Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NoTOO-China

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

NoTOO templates

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Not-free-US-TOO: confusing and unnecessary templates. if something is above TOO then it should be nominated for deletion. Wcam (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These templates are useful for indicating TOO status in some countries. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Carl Lindberg's comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:TOO. The situation of FoP is different than that of TOO: "FoP is for a situation where there is a copyrighted subject, but a licensed photo and where the usage of that copyrighted work is allowed. But for threshold, that is a delete-or-not question". Wcam (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I ping two users. @JWilz12345 and Chubit: Ox1997cow (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to Wcam.

Delete: these are highly unnecessary and may be abused. Something that is above TOO must be sent to deletion requests so that it can be decided if those must be deleted or kept through other factors, like de minimis or FOP (or the likes of {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-art}}). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: Then, why you are opposed to deleting NoFoP templates? Ox1997cow (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345 and Wcam: Then, how about Category:TOO templates? Ox1997cow (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: as said by Clindberg, TOO and FOP are different in contexts. They are not the same. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For TOO templates, they can stay, as the defined high standards of TOO (like France and U.S.) are guaranteed in the countries' laws and/or jurisprudences. But for those with very low bar of TOO, file deletion is the real approach instead of tagging them with thse useless no-TOO templates. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ox1997cow. --Scram6699 (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, unlike NoFoP series which are more useful for some special de minimis cases than {{De minimis}}, NoTOO series can't act de minimis role. The TOO- series are however useful due to potential higher-than-US TOO cases. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226:

Oppose I think NoTOO series can be useful for indicating TOO status in some countries. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than simply repeating yourself, please provide specific reasons why the per-country TOO templates can provide useful information. As discussed above, the fact that similar FoP templates exist does not justify these TOO templates as the situations are very different. If a file is above TOO (no matter the country) it is in its entirety subject to copyright protection, which is a key difference of TOO than FoP. --Wcam (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcam: Different countries have different levels of TOO, and logos or trademarks that are copyrighted in some countries are not copyrighted in others. Thus, NoTOO templates provide useful information about countries with low levels of TOO. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. For the purpose of "indicating TOO status in some countries", write those information on help pages is a better solution. But please do remember to check the transclusion of these templates. Stang^★ 11:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345, Liuxinyu970226, Wcam, and Stang: Then, how about {{TOO-logos-category warning}}? I made {{TOO-logos-category warning}} with reference to {{FOP-buildings-category warning}}. Also, I made {{Currency-category warning}} with reference to {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} in the past. I think {{TOO-logos-category warning}} can indicate TOO status in some countries. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: SLR (sorry for late reply). Those templates you cited are for category-exclusive templates, and therefore are relatively useful. That is unlike no-TOO templates which are wasteful and impractical. Better tag problematic images with {{De minimis}}, or otherwise delete those more problematic ones. No-TOO templates are needless additions. Also, Ox1997cow, I would like to remind you that much of TOO standards are based on jurisprudences (read COM:TOO US, COM:TOO France, etc.), and the courts may ether follow the same standard or be more restrictive in the future. This is unlike no-FOP statuses of many countries, which are truly based on laws. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apparently, the no-TOO series are poorly-made rip-offs of no-FOP series. That being said, no-FOP matter is backed by laws and the templates can stay, but TOO is largely reliant on court rulings or legal literatures, which may change in the future. So making such templates is of no use at all. Sending problematic files containing TOO-passing logos to deletion is the optimal approach here. Again, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:TOO is related to thod discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Images above TOO should be nominated for deletion. The criteria differ per country as described on the various pages about copyright in those countries. --Ellywa (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NoTOO-China

NoTOO templates

Navigation menu

Search