Template talk:Non-free logo

message: Greetings.
I'd like to propose the following changes to this template. The result of these changes can be seen in this template's sandbox here:
Changes:
# Upgraded emblems: I suggest that the old simple copyrighted sign and the old simple trademark signs to be replaced with NotCommons-emblem-registered-trademark.svg and NotCommons-emblem-copyrighted.svg. 
# Improve "To the uploader" section.
I believe these changes to be non-breaking improvements. If there is any problem or suggestion, please let me know.
Fleet Command (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my compliments for your swift reponse, MSGJ. Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from FleetCommand, 22 April 2010 

message: I think it may be a good idea to change the entire code to what appears below.
Note, the code may look like one giant line here, but it appears organized when you view the source.


Category:Non-free logos



Future results:
When 
When 
The reason...it's possibly redundant for some users to find "Please provide a rationale" when one is already provided.
mechamind90 06:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Polite request: could you please make use of this template's /sandbox and /testcases pages? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  at present - please test in sandbox and re-request. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hide template's rationale statement when rationale is already provided. 

message: The ABC-CLIO logo that you're using is outdated.  Logo was updated in 2008, please check the website at www.abc-clio.com for an updated logo.  
Thank you
Rosariot (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: - this has no relevance to this template. If a non-free logo is out of date in an article, simply upload the new logo (with the appropriate fair-use rationale) and tag the old one for deletion. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 23:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Rosariot, 19 January 2011 

message: I have seen places where this template is used, along with a fair use rationale including text such as "It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods." followed by . Surely these two are mutually exclusive? Can someone run a bot to find out how many fair use images are uploaded in SVG format, and how many have the convert to SVG template affixed? — Nicholas (reply) @ 09:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutually Exclusive with Template:SVG ? 

message: Delink the images (add "|link=" to both image entries). — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Both images are licensed under the GPL, which requires that the notice that the work is covered by the GPL be attached, which is done by linking the image to the image description page.  Anomie⚔ 02:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delink images 

message: Hello,
I represent Bupa (graeme.cole@bupa.com)
We've a new logo for Bupa, which is located here: http://www.bupa.com/media/349573/bupa-logo-square-digital-cyan_jpg.jpeg 
It can be viewed on the homepage at http://www.bupa.com
 
Could I request it is updated please. 
Many thanks, Graeme
Graemebupa (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This page is for discussion and requests about Template:Non-free logo. To request that any particular logo be updated, please make the request at the talk page for the article using the logo or the talk page for the logo file itself. Anomie⚔ 16:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bupa Logo Edit request on 2 April 2012 

message: This is not a biggie but the template is used on user talk pages as well as other namespaces where it does not belong.  It clutters up :Category:Non-free logos (I have now tidied out a stack of these instances). Can the template be edited so that it throws up n error is used on pages that are not in file namespace? Or at least prevent it from showing up in :Category:Non-free logos. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be transcluded anywhere that is not a File: page. If you find it being transcluded in any other namespace, either remove it or turn it into a link using , i.e . --Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I have been doing. Well I have actually be using <no wiki></no wiki>. It will be an ongoing problem so code should be added as a solution. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevent usage in some namespaces 

message: As far as I can tell, the change to this template made by SchuminWeb on November 19 was never discussed, and thus there was no consensus for it established.  This makes it a Bold edit.  I would like to take the next step in WP:BRD and Revert it, but I cannot, since I am not an admin.  Therefore I request that an admin revert SchuminWeb's edit of November 19.  Thanks.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comment at Template talk:Non-free video game cover#Edit request on 17 December 2012. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. See discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb#Changes in the wording of "Non-free" templates. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 17 December 2012 

message: Hello - I would like to make a request to edit the Logo currently used on the Coats PLC page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coats_logo.svg
The logo is inaccurate and the source web address no longer exists. See www.coats.com instead
Thanks 
Obzie (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. The image :File:Coats logo.svg is used only at Coats PLC, the talk page for which is Talk:Coats PLC. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 11 December 2013 - Coats logo 

message: I want to add a parameter for non-registered trademarks.
PhilrocMy contribs 17:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  (e • t • c) 18:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

text: See source for Template:Non-free logo/sandbox. PhilrocMy contribs 15:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

text: * , TESTCASEs?  Feel free to reopen this request with a clear description of the edit you want made and a set of proper testcases for whomever carries it out to compare. Thanks. :) —  (e • t • c) 16:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * OK, change this: 
{{imbox
 |type  = license
 |image = 
to this: 
{{imbox
 |type  = license
 |image = 
, and change this: 
|text  = This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright.</code> 
to this: |text  = This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright.
 
Template:Non-free logo/testcases
Hope that helps! PhilrocMy contribs 17:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

text: *It seems  went ahead and did the protection downgrade before I could get to RFPP and respond to it, and it's no big deal either way, 130k transclusions was just a bit much for me to feel comfortable taking the responsibility for it. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

text: ** I don't see a problem.  's are pretty well filtered by  on the permissions request page. —  (e • t • c) 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

text: *** After re-reading WP:TPROT I see that it is indeed recommended to replace FPP with TPP ""; I'll keep that in mind in the future. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 15 January 2015 

message: Want to update my company logo to this thumb|Tun Media AS_logo
Tun Media (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: That doesn't require a change to the template. You also have a conflict of interest. Bazj (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2015 

message: This template can be switched to use  if a change in the structure of the bulleted list is acceptable; I've drafted a new version of the template at Template:Non-free logo/sandbox. Yes, I know I can edit this template myself, but I'd like at least one other person agreeing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 29 January 2020 

message: The categorization for the template itself into :Category:Non-free logos should be removed for obvious reasons. Jonteemil (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: it is customary on Wikipedia for templates to be placed into their main categories using a pipe and a space at the end of the category name. The template is therefore entered at the top of the category list. Please do not remove   from the documentation. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

text: I was wrong about the main category for this template, which is  (not ). The adjustment you requested has been . P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, thanks for the explaination.Jonteemil (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 13 March 2020 

message: "It is believed that" is made redundant by the later "may qualify as". Its purpose is unclear, anyway. If it's to imply some sort of dubiety about the legal status of all fair use images on Wikipedia, then it's probably better to say "According to WMF Legal" or something like that. But I don't think there's much doubt (and it still falls under "may qualify as"). If it's to imply that this particular image does not qualify under fair use, then it's definitely made redundant. Could it be removed? Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done since no-one else objected and that truly was poor phrasing Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 10:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is believed" 

message: Proposal:
Change the link from non-free use (free content) to non-free use (Wikipedia page on non-free content).
Reasoning:
I found the overall template language and the two links in this particular sentence confusing: "logos [...] may qualify as non-free use under the Copyright Law." I couldn't tell right away if using the logo was restricted since the words "protected," "copyright," "qualify," and "non-free" seem to be at odds with each other.
Clicking on either link and searching for the words "non-free" turn up nothing. I then researched what "non-free" means. What we're trying to say is that this logo qualifies for a non-free use exception. Changing the link to the Wikipedia page on non-free content criteria would clarify this. Philosophistry (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: change non-free link 

message: Um, this template seems to be accepting any input for the |image has rationale= parameter and categorizing the file into :Category:Wikipedia non-free files with NFUR stated ,see User:Minorax/sandbox/fairuse. Unsure what might be causing it though, think that it's something in  (might be the no parameter). --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it's implemented is to check if the input is empty or no. Logically it would be better to use , which I've updated. SWinxy (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem?