Wikipedia talk:Facebook directory

page name

I love this WP page, but aren't we violating a copyright by calling it Facebook? Facebook is a corporation and quite obviously the word is copyrighted. Kingturtle (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose we rename this Wikipedia:Faces. Kingturtle (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really an expert in law, but I don't think we are violating anything here. We're not using their trademark for commercial purposes, and we do not use it as our own trademark. To be sure, I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Cheers, Face 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw that this isn't the first time that the name of this page is disputed, see here and here. Consensus was never reached though. Cheers, Face 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there is ethical violation at the very least. http://www.facebook.com/ is "Facebook is a social utility that connects you with the people around you." and Wikipedia:Facebook appears to be using a distinct similarity with a commercial site to mimic the function of that site in a smaller and more local usage. I think Kingturtle's suggestion of a change to Wikipedia:Faces would eliminate any question, and not detract from the page in the slightest. Jeepday (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "facebook" was not created by the Facebook company, though; it has existed before that. If we're using it like wikt:facebook and not like Facebook, which I'm sure some will argue, then surely we can continue using this? Gary King (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The words apple, sun, oracle, target, chevron, gap, nike, etc. were not created by the corporations that appropriated them. Still, they are trademarked. The Beatles won't sue Apple Vacations because it is a different industry and won't likely be confused with the Beatles. However, The Beatles have sued Apple Computers, mostly over the overlap of music interests.

Our Facebook page is a rip off of Facebook®. It could be confused by an unknowing user that they are officially related. Kingturtle (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, a word cannot be copyrighted but Facebook, Inc. does hold a registered service mark in the United States for the word in relation to "providing an online directory information service featuring information regarding, and in the nature of, collegiate life, classifieds, virtual community and social networking" (see here). However, this mark is being challenged by Think Computer Corporation (see here). So while the mark is 'active' now, the registration may soon be canceled.

So for right now, is Wikipedia's use of the word to describe a gallery of volunteer contributors' faces, providing an online directory information service featuring information regarding virtual community? I do not think with Wikipedia having a single page of user images that features the word out of the millions of pages it hosts, is providing a service. So, I think we're all right using it but IANAL. --LEKI (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: see also here for the archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Are there any more opinions about this? Cheers, Face 11:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Facebook, the Wikipedia directory, was created in early 2004, long before Facebook (company) even existed, at least under that name, and certainly long before anyone had heard about it (it was an exceedingly obscure start-up just founded by a college student and named Thefacebook.com at the time). Facebook is a common word, not in any way copyrighted by said college student, and as seen from Wikipedia's usage of the word on this page. If anything, Facebook (company) is a rip-off of Wikipedia's originally much better known* Facebook (namely this page). (* I'm not joking or anything, Wikipedia was a well-established website when nobody had heard of the college student's Thefacebook.com). The college student's start-up only bought the domain facebook.com from the previous owner in 2005, more than a year after the creation of the originally best known Facebook (this page) and renamed itself Facebook (company) instead of the previous name Thefacebook.com. --Tataral (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia:Faces as well as Wikipedia:Face gallery but nowadays you cannot have a "Wikipedia:Facebook" because 100% of the people you can meet in a square would think about "facebook.com" and it is completely misleading. I suggest to rename, keeping this interesting story (of Wikipedia preceding social networks) highlighted somewhere. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Empty spaces, pt. 3

• User:Morwen - File:Morwen.jpg - requested deletion
• User:Phil Boswell - File:Lego Phil Boswell.JPG - is aware of it
• User:Pretzels - File:Pretzels user image.png - requested deletion
• User:Steinsky - File:Steinsky.jpg - was notified.
• User:Thereverendeg - File:Thereverendeg.JPG - was notified

Removed all the above entries. - theFace 10:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Wikipedia:Facebook directory. harej 02:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Facebook → Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians — I know this has been proposed before, but I'd like to bring it up again. 'Facebook' is not something that would accurately describe this page, and I think 'Images of Wikipedians' would suit it much better, as well as bring it in line with other '... of Wikipedians' pages out there. Also, WP:FACEBOOK ought to redirect to what is now at WP:NOTFACEBOOK. In addition, don't we just look a little bit odd when we have WP:NOTFACEBOOK and then go and create a page called Wikipedia:Facebook? Long story short, this page isn't anywhere near Facebook, could be misleading, and another name could describe the page more effectively. Arctic Night 05:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the name of this page refer to the original "facebook"? I like that we are preserving an older form taken over by a net behemoth. The Interior(Talk) 05:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but when people say 'Facebook' nowadays, you think they're referring to the popular online social networking site, not the older form, right? Most Wikipedia articles are named what people commonly call them, and this principle applies here. Arctic Night 05:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I'm of two minds on this. The proposed move is a (repeated) completely pointless waste of time IMO. It's not an article, it's part of Wikipedia's history and culture and misleads nobody. But why fight it? The original name remains in the history, so if moving the page saves us discussing it again and again, maybe we should just do it. [1] Andrewa (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question as The Interior. On that basis, oppose - this page does appear to be somehwat reminiscent of a traditional facebook.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What do most think of when you mention the word 'Facebook' though? Although it might be nice to preserve these terms, Wikipedia doesn't have any role in deciding what words stay and what words don't - it merely changes to reflect changing worldwide views. Arctic Night 13:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point. Yet I don't think users are really expecting there to be a social networking page on Wikipedia. As a result, the name of the page draws more viewers to it out of curiosity, who would then be pleasantly surprised to see a traditional facebook directory. And for those who never heard of or don't understand what a traditional facebook directory is then I propose we add explanatory text to the intro, so then it would be an educational experience as well, which is really what Wikipedia is about after all. -- œ^™ 16:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete? WP:NOTFACEBOOK ? Well... it seems a bit odd to have this facebook since Wikipedia is not supposed to be a social networking site. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: It only seems odd because you're selectively quoting the page. It reads in part The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration (my emphasis). Networking for the purpose of building a better encyclopedia is allowed and encouraged, and that's exactly why this page was created and should be preserved. Similarly, we keep historical pages not primarily because we want to document our past but because we see them as supporting our present and future. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • How does this page help build a better encyclopedia? Delete per 76.66.203.138. If not deleted, support move to Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians to avoid any confusion (Why have the chance of confusion when its not necessary?). With regards to OlEnglish's comment, keeping a page here so that users might stumble across it is just absurd! If a user goes to a link they will want to get to their intended destination. Also WP:MYSPACE goes to the same place as WP:NOTMYSPACE, so for consistency it would make sense if WP:FACEBOOK goes to the same place as WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Mhiji (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WP is not a social networking site, but it is a community. A page like this one reminds me that there are people behind those pseudonyms. Anyways, this isn't a deletion discussion. Oppose - page is a facebook directory. "Images of Wikipedians" gives no incentive to add a picture, it would no longer seem like a way to connect with fellow editors. The Interior(Talk) 05:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with User:The Interior - oppose !vote for me as well.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Facebook directory

Why not split the difference and call it Wikipedia:Facebook directory?

That would seem to deal with the confusion with Facebook, and yet maintain the tradition as well. - jc37 21:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support this compromise. Good suggestion! The Interior(Talk) 22:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm OK with this. -- œ^™ 02:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'd support this too Mhiji (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• I like that as well  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion criteria?

Can anyone add themselves to this list? Or is there some fundamental criterion that distinguishes people who can be on here from people who can't? Without such criteria I'm hard-pressed to see a real purpose in the existence of this page. Jinkinson talk to me 00:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you need to be a Wikipedian, and be comfortable with having a photo of yourself online (or with posting a facetious entry, such as the "extreme close-up" showing cells). Are these not good enough as criteria? Double sharp (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The purpose is that it shows that Wikipedians are human. It's more than worth keeping around just for that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)