Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipedia Logo

Wikipedia Logo

CLOSED AS UNUSEABLE AS AN FPC DUE TO LICENSING RESTRICTIONS

The official and current logo of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; the world`s largest encyclopedia available in all languages.

Reason: Very good 3D quality; shows the connection of all the languages spoken around the world. Plus, represents the world`s largest online encyclopedia.
Articles this image appears in: Too many, see the list at the images page.
Creator: Nohat

Support as nominator — ♠Tom @s Bat 19:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nitpicking - can this really be called "free"? #4 of WP:WIAFP - "It is available in the public domain or under a free license." This image is not GFDL, and is in fact "all rights reserved". Mak (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is present in many user-pages and tons of articles. Also, this is wikipedia, so I assume we can use it here. ♠Tom @s Bat 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it shouldn't be on those userpages…but that's not our job to police that. (By the way, that sig is annoying!)--Here T oHelp 21:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, isn´t this Wikipedia? I mean like, it´s copyrighted, but, this is wikipedia; so why can´t we use it? ♠Tom @s Bat 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ironically, it's against the spirit of Wikipedia to promote Wikipedia's own logo, as it's not a free image. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and promotes public domain and freely licensed ("open content") images. The logo is, however, a trademark which Wikipedia protects so as to keep its identity, so doesn't qualify, and would be against the spirit of Wikipedia if it were. Similarly, we reject images which are licensed only for Wikipedia's own use. —Pengo 22:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then, can it be used in articles and userpages? ♠Tom @s Bat 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be. That's because I think the Wikimedia Foundation has granted permission for the logo to be used freely only on Wikimedia projects, so long as a licensing notice accompanies any derivative images as well. I may recall incorrectly, however. Gracenotes^T § 23:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on the previous comment, it can be used on Wikipedia because it brands the site, but is not part of the content, so it can be removed without loss of substantial content. To have it as a featured picture would make it content in and of itself. —Pengo 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think the most appropriate word to describe self-promotion like this is vanispamcruftisement. Violates WP:ASR. And the copyright issue - {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} is an unfree license. MER-C 03:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No free license, plus, once you get into full view, the rendering is not FP quality. ~ trialsanderrors 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all the above reasons. Besides, it's already on the front page... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no need to be featured, it's already visible enough. --Phoenix (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As it's copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation, it's not a free image and since it's already on the main page, we don't gain anything from featuring it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it appears as if it is missing some pieces... ;). ~ Arjun 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heheh excellent. Debivort 05:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose it is in violation of WP:ASR and it is a copyvio - Booksworm Talk to me! 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All of the above, and I just don't like it *gasp*. It isn't pleasing to the eye. Wikipediarul e s 2221 06:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]