Template talk:GFDL-with-disclaimers

Template:GFDL-with-disclaimers is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

{{editprotected}} Plz, add ru-wiki:

[[ru:Шаблон:GFDL-with-disclaimers]]

Thx, Alex Spade 19:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:Anthony Appleyard#GFDL-en: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to provide an explanation.

• All free images on all wikis will ideally be moved to commons.
• It would be on the best interest of the common goal of the free encyclopedia (Wikipedia) and free image repository (Commons) for the license templates to have identical naming.
• Naming of license templates on commons are done with multilingualism in mind. A person editing/reviewing commons may not necessarily know any English. Preferably we avoid giving any language a priority. The -en here is the ISO code for English.
• "with-disclaimers" is a problem not unique to English wikipedia. There were wikis that copied the en.wikipedia license template with it's emphasis on disclaimers. This can cause a possible problems when images are moved to commons because we have many flavors of the GFDL template.

-- Cat ^chi? 05:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So change the template name on Commons to something meaningful first. As I said, GFDL-en is actually misleading because it is not simply EN's version of the GFDL, and on this wiki attaching -en doesn't carry the kind of insight you might have on Commons. Maybe rename the template both here and on Commons to GFDL-en-with-disclaimers. However, I think calling this GFDL-en on enwiki is too undesirable to be justified. Dragons flight (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't misleading at all. This template is the English Wikipedia flavor of "with-disclaimers" templates. A compromise can be an alteration of the wording. You can add any note to the template for example explaining Wikipedia:GFDL standardization if you like. I will update the commons version of the same template as well.

What you are asking is quite unreasonable. We do not want people visiting commons to use dictionaries even when they are looking at a licensing of a template. An English named template is no more desirable than a Spanish or Japanese named template. License templates names should be as simple as possible so that everyone can understand it.

There also is a legal issue here. If an image from en.wikipedia is moved to commons, the disclaimer is English Wikipedia's disclaimer. If the image is moved from Vietnamese Wikipedia, the disclaimer is Vietnamese wikipedia's disclaimer. Both are named {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} which is why a rename is imperative. This last issue is the main reason.

-- Cat ^chi? 07:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You can create whatever language neutral templates and redirects you want at Commons, but expecting enwiki to use names that are worse than meaningless simply to accommodate you is also quite unreasonable. You might rename one or both of the enwiki/viwiki/other wiki templates to avoid the conflict, but the names need to remain locally meaningful. When words are required to explain the meaning of a template, traditionally each community uses a locally relevant name. See: German copyright tags, Spanish copyright tags, French copyright tags, etc. The name of the tag used on enwiki should stay intelligible to enwiki users. Probably the natural thing is choose a Vietnamese name for the Vietnamese tag and make similar translations any other place this comes up. Ultimately commons should resolve the language issue with redirects, not imposing its will on other projects. Dragons flight (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherstuffexists is a poor rationale. Please avoid it. You are pointing out a continuing problem with license templates on many wikis. Getting the matter addressed on non-English wikis is bad enough due to a language barrier...

For the most part (except this instance) en.wikipedia complies with commons naming scheme (and vice versa). Freely licensed templates traditionally have very short names which is symbolic. "cc-by-sa" means nothing to a person who does not have a clue what "cc" means. I do not see why we should make an exception on this instance to this general syntax. Also if the person can read the content of the template in English, I seriously doubt he will need to check the name of the template to figure it out. Same cannot be said about a person who lacks English skills. I do not even see what the fuss is about...

You have any idea how difficult it is to deal with a jungle of redirects? No one is "imposing a will" and I suggest you avoid such hostile language. Local wikis should make the life on commons simpler not more complicated. Collaboration between commons and other wikis is not prohibited. This was why the disclaimers were removed from {{GFDL}} in the first place. Irresponsible naming of templates is the cause of many license issues on commons.

All freely licensed images on all wikis are on those wikis temporarily. Eventually they all will be moved to commons. Incompatible naming of licenses with commons leads to problems complicating this already difficult process.

-- Cat ^chi? 08:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the template can be named {{GFDL-wikipedia-en}} or {{GFDL-en-wikipedia}}... -- Cat ^chi? 08:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Would that work? -- Cat ^chi? 09:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Local wikis routinely use local languages. That's difficult for Commons to work around, yes, but that's fundmentally the same issue that Commons already has with respect to translating tags and providing multi-lingual content. We should not be trying to impose a single naming scheme on this or any other wiki simply for Commons' convenience. If you come at this from the point of view that all tags need to be language neutral in their names, I don't think we will ever agree. That is simply not the way things are now, and not something I consider sufficiently desirable to justify the profound erosion in clarity that comes with insisting on such naming schemes in all cases. You might also note that even Commons already keeps a signifcant number of tags like Attribution, Coat of Arms, Free Screenshot, Anonymous Work, with descriptive names in English. Having a tag with an English noun like "disclaimers" would hardly be unprecedented on Commons.

Also, it's not just about reading the template, but also about being able to find and reference it. Names exist to be meaningful reflection of their content, and GFDL-en fails badly in this case. Another reason the difference needs to be clear, especially in this case, is because we don't want people arbitrarily substituting GFDL-en for GFDL or vice versa for exactly the same legal reasons you raise. In my opinion, GFDL-with-disclaimers needs a name that clearly identifies why it is different. Frankly, I think using GFDL-en on Commons is already a poor naming choice, but that's not an argument worth starting now. As you might gather, I also disagee with GFDL-en-wikipedia, because again this is not en-wikipedia's version of the GFDL. It is the version of the GFDL with disclaimers and that should be reflected in the name.

Commons is a multi-lingual image repository. This is an English Encyclopedia. They interact, and I'd like to find a way to compromise with you here. I've already suggested a couple ways to eliminate the most severe problem of having GFDL-with-disclaimers have fundementally different meanings on enwiki vs. viwiki. But it not sensible to erode the usablity of enwiki only to indirectly benefit Commons any more than it would be sensible to go to frwiki and insist they name all their tags in English for consistency. I'm all for making tweaks for the benefit of Commons, but those adjustments need to be not harmful to enwiki, and right now your move proposals fail that test.

One other alternative you could do is move the 40,000 GFDL-with-disclaimers images over to Commons, and then we wouldn't have to worry about this here. You say that's the goal, but sadly I've been in discussions on Commons where people reject the idea of bulk import as unmanagable. As long as such images are still hosted here I am going to advocate for keeping labels that carry meaningful names. Dragons flight (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously will never agree on the philosophy here. So lets focus on a solution.

Would the latest name I proposed ({{GFDL-wikipedia-en}} or {{GFDL-en-wikipedia}}) work for you?

-- Cat ^chi? 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed it by skimming, but my answer above objected to those for the same reason I object to GFDL-en. The is not en-wikipedia's version of the GFDL, but rather it is a version with "disclaimers" Your proposed name loses essentially meaning and thus is an undesirable name. Obviously, we are at an impass, which we are unlikely to resolve amongst ourselves. However inviting other participation might be a good idea. On wiki, we do have WP:RM for controversial moves, and I notice that you have already posted to foundation-l about the more global principle of systematic naming. Dragons flight (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely lost faith in dispute resolution process. I will not engage in it. You are however more than welcome to post this in front of a more general audience since it is obvious we will not be able to agree. I feel you are being very unreasonable. As for the mailing list, thats over an issue I have been dealing with for the past two years. It is unrelated to this issue otherwise. -- Cat ^chi? 19:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please replace template code with the following for standardization with the {{Imbox}} template. I have already created the template documentation page. Kelly ^hi! 16:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{imbox
| type      = license
| image     = [[Image:Heckert GNU white.svg|52px|GFDL]]
| style     = 
| textstyle = margin:0.5em auto; text-align: center; font-size:85%; vertical-align:center; min-height:64px; margin-left:68px
| text      = Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the '''[[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]''', Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.<br/>Subject to [[Wikipedia:general disclaimer|disclaimers]].
}}
{{image other | [[Category:GFDL images with disclaimers|{{PAGENAME}}]] }}
{{free media}}
<noinclude>
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{template doc}}
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 16:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this template have the commons preferred elements added?Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Would it be possible to add a parameter to suppress the categorization as 'free-media'?

I've noted some examples where although the photo is under a 'free' license, the subject isn't, mostly images of 'recent' sculpture in the US. Having a param like nonfreesubject=yes on this and other 'free' license templates would help quickly eleminate these for bots and reports trying to find images that might have a genuinely incorrect license as opposed to one that is because of the derivation of the image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: It would certainly be possible, and maybe even a good idea. But this should probably be brought up for wider discussion at WP:VPR, as perhaps this should be handled a different way. For example, maybe a plain-text statement that the photographer releases their contribution under the GFDL, but the photo remains non-free due to whatever other issues are involved. Anomie⚔ 04:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Swap current version for sandbox which passes on the dw param. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why do you want to remove the <noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't! - The sandbox code should include that ! XD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we could add a small notice asking copyright holders to remove the disclaimers? Feel free to improve but here is a suggestion:

This file have disclaimers which have unintended legal implications. If you are the copyright holder please concider to remove the disclaimers.

I know not all uploaders are still active but if there is a chance someone will remove the disclaimers perhaps it is worth a try? Same apply to {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}. --MGA73 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]