it as pointless and superfluous and achieves nothing but the overcrowding of an already potentially crowded infobox. It's also an insult to the intelligence of the average reader who is perfectly capable of calculating an age from the date of birth. Rossrs 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a commonly used, useful template. · XP · 19:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep per all keeps above. --Bob 22:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ais523. Guess what - almost half of adults cannot do that math in their heads. Risker 00:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Many can't read either, but we keep writing. That's sad, but an encyclopedia, especially one with the aspirations of Wikipedia, should be aiming considerably higher than the lowest common denominator. Rossrs 01:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:JarlaxleArtemis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is superseded by {{Sockpuppet|JarlaxleArtemis}} and {{SockpuppetCheckuser|JarlaxleArtemis}}, and is no longer transcluded anywhere. —Psychonaut 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with all of the comments
  

Cooldude 830

• Delete, redundant. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Unnecessary Template. Daniel5127 (Talk) 04:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as a redundant template, no need to keep it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. Chrisbrl88 06:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Denelson83/SVG registered trademark warning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a custom speedy deletion template in user space created to address fair use concerns in .svg images of copyrighted logos. While these concerns may be valid, this template prohibits discussion of individual cases by not notifying the image uploader or posting any notice at WP:IFD. Further, should a vandal or misinformed user apply this template to an inapplicable image, there wouldn't really be much possibility of recourse. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Its for the most part valid. Fair use images should not be scalable SVGs, as that would be infinite resolution. ("The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images") As an appeal the speedy deletion criteria I7, there is no IFD to be had, and the uploader should, yes, be informed. If someone's applying speedy delete templates improperly, administrator's should be able to recognize that. Templates cannot notify the uploader, that's the job of the person who places it. Kevin_b_er 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Criterion I7 suggests "forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader" (or 7 days prior to July 13, 2006), this grace period is kind of hard to maintain with a speedy delete template. At the very least the uploader should be given a chance to use the .svg to render a fair-use compliant .png version. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes they should. If the tag is being applied without warning the uploader, CSD I7 fails and the image shouldn't be speedy deleted. The issue is not so much with the template, but with how its being used, am I correct? The usage should be fixed, along with possibly the wording of it to remind about the 48 and 1 week requirements of I7, but not deleted. Also, its not in the template space. Kevin_b_er 19:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The uploader is warned that the image is tagged and is prompted to respond or contest if necessary. However this is a moot point since by the time the recipient reads the notice, the image would have already been deleted. Warning uploaders is not merely a courtesy, there are cases when the nominating party is in error, when these occur the process of deletion should not be short-circuited for convenience. There is, as you mentioned, also a problem of a speedy deletion tag being hosted in user space. Any user can create a deletion tag that explains their rationale, but is entirely subjective. For instance, what particular interpretation of US copyright law prohibits the fair use of .svg files rendered at low resolutions? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
        • The thing is, I am warning the uploaders of files that I tag with this template, such as here, and when I apply that tag to such an image, I will not be deleting it. Plus, what is keeping people from rendering SVG's of registered trademarks at much, much higher resolutions? Don't we have some kind of mechanism on MediaWiki that limits the maximum size of a PNG that can be generated from an SVG?

Also, this is the message I will leave on the talk page of a user who uploads such a file. If the template being debated for deletion here is indeed deleted, feel free to delete that message template as well.  Denelson83  21:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia does not release these trademark .svgs under a free license, there is no liability in the case someone else violates fair use provisions. As I undestand it, Wikipedia asserts fair use of these images only in the particular context of the relevant article. If, then, these .svgs are not rendered in high resolution in Wikipedia articles, then the fair use criteria are satisfied. In the event that someone else downloads the .svg file and scales it or uses it for libelous purposes, then Wikipedia cannot be held accountable, since these logos/trademarks are sourced to the copyright holder.

The main problem with the template is that I think it sets a dangerous precedent for creating very specialized tools to delete images at will. A bulk nomination to WP:IFD will do the same job while allowing room for error and discussion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is recognized. Therefore, I have taken Image:IBM logo.svg (another registered trademark) to IFD. --  Denelson83  21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. If the terms of this template are updated so that the user has a chance to change the image format, consider this a keep. This is a useful template, for the most part. Chrisbrl88 06:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And they have been updated. Just pass the filename as a parameter to the template, and presto! There you go. --  Denelson83  00:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this template is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the nature of logos, copyright, and trademark law. We prefer low resolution for fair use of an image because it takes away less from the commercial potential of the original image. However, the resolution of our copy of a corporate logo does not affect their ability to use the logo, nor does it violate the copyright on their rendition because it was created as an original SVG by a wikipedian. The issue of trademark is entirely independent of the resolution of the image, and has to do with the intent of its use. We use logos to make it easier to identify companies, not to pretend to be them or have their endorsement, regardless of whether we use SVG or not, so we're not violating their trademark. Until someone can show me a consensus or expert opinion supporting the conclusion assumed by this template, it should not exist. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And then what if several people decide to take the SVG from Wikipedia and use it for their own devious purposes? The trademark holder will ask them where they got the SVG from, they'll say Wikipedia, and then the trademark holder will want us to remove access to the SVG. --  Denelson83  23:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's paranoia and completely independent of what the law on the matter is. Trademark law depends on how it is being used. If we are using it properly, we are in no way in the wrong to use it, regardless of how others use it improperly. We don't have a downstream responsibility for how our users use our data; hence the preclusions on censorship and warning labels. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, logos are unencyclopedic and shouldn't be used anyway; having them in SVG format isn't just a bad idea, it's against the law. Angr 09:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that statement misses the point a little bit. That message says nothing about logos being unencyclopedic; it simply asserts that registered trademarks are only under fair use if their resolution is low and limited. With SVG's, there is no limit. --  Denelson83  19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, but this nomination is in the wrong place and belongs at MFD. Low-resolution use of copyrighted images is a Wikipedia policy, not a US law. The point of the policy is that it helps us to keep in line with fair use law - we are going out of our way to avoid our fair use having an impact on the value someone else's work. We're trying to be a free encyclopedia, not a clearing house for copyrighted images. If you have a wallpaper-sized screenshot from a movie, you're stepping onto someone else's turf. Similarly, a full-sized scan of a Time magazine cover means that I can now just download the image from Wikipedia and don't have to buy the magazines. But we're not talking about posters. We're talking about logos. The use of an SVG logo isn't going to have an impact on anyone's market value. SVG graphics make more sense. To argue about resolution with them is splitting hairs. They aren't infinite resolution - they have no resolution. It's like saying that Virginia Tech has won infinitely times as many football games as Wikipedia this year. Well, Wikipedia doesn't play football. The comparison doesn't make sense. BigDT 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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 page.