Template talk:Like

“ With a great template comes great responsibility. 2 users like this. ”

Clickable?

This isn't clickable? It feels so wrong. :( —Emufarmers^(T/C) 03:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I created this template a while back so that you could in fact use it to "like" something; you would just type {{Like|~~~}} and it would display with a thumbs-up as "[YourUserName] likes this." I don't think changing it to a mere image was an improvement. But I no longer care enough to edit further. Feel free if the spirit moves you! — ¾-10 22:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool Killiondude (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

w/e —Emufarmers^(T/C) 04:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Some more variants:

• Like
• Love
• 2 users like this.
• 13 users Love this.

Another variant might be to add the names of particular users to "like" something. --RA (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I added some documentation and fixed up some of the code. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

gj —Emufarmers^(T/C) 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is disgusting.

• Facebook is thataway ---> Take this with you as you go.  – Ling.Nut 16:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• I have to agree. This is horrible. What is it for? --John (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If you don't like it, why are you on this page? harej 23:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • To encourage someone to grow a conscience (or grow up) and delete this page.  – Ling.Nut 01:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re "What is it for?", it was originally envisioned as a way to recognize someone's edit on a talk page when they report back that they implemented a discussed change without having to say something overwrought like "Nice job, thank you for implementing the suggested edits that you mentioned earlier and that you already noted that you just did." Same with if they said something new and you just want to acknowledge it but have nothing else to say. In other words, it had a perfectly legitimate reason for being sandboxed. And given that Wikipedia is built by a community of real humans to some extent, it helps to be able to smile at each other occasionally without writing an emoticon or "LOL" or whatever. All of which is pretty intuitive and not that surprising. Which is why comments like "this is disgusting", "this is horrible", and "what is it for?" are both unhelpful and dull-witted at the same time. Half-wit town is thataway. Take your insults with you as you go. — ¾-10 03:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it really that much easier to use this template than to write "thanks!" Or "great!" Or "ok." Or "how droll!"? AgnosticAphid talk 17:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: What the hell does alleged "[lack of] conscience" have to do with your hurling insults on this page, or with anyone having committed the crime (as if) of having sandboxed a template on a whim? — ¾-10 03:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia, not a play place for facebook friends, and I am not dim-witted. I have two Master's degrees and a PhD; you have... high score on World of Warcraft (at least amongst your buddies), I assume. Good luck in all you do.  – Ling.Nut 04:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Likewise Killiondude (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

When I first saw this template, I had to run to the bathroom in order to avoid getting vomit on the floor. Tubgirl, Goatse, Lemonparty... they don't hold a candle to this horror. I don't imagine users of this template even have high scores on World of Warcraft; they probably all have low scores! Can someone speedily delete this monster already? For the love of God! --MZMcBride (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the weight of my own two Master's degrees and PhD. You can surrender now. guillom 09:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I apologize for saying it was horrible if that hurt your feelings, Three-quarter-ten. I dislike graphical short-cuts as I think we are all about the written word here; if someone wants to say they like something, they should just use words. It also unfortunately reminds me of a prominent social networking site, which I believe to be the harbinger of the end of civilization as we know it. I hope that makes my opposition clearer. --John (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, John, for being the only one who acknowledged that one need not be a drooling moron to have brainstormed about communication options among Wikipedians. I happen to be predisposed to writing myself, so much so that others end up warning me to lay off the verbosity. This template was a simple, harmless experiment toward that end. I actually don't have a problem with anyone here except that I think the guns-blazing, insult-hurling form of expressing displeasure about Facebook is childish, even if it comes from someone with a PhD. You can express your objections rationally on a talk page. What I see between the lines is childish insecurity—that the reason Facebook inspires such irrational foaming hatred is because people are secretly afraid that maybe they'll have to learn to live in a world that includes it. Curmudgeons have been predicting that the-world-must-be-ending-because-of-these-damn-kids-with-their-loud-music for centuries. Curmudgeons live and die; the world just slowly turns regardless. Might as well calm down a bit.

I don't play any video games, let alone MMPORGs, and Facebook can't be accurately conflated with them anyway. Facebook, besides its kids-playing-video-games side, is also Grandmas sharing photos of their grandkids. If you really want to influence (for example, limit) its effect on life, at least recognize that calling it a Great Satan just makes you look like a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum.

I really never even cared much about this template, and I've only come back because it's on my watchlist. I've probably exhausted my interest in it. No lasting hard feelings to anyone here. Sorry I overreacted to the childishness with a bit of my own before thinking better of it. Just keep in mind that when someone comes off on a talk page as a person who's lashing out to stroke their fear and insecurity, it kind of undermines the respect that their master's degrees and PhDs would otherwise engender. Regards, — ¾-10 21:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'm fine with deleting the thing—no objections to a WP:TfD, where "D" leads to deletion. Just wanted to defend any Wikipedian's right to experiment with something like this without it meaning that they're a moron. Later, — ¾-10 22:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Eagles247 likes this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Adjwilley loves this template

 Trevj dislikes this.

Template nominated for deletion

This template was nominated for discussion/deletion on October 28, 2011. If you would like to participate in the discussion, it is located here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28#Template:Dislike and Template:Like. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Trevj likes this.

File for deletion

Just to remind you guys that the image used in this template is nominated for deletion: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Facebook like thumb.png --Extra999 (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Trademark violation

The combination of the thumbs-up image and the word "Like" in a rounded rectangular box is now a registered trademark belonging to Facebook: [1]. TiVo has registered its opposition to this, but as of now, this template is in violation of FB's trademark. —howcheng {chat} 17:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting. Perhaps it's time to get rid of the rounded rectangular box? ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley, contrary to Howcheng's statement above, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office has not granted the trademark to Facebook yet. (Please see the USPTO link I provided in the TfD discussion yesterday.) PTO approved Facebook's application for publication and requested public comments; publication is only a step in the PTO's trademark application approval process, and is not the equivalent of granting the trademark. TiVo filed a request for an extension of time (a standard PTO procedure) to contest Facebook's application following the publication. Presumably, TiVo will file its actual contest in the near future. PTO will not grant the trademark to Facebook until TiVo's contest is resolved. That having been said, I suggest we should be proactive in modifying the template artwork so we don't have to suffer through yet another TfD or two on Wikipedia and Commons if PTO actually grants the trademark to Facebook in the next several months. Do you have the technical ability to modify the saved image? If so, please ping me by email. I would like this issue to be resolved with some measure of finality, and I would like to preclude any further drama and waste of time regarding the template. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1, I'm no expert on templates, but I have a couple ideas that might help. For instance, this edit made the rounded rectangle into a regular rectangle. I could probably also draw a new thumb icon in Paint or something, to replace this file with something of my own design. I'm no artist, but 16x15 is something I can probably do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the free image. I have replaced the proprietary FB image by this new one so that we no longer violate Facebook's license terms and thereby will avoid legal trouble. Still, the template works exactly as before in order to keep those who want to use the template happy at the same time. Now we also need a replacement for the Dislike button, which also violates FB's license for the same reasons as the Like button (improper usage of FB's property), but also because it is a derivative work of their original image. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I flipped the image for a thumbs down, which can be found at commons:File:Wikipedia dislike thumb.png. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I updated the Dislike template accordingly. So, while the original FB icons on Commons still violate FB's license, at least we no longer actively use them in the English WP now. Hopefully, this compromise will work for most. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been several attempts to delete this template, as well as the thumb image. So far these attempts have been unsuccessful. Discussions for the image, File:Facebook like thumb.png (and other related images) at Wikimedia Commons can be found at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Facebook like thumb.png. See also Commons:Commons:Threshold of originality. I expect, and hope, that the last word hasn't been said in this matter. __meco (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have started a new discussion at Commons:Commons talk:Threshold of originality#Facebook's like thumb. __meco (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

These copies of Facebook Like buttons are ultimately bound to cause legal trouble to the WMF and thereby harm our project. Eventually, they will have to be deleted anyway (because they are designs owned by Facebook, not us, and our usage is clearly in violation to Facebook's licensing terms - Facebook is already known to act on license violations, if not in the US, at least in other countries). So it's better to delete them now before more resources will be wasted by our obvious misuse of their property. I'm concerned to see so many people ignoring even very basic ideas of copyright and trademark laws. As if you could simply copy someone else's design from a web-site (even a commercial entity!) and apply a free license to it. Facebook's Like button is clearly more sophisticated than, for example, Apple's logo. Guess what would happen if someone would start to use their apple with a bite icon to encourage healthy food? ;-)

Two of the past deletion debates were closed by User:Denniss. This user was involved in the discussion himself (as odd as it is, apparently this is not forbidden on Commons, but still questionable behaviour). He claimed the icons could not be copyrighted because of prior art, but failed to give a single example of prior art when questioned multiple times. Still, one of the discussions was closed by him prematurely based on his own prior art argument, and not with a summary which would reflect the ongoing discussions. He continued to ignore my questions when I asked him to reopen the discussion and gave examples of Facebook legal actions ([2]), but later closed the second deletion discussion with "no new arguments of value have been brought up". Draw your own conclusions...

IMHO for Wikipedia the only way to avoid legal trouble with Facebook in the not too distant future is to either ask Facebook for permission to use their icon for our purposes (which they will not grant, I'm sure) or delete and replace them by our own designs. If the threshold of originality is as low as some people here claim, it should be trivial for us to bring forward our own designs, shouldn't it?

I'm not convinced that we need such like and dislike templates at all, but I would not really care about them if our actions would not violate laws and thereby waste valuable resources (time and energy of contributors, donations to the WMF, reputation of the project). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Your opinion is fine, but the Wikimedia Commons community has determined (repeatedly) that this image is acceptable for use on Wikimedia wikis. I'm not sure why the English Wikipedia would take exception to this. It isn't your (or my) duty to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from legal troubles. If there's a legal issue, there's a whole legal team ready to pounce (literally). --MZMcBride (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The community's supposed to assist in complying with legal policies, rather than wait for them to be enforced. As highlighted by Matthiaspaul, the closes at Commons appear questionable. -- Trevj (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in all our actions in this project it is your and mine first duty to keep the WMF free from legal trouble, because if we don't adhere to the laws, we risk that the whole project can be brought down (worst case) or at least that many financial resources are wasted in unnecessary legal battles or even actual law suits, and also that the reputation of the project suffers. This project is run by donations. Do you want to waste these precious resources on stuff like this? I rather want them to be spent on technical infrastructure to keep the servers up and running.

Regarding the deletion discussions on Commons, it's good to try and seek consensus in our own internal WP affairs, but obviously we cannot overturn universal legal concepts by discussion. Just because a bunch of (legally clueless) users on Commons loves the Facebook button so much does in no way entitle us to put our own free license on a property of Facebook without their permission and then start using it for purposes cleary violating Facebook's license terms. Did you read and understood https://www.facebook.com/brandpermissions/logos.php?

"We permit the Facebook Like Button logo to be used in connection with the Like button social plugin, which enables users to make connections to your pages and share content back to their friends on Facebook with one click. We also permit use of the Facebook Like Button in offline advertising (e.g., print advertising) to reference and direct people to your Facebook Page or your website that has the Like Button social plugin implemented. We do not allow the use of the Like Button logo in online advertising. Please see the Usage section below for more information.

Use of the Facebook Like Button is subject to the general guidelines listed above in addition to the following terms:

The Like Button may only be used online for the Like Button social plugin functionality which can be found here on our developer site.

When using the Like Button in traditional offline media (such as print ads), a textual or visual reference must be made to Facebook.

While you may scale the size to suit your needs, you may not modify the Like Button in any other way (such as by changing the design).

Do not use the Like Button for online advertising.

All use of an unmodified Like Button is acceptable in offline communications."

If there are any questions please also read their FAQ:

"- What are trademarks? Trademarks are words, logos, designs, symbols, or a combination of any of those things that identify a unique source of products or services. Trademarks help a company distinguish its products and services from those of other companies, and act as assurance of quality to consumers.

- Why does Facebook need all of these rules regarding its trademarks and logos? Because of the importance of trademarks, improper use can damage a company’s valuable trademark rights and create confusion among consumers. Owners of famous brands, like Facebook, must take steps to ensure that their brands are not misused.

- How does Facebook protect its trademarks? Facebook dedicates substantial resources to the development and protection of its intellectual property portfolio. In addition to seeking registration of its trademarks and logos around the world, Facebook also enforces its rights against those who misuse its marks. Facebook has developed this Brand Resource Center to provide guidance on which trademarks may be used, and what rules apply to that use.

- Can I use Facebook in my business name or domain name? No. Use of the Facebook trademark or something confusingly similar in your company name or domain name, even in connection with goods/services that are arguably unrelated to those offered by Facebook, can both create consumer confusion as well as dilute the distinctiveness of the Facebook brand and weaken Facebook’s trademark rights. It is also a violation of our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.

- Why do I need Facebook’s permission if I want to use its trademarks or logos in my play/movie/book in a way that’s positive for Facebook? We very much appreciate positive recognition of the Facebook brand, but we must go to extra lengths to protect our brand when it’s used by others in media that will be broadcast, distributed, or otherwise publicized. So we require that you obtain prior written permission before using Facebook’s trademarks in media that will be disseminated publicly.

- Can I combine Facebook’s trademarks or logos with new terms or artwork to create my own marks and logos? No. Mutilating Facebook’s logos or trademarks in order to create new, derivative marks can harm Facebook’s trademark rights. We cannot allow such modifications to our marks under any circumstances.

- Can I modify the design of the “f” logo so that it better fits with the structure of my website? You may scale the size to suit your needs, but you may not modify the “f” logo in any other way without entering into a written licensing agreement with Facebook and obtaining Facebook’s prior written approval.

- Can I copy logos from the Facebook website? No. Facebook has, however, made certain logos and other brand assets available for your use, including the “f” logo and certain Widgets and Badges (e.g. the “Find Us on Facebook” Badge)."

So, they do allow the button to be used as part of their social plugin (an active script), but forbid other uses and derivatives. And they mean it. I don't know about the US, but they actually take legal actions against misuse of their icons in other countries, including Germany. So it's only a question of time until they'll come after us. The Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle policy asks us to remove contents if there is any doubt about its legal status and compatibility with our own usage terms. It's just not worth the potential trouble. I wonder how anyone can still have no doubts at this time. If you read the past discussions, you will find that at least one of the discussions was closed prematurely and in a way very obviously reflecting the personal (and - despite many questions - so far completely unsourced) opinion of the closing Commons admin ("not copyrightable because of prior art"), not the actual outcome of the discussion (that far). Unfortunately, this admin has continued to ignore any substantial input (by various users including me) and also closed the other discussion (in which I did not take part, because I was not aware of it).

Anyway, although this is not my opinion, but perhaps it would be okay to have the Facebook Like button uploaded for fair use (for example to illustrate the Like button article. However, fair use is not allowed on Commons (only locally). But fair use certainly does not include usage in templates, anyway, and Facebook's license makes it very clear that such usage is violating their terms.

Therefore, I see no reason to wait for Commons to rectify their legal problems before we at the English Wikipedia take actions ourselves in order to protect us. I will therefore revert your reversion of my change to play it safe and kindly ask you (or anyone else) to please answer the following questions before changing it back. If you think I am wrong, it should be very easy to find plausible answers to these questions:

1. The original blue Like button we use was copied from Facebook's site and is identical to the Facebook Like button. Facebook claims ownership: https://www.facebook.com/brandpermissions/logos.php. If your still think, that this design is not owned by Facebook (it was uploaded to Commons under a "Public Domain" license), please provide an example of prior art (as repeatedly claimed in the deletion discussions, but always without examples), where this specific design was used before Facebook started using it. Great, if we find one, but I'm confident, we won't, because these are Facebook's own designs.

2. Facebook clearly states in their license terms, that they do not allow the use of this icon for different purposes (as in our templates). If you don't agree, please show me, where in their license they allow the usage intended by us here.

3. Now, that we have alternative free Like/Dislike buttons provided by Adjwilley, which are not based on the Facebook buttons, please tell me, why, despite all the problems discussed above, you still insist on using the Facebook proprietary ones? The templates continue to work with the alternative icons exactly as they did before.

4. Please tell me why we should be allowed to make changes to this template only after the Facebook buttons have been deleted at Commons?

5. Since we can be held personally responsible for our actions if we misuse this platform, are you prepared and willing to cover the WMF's potential legal expenses which might be caused by what I think is the continued misuse of the Facebook icons? (Of course, reverting my change is okay under the assumption that the explanation I gave in the edit summary is invalid. If, however, it was valid and you revert it back to the usage of the original Facebook icons, this would imply that you knowingly support something illegal. One way or the other, we are responsible for what we do.)

Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Trevj and Matthiaspaul: You can think that the Commons' discussions were questionable or wrong or whatever else, but that's an issue for Commons, not an issue for the English Wikipedia. If an image is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, it's presumed to be acceptable for use on any Wikimedia wiki, as I understand it. There's no consensus here or elsewhere to change this image. You're free to start a discussion to gather consensus if you'd like. At the moment, you're continuing to perpetuate questionable legal claims based on your own (inexpert) analysis of the situation.

Again, Matthiaspaul: you're not in a position to make claims about the Wikimedia Foundation's legal liability. There's a professional legal team. If they feel that the image should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons, they'll say so. Until then, I see no issue in using the image on any Wikimedia wiki. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:COPYOTHERS, I've reinstated the non-infringing version included by Matthiaspaul. -- Trevj (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC) PS And I've also tagged the Commons image with Template:Copyvio. We'll see what uninvolved admins there make of it. -- Trevj (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You were reverted at Commons. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding a deletion template after three DRs that concerned the same matter failed to pass is not going to work, although you are free to open another DR if you have new arguments to make. Though it is already turning into something of a revert war, I have also reverted you on this template due to the lack of consensus backing up the change. Remember the difference between copyrights and trademarks and also consider what Dirtlawyer says below, because this section regards possible future violations. If you disagree, you may consider starting an RfC on the matter to bring in other views so as to try to establish a new consensus in light of the possible future violations, but Dirtlawyer sums up the current situation pretty effectively. -— Isarra ༆ 18:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is suffering from some severely misleading statements about the current status of Facebook's "trademarks." Per the U.S Patent and Trademark Office's official website, as of today, July 24, 2012, the USPTO has NOT GRANTED Facebook's trademark application for its thumb's up icon. As of today, the application is still pending, and another corporation has filed for an extension of time to contest Facebook's application. The application will NOT BE GRANTED until the contest is resolved. If you want to have an intelligent, well-informed discussion about the potential long-term legal ramifications of the thumb's up icon and Facebook's potential future trademark rights, etc., let's start by ceasing to misrepresent the status of Facebook's current trademark rights in the thumb's up icon. As of today, Facebook has no such rights. Facebook's trademark application may be granted in the future, but it has not been grated yet. Therefore, Facebook has no such registered trademark, and in the absence of a trademark, there can be no infringement. Is everyone clear on this point? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I vote Use the new version as the solution of least drama. I've watched this template go through three (or was it four?) deletion discussions, and it barely survived one of them, only because somebody swapped out the thumb for a non-Facebook thumb, and then swapped it back in after the close. The Facebook version seems to be offensive to the NOTASOCIALNETWORK crowd, and they will keep nominating it for deletion as long as there's the excuse that it's a copy of Facebook's thumb. I actually prefer the Facebook version, but I took the time to create the new one because I saw so much time being wasted, and I realized that sometime it was going to have to happen anyway. Let's save ourselves some time and move on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Adjwilley, as you know from our prior discussions, I agree with most of your analysis above. It is important, however, that our Wikipedia and Commons copyright and trademark "experts" stop misrepresenting the current legal status of Facebook's trademark application. I am surprised that several editors continue to talk as if the USPTO had already granted Facebook's trademark application when the USPTO has not. We cannot have an intelligent discussion in the absence of correct information. While I do support your position, the outcome of this discussion should be determined by anyone from the wider community who desires to register their opinion. IMO, given that several dozen editors participated in the TfD discussions, a new consensus should not be determined by four or five editors on this talk page without wider participation. Given the contentious TfD history of this template, I also believe it would be helpful if everyone understood the reason(s) for any change to the image. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• You have a valid point here in regard to the USPTO, however, as I see it, it doesn't really change a lot in the situation as a whole, it only buys us a little time, and perhaps this is the reason, why they haven't knocked on the door already.

Facebook already has it trademarked in other countries and they are not shy to act (in various ways) against private and commercial entities violating their license terms by misusing their Like button etc. for other purposes. This is not some weird hypothetical case, but reality. It has been covered in the press at length (don't know about the US, though).

So, what do you think will happen? Facebook will have their mark granted in the US as well in a number of weeks or months. Let's assume this opponent has a real case there, do you think they are really trying to not let Facebook get their mark? Even if they'd own something very similar, it is by now practically worthless for them, because they either have never really used it (or do you have an example?) or Facebook's omnipresent usage has meanwhile overruled them in the real world and everybody recognizes this icon as FB-related now. So, there may be some refinements in the wording and probably it is also a question of money, but in the end, Facebook will get their mark also in the US. As a corporation, they cannot not have this Like button protected in the long run. And even if they would like our templates here, as a corporation they cannot accept us using their property for other purposes, as it would weaken their mark and they would thereby risk to lose it again. They are bound to act. But even if they would not get it trademarked in the US, we could still not use it, as it would be owned by another party then.

While the English Wikipedia is hosted in Florida, it is an international project, so even if our use of the Facebook icon would not have immediate consequences for the US-based servers now, the situation is different for subsidiaries in other countries. Servers could be blocked, so that the English Wikipedia would be no longer accessible from outside the US.

Regarding the deletion discussions. They were about the deletion of the FB icons and the Like/Dislike templates. Our discussion now is not about deleting something. (Although I personally don't see a purpose for them, I really don't mind, if other people have fun using them, unless it becomes a mass phenomenon.) This discussion is about changing the templates so that they no longer look like the FB icon in order to not violate FB's license terms any more - in any country. It was meant as a compromise, and I think it is a good compromise for the time being. So, what's the problem, actually? I still haven't seen answers to my questions raised above.

And just for the records: I too like the FB icon more than the free one, but the FB icon is not an option we can choose, and the new icons are good enough to serve the purpose of these templates. If someone wants to design better free icons, go ahead. This has been my suggestion for months. I really don't care. The only thing I do care about is that we no longer use proprietary contents with improper licensing. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Use in non-talk namespaces

As a safety measure, perhaps it's time to code the template (along with {{Dislike}}) to ensure it can only be used in certain namespaces. Surely no one wants to see some idiot posting this in articles.

1. If it's accepted that editors have legitimate uses for the template within discussions, then I think the least inappropriate places are user talk pages (and I suppose user pages too).
2. Use within article talk pages is not productive and could be prevented if there is consensus to do so.
3. What about other namespaces? Do we really want to see this becoming used in XfDs?

-- Trevj (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Trevj, if it were an actual problem, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, I have rarely seen the "like" template used in XfDs (and then, only in TfDs directly involving the template itself). I have never seen it used in article space, nor has any editor cited any such use in a talk page discussion of which I am aware. Just like using barnstars or any of the other talkspace/userpace templates in article space, if it becomes a real problem, we can address it then. Otherwise, this white whale has sailed, and I urge you to drop your harpoon. I suggest we focus on real problems that actually need to be solved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pastries and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open, for the moment. At what number do you think you might be willing to acknowledge that there is an actual problem? -- Trevj (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. -- Trevj (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 86#Order please[3][4]
• Requests for adminship/Logan
• Requests for adminship/Slon02 4
• Requests for adminship/Mabdul
• Requests for adminship/Lord Roem
• Requests for adminship/Penyulap
• Requests for adminship/Kumioko 2
• meta:Talk:Board elections/2011[5]

-- Trevj (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Use within User talk and Project talk namespaces may be tolerable by consensus. But for the record, I count that the template is currently being transcluded on 99 separate article talk pages (potentially >1 on each page). -- Trevj (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It feels like an advertisement

I don't like this template at all. Even leaving aside the trademark problem, and the fact that it encourages unhelpful contributions to discussions, it seems super much like an advertisement. I went reading through the meta deletion discussions and people there admit that it seems like someone from Facebook added this template. It immediately reminds everyone of Facebook and, honestly, what would be the point of this if it didn't? Use of this template is only going to increase, so we should assume mass use when considering whether to retain this template. (In fact, I use the template myself on occasion in hopes that if enough people notice it it will be deleted.) Wikipedia should not and must not become awash in unnecessary commercial references that serve to increase the visibility of outside commercial products. AgnosticAphid talk 17:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you think it's worth an RfC? -- Trevj (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This needs to go. It's trivial fluff that violates WP:NOTFACEBOOK by trying to bend WP to emulate the features of a social networking site, AND it's a trademark violation, AND it doesn't serve a useful purpose since using the word "like" as in I like this conveys the same message with less time and effort, AND it directly misleads readers into thinking they are in fact using a Facebook integration feature, AND.... — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, SMcCandlish, you need to actually read WP:NOTFACEBOOK. It has absolutely nothing to do with graphics, and simply states that WP is not a social network, cloud, or other repository of personal information. This was covered ad nauseum in at least two of the four TfDs regarding this template in the last 18 months, and was specifically addressed by one of the TfD closing administrators because it was advanced as a new and novel argument to rid WP of the parade of [imaginary] horrors caused by this template.

Sadly, after all of the time invested by a handful of editors in their creative attempts to delete this template, the best argument that they can muster is that "they don't like it." It's unfortunate we don't have a graphic template for "I find that to be ironic." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I find that to be ironic because you completely ignored my entire post, which has nothing to do with WP:NOTFACEBOOK, yet you dismissively comment that your straw man is "the best argument" that's been offered. AgnosticAphid talk 11:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, AA, I did not completely ignore your entire post. However, you will note my comment is addressed to SMcCandlish, who references WP:NOTFACEBOOK, which clearly does not say what he thinks it does. As for your specific argument raised above, that this template is some sort of commercial advertisement which should be banned for the good of the project based on unspecified policies, well, I can only wish you good luck with that. It's certainly not an advertisement in the ordinary sense of the word, and your argument should make for interesting reading if you and Trevj continue to pursue the evil white whale at an RfC. BTW, if I had adapted the "like" template for "I find that to be ironic," I would have used the inverted thumb's down. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Redesign

Hi. I think some of the novelty of this template has worn off. I wonder if it makes sense to change the output to be more like... {{like}}. This is much more wiki, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean a text logo displaying "{{like}}", some sort of self-replication? Or "{{like++}}" and "{{like--}}"? Sure, that would be much more wiki-style and avoid the problems with the Facebook logo as well. I still would not use it, but no objections. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Without objection, I went ahead. I'm still debating whether or not to remove the periods (e.g., "3 people like this."). They feel so formal. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I did not understand your proposal until now. I just assumed your new template didn't render properly or that you referred to some other template. Only now do I realize that by "I wonder if it makes sense to change the output to be more like" you mean "I propose the like template should just read like you just entered the wiki code to invoke the like template". CapnZapp (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that I understand your intention for the "redesign" I also understand the edit a while back merging this section with the next. CapnZapp (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And thus, to my reply: I'm afraid I must say I find both your suggestion and the way you proposed it to be pretty much incomprehensible. I do understand your idea (at least now I do) but not think it is possible to explain this to the casual user. I believe most prospective users will simply not use the template. The rest will assume the template does nothing, or that they used it wrong. I oppose playing around with meta characters (wikitag markers) this way. CapnZapp (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, a regular wiki editor still assumes a picture or icon. Your clever suggestion still has a place, but I would strongly suggest only for those who know what they're doing. In other words, the curly brackets like belongs as an optional non-default parameter. CapnZapp (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Finally just a heads-up to everyone: By unfortunate timing, MZMcBride chose (quite reasonably, given the lack of input) to go ahead at this time, when several editors are in the middle of discussing a change of icons/picture. As of right now, there is no picture. Previously the icon looked identical to the Facebook "like thumb". Please discuss this in the next section, below. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why you signed five times in a single edit.

As I said in the section directly below, your comments are welcome here as long as they're constructive and work toward improving the template. The comments from you so far on this talk page are seemingly a mixture of criticism and bloviation that are neither helpful nor constructive. You can use Template:Like/sandbox as a staging area to propose changes to the template. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Could we have a new picture, please?

Saw this template being used for the first time today.

I fail to see any good reason why we should use the Facebook thumb here. There's nothing wrong with a "like" template - anything making it easier to be friendly is a good thing.

But for the love of good, change it to something uniquely Wikipedian!

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As a secondary proposal, the Facebook thumb can stay if it means an active choice for the editor to use it. For example, if that picture was used for an {{fb-like}} template. Here, the editor gets a happy neutral like when using {like}, but can still express his or her love for Facebook by using {fb-like}.

But the current situation, where a generic "like" is appropriated by facebook even within Wikipedia is horrendous. CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, add a parameter such as fb=yes|no to the current template and set the default to no.

No objection.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 11:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support default inclusion of generic icon (with no recognisable likeness to commercial logos), per WP:NOTADVERT, WP:PROMO WP:SPAM. If there is consensus to retain functionality for including the fb icon, I support that proposed parameter too, whereby the fb icon would only be used if specifically set. (Maybe the parameter could be set for the values of both fb=yes and fb=like! -- Trevj (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

CapnZapp: What do you propose? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to any and all proposals. My only strong opinion is to ask you to remove any graphic recognizable as facebook's (or any company's) like button as the default for the template. (And no, that has nothing to do with Facebook's own redesign - I definitely don't want to mimic their move away from the thumbs up to their new "f" like) CapnZapp (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

How about reverting to , which was in use before the template was "hijacked"? -- Trevj (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. After all, that version lost out to Facebook. But do as you wish CapnZapp (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The template no longer uses an icon. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bummer! I liked the icon. Now this template serves no purpose, and that's a lack. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That might be partly my fault. I now realize MZMcBride quite reasonably interpreted me saying "I'm open to any and all proposals" and "ask you to remove any graphic" as support for his suggestion (previous section). I apologize for any confusion caused by utter lack of comprehension, but let me be clear: In my opinion, this template should have and is expected to have an icon. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi CapnZapp. Please don't needlessly bold your comments. While you're certainly free to express your opinion here, there was no misunderstanding on my part. A redesign was proposed months ago (in the section directly above) and finally acted upon. If you feel that the template should be redesigned (again), make a concrete proposal. You can use Template:Like/sandbox as a staging area for your proposed changes. Currently your various comments on this talk page are almost exclusively criticizing and bloviating and I'm not sure why. If you want to improve the template, work on that. If not, please go find something else to do instead. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the change that removed all icons. There no consensus (yet, anyway) for that. It also struck me as a gaming-ish attempt to circumvent the many decisions already to keep the template.

As for the wider question of a re-design, I've no attachment to the Facebook-style imagery and no objection to a redesign in principle. If there's to be a re-design, though, it should at least be as nicely designed as the current version. For better or worse, a Facebook-style design draws upon an existing well-thought out design. A new design of equal merit will require greater thought on our part.

If we do move away from a Facebook-style design, my 2¢ is that we should drop the thumb motif altogether. Otherwise, irrespective of what we do, it will end-up being a Facebook clone (even if the colours and graphic change). We could do a Wikipedia twist on a Facebook like, but I have no suggestions as to what that would be right now. --Tóraí (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Gaming" is a pretty strong word to use. You may want to familiarize yourself with the history of the template by reading through this talk page and the relevant deletion discussions and the template page's history before making comments like this. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no consensus either for the retention of the fb icon. Therefore, reverting to the generic {{like}} or previous b/w thumb would be a reasonable move IMO. -- Trevj (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Additionally, there wasn't a great deal of discussion surrounding (or consensus for) the incorporation of the fb thumb, as can be seen at #This is disgusting. -- Trevj (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that wanting to delete the template is one thing, getting a new icon is another. I'm getting the feeling that in much of the previous delete discussions, it is really unclear if people wanted the template deleted just because of the facebook icon, or if they have a legitimate reason to delete the entire template. CapnZapp (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As for myself, I support the idea and existence of the template, and I want it to have a friendly graphic that makes it completely obvious to a reader that a) a template has been used and b) it signifies that an editor likes the marked passage. I strongly object to both previous iterations however: the facebook icon for reasons already mentioned a hundred times, and the icon-less template because it is unclear and risks causing more confusion than the friendly warm feeling which is the template's purpose. CapnZapp (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

While I feel the previous thumb design doesn't cut it (to me, it says "internet ten years ago"), I too propose we revert to it in the meanwhile; while a new design can be made. I specifically am against keeping the facebook icon while we reach a consensus; that abomination should go immediately. CapnZapp (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Until there is consensus for a new/replacement graphic, I've reverted to the "internet ten years ago" version. I've not attempted to cater for the fb parameter at the moment, but am willing to investigate this if there is consensus for it as an optional (but non-default) version. -- Trevj (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This looks very cold. I liked the fb-one better. It would be nice to add it back as an optional choice. But now I'd better choose {{agree}} ( I like this) instead of {{like}}.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 09:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not have any problem whatsoever with keeping fb as an optional non-default choice. (This isn't about piling hate on facebook, this is about not shoehorning the regular wb editor into support of any international conglomerate... ;-)

Btw, I had not seen the agree template either before you used it, Wamiq ;-) Now that I am aware of its existence, I could support that green checkmark for the like template too, if people need a "less cold and old" :) icon as an interim solution. A suggestion: what if somebody could whip up a more modern thumb icon and set it into the same green circle as the agree checkmark? In fact, how would it look if we simply took the facebook thumb (perhaps changing the color scale from bluish to greenish) and put it into that green circle? (I'm asking since I don't trust my own Paint skillz). If that made the resulting icon into something that did not immediately and unequivocally exude "facebook" then perhaps it would be a quick'n'easy solution? CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

A previous deletion nomination cited redundancy to {{Agree}} and {{Disagree}}, but was closed stating (amongst other comments) No new arguments. -- Trevj (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Trevj. Could I ask you if your comment was provided for general information purposes only, or if it was meant as support for/opposition to/remark on one of my points specifically (and if so, which one(s))? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: How about like?

Support! I would even dare to say I like! :-) CapnZapp (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

(If you have the necessary skills to implement an icon parameter, Wamiq, accepting values such as "icon=fb", "icon=none" and perhaps "trad" for "traditional" (the "ten year old thumb" ;-) then I think we have a strong contender for winning consensus!)

I've added a parameter taking three values: {{like/sandbox|like|old}}= like; {{like/sandbox|like|wiki}}= like; {{like/sandbox|like|fb}}= like —ШαмıQ✍ @ 13:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. At least, it works for me as soon as the template accepts no parameters, defaulting to the message "Like" and the icon you call "wiki" (I couldn't help but notice you had to go back to change your 09:40, 20 November 2013 edit to make it work). (It goes without saying the new parameter must also be implemented in a manner compatible with the existing choices, such as {{like|loves|num=1}} where "num" obviously isn't an icon choice! :) CapnZapp (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

A separate comment: both previous icons have a border or shaded background. Do y'all think this would be appropriate for the newly proposed icon as well? Alternatively, perhaps the circle around the thumb could be made a little bigger. Do you think the thumb is "cramped" as-is? CapnZapp (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it can work without any parameter. I just couldn't figure out which of these three choices to make default... I can easily make the "wiki" icon default. And as to its size, yes, that can be increased, too. But I fear I am not skilled enough to add a shaded box around it. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 18:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've made a few changes now:
{{like/sandbox|like|icon=fb}}⇒ like;
{{like/sandbox|like|icon=old}}⇒ like;
{{like/sandbox|like|icon=}} or {{like/sandbox|like}} or {{like/sandbox|like|wiki}} or {{like/sandbox}} or anything else⇒ like
—ШαмıQ✍ @ 08:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you giving people a grace period before implementing your proposal. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we move forward now; I suggest you implement your proposal now. CapnZapp (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done —ШαмıQ✍ @ 20:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the change breaks (at least) the username and num parameters.

I would have loved to simply tell you this, but I first wanted to verify that the parameters worked okay previously. Since I don't know how to point the examples page (the doc subpage) to a previous revision of the template, the only way I could check was by reverting the change. And sure enough, after the revert all the params work again.

I fully support your edit, but please fix the backwards compatibility before re-applying your new icon parameter. Best regards and good luck! CapnZapp (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Have a check. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 08:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! CapnZapp (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Also see next section (documentation)...:

Okay, so now we're  Half done. Just kidding, but I do believe the Dislike template deserve a corresponding upgrade. CapnZapp (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

→ Discussion on Dislike template

• (Belated) oppose use of derivative work within icon. Apologies for not returning to respond to CapnZapp's comments (18:34, 19 November 2013) sooner. The work on the proposed new graphic is appreciated. However, I can't support its design because of the recognisable likeness to the Facebook logo (per my support for a generic logo, conditional upon there being no recognisable likeness).

Commons:File:Wikipedia like.png is a derivative work of the facebook logo. The suggestion of simply [taking] the facebook thumb (perhaps changing the color scale from bluish to greenish) and put[ting] it into that green circle acknowledges the derived nature of the image. While this may technically be a matter for Commons (previous concerns regarding COM:PRP having been rejected), that doesn't result in consensus here on en-wp for use of the derivative work within the template.

The likeness is slightly less obvious than the blatant copy used previously, but it still uses the Facebook image and therefore could be viewed as implying endorsement of an organisation (Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor...).

-- Trevj (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Propose: How about setting the old icon as the default and using the additional icon=wiki & icon=fb as non-default values? —ШαмıQ✍ @ 13:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That'd be an improvement, but those choosing to use either the fb or fb-derived icon could still be viewed as promoting Facebook. -- Trevj (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could simply say what you like and dislike, Trevj :-) After all, the biggest reason why it went ahead was, well, because there were no contrary voices. To me, you don't have to prove the derivative nature of the current icon, and you don't have to point to old discussion posts buried under heaps of discussion - simply telling us your preferences is enough to put consensus on hold in my book. And oh - while on the subject of friendly conversation - might I ask you to hold the trademark angle? As has been said previously: a) English Wikipedia isn't Commons, b) it isn't our job to worry about legal issues and c) what could happen hasn't yet, and might never... Cheers, CapnZapp

And with that, I present an alternative proposal: Developing further in the direction we've barely been able to take a step, that is building on the current icon and redrawing enough of the graphics to reach consensus. (I feel the previous thumb design isn't good enough (it's been replaced already), and as a first alternative, I ask you Trevj if you can accept the current design as an interim solution? Only if that is completely unacceptable, would I suggest setting the old icon as default while we hopefully can draw upon artistic talent to move the current design forward that extra bit! :-) Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

But we aren't saying I like fb! to seem like endorsing something... If the icon is considered as endorsing fb, the purpose of the entire template is defeated. Like and the thumb would always imply a connection with fb. But that's not what we want... We aren't endorsing fb inside articles... Per WP:NOT, a reader should know that we aren't endorsing fb in any way... We just want a friendly thing. So the use of the icon in talk namespaces doesn't automatically qualify as an endorsement (be it a derivative or what-so-ever). —ШαмıQ✍ @ 11:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

To answer CapnZapp, I still find the current design (derivative work of fb thumb) to be completely unacceptable, per WP:NOTADVERTISING ("Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs", which could be inferred by the use of this icon). I much appreciate being asked, but we go by consensus and my views don't seem to be widely shared by others. It was inferred 18 months ago that to continue to advance arguments which have been "already considered and repeatedly rejected" by fellow editors could be considered disrespectful. Therefore I feel there is little more I can add, other that to state that I believe my position on this matter to be backed up by policy. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Like/doc structure, completeness, presentation

I added the new icon parameter to the documentation (link in header). While doing so, I noticed how unstructured the presentation was. Now the documentation clearly presents the parameters (all the parameters), comments upon their use, and completely covers all supported and unsupported values and parameter combinations. Have a peek and feel free to improve further. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)