This template is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It's misleading to put a logo in this template because network neutrality doesn't have an official logo. It's just a concept. The logo makes it seem like an official organization, which it is not. Plus, the logo that was in the template was ugly. I cannot think of anything of value that it added to entries covering net neutrality, so I removed it.--Chmod 777 (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The concept of aesthetic is totally personal. The logo has been there for a while and the community has allowed it to stay as it gives identity to the template. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd favor removing the logo. I don't think it adds anything of importance, it is not widely recognized as being associated with Net Neutrality and would probably be non-neutral if it were recognized, it takes up space, and generally clutters things up. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A removal of an image on this template has been intended by a User with a long history of personal altercations and attacks towards my edits in Wikipedia. Any changes on an image that has been on an article for over 2 years requires at least a discussion on the talk page. As usual, decision should be reach on consensus . Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
As can be seen above, I am the second user to attempt to remove this image. It has been created by Camilo Sanchez, who has quite a history of creating images (e.g. for countries and Europe) and trying to impose them on templates and articles. It is not the business of Wikipedia to create fancy logos to be used in articles (I don't care about portals, there user-generated images or headers may be very welcome). What is the purpose of having such a self-created net neutrality logo here? Fram (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Which is the problem. We create an image, and lazy journalists use our article and use our image as if it is anything official. Using this logo gives the impression that it is an official logo, while it is some fancy graphic with no history. It doesn't add anything to the articles it is used on, and can be misinterpreted as being an "official" net neutrality logo. Fram (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Dude, are you in love with me or something? You have been chasing me over a year already. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Btw, what do you mean official? its a concept, there is nothing to be official about NN.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If network neutrality does not have a logo, then it should be removed from the template. This image has apparently confused at least one journalist. I know it confused me when I first saw it. I assumed that net neutrality was an organization. But then I researched it further and realized that it was not an organization. If we don't stop this right away, the logo could spread to other sites and begin confusing a lot more people.
On another note, why are there circuits in the logo? Network neutrality is about networks and neutrality, not computer circuits.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
hmm..excuse me, but if you are talking networks, you are definitely talking computer circuits, unless you have found a complete different system to transmit pieces of data. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Dude, relax, it's just a symbolic representation, not a detailed illustration. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way this template is an example of a template having an image that conveys the identity of the concept. And I must add that the image has been here for over 2 years and nobody had a problem. this is just happening becuse user Fram is in love with me and loves chasing me around the wiki..thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't the first to object to this image, and you are now the only one defending your own image for this template, with three people opposing it. Consensus is against you, live with it. Fram (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Fram, you are just not my type of man. So you live with it, stop chasing me around the wiki.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)