Template talk:Di-no license

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Di-no license is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

Contents

[edit] Commons

On Commons this is Template:No license --GeorgHH (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Text is too confusing

{{editprotected}}

The text is very unclear on what a user should do when an image has been tagged. Perhaps it can be made clearer somehow, something like the following, perhaps:

"Please provide information on the copyright status of this image by adding a copyright tag from this list. When a tag has been added, please remove this notice."

--h2g2bob (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me replacing this tag with ImageTaggingBot's {{No copyright holder}}? --Carnildo (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with that - it's much clearer. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. It's name is "di-no license" because this template was specifically asking for a copyright license tag, along with code to copypaste to notify image uploaders and to add to image captions. Now it doesn't. This isn't "better wording"; it's completely differently wording with an entirely different purpose. I don't consider this to be an improvement at all. --Geniac (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll second Geniac here - it's about a missing license tag, a separate purpose from {{No copyright holder}}. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I've had to revert this. It's a disimprovement because the code to copy and inform the uploader is missing. If you want to make it simpler, sure, but when I put {{subst:nld}} on a page, I don't want to have to dig through WP:UTM to find the right notification template to the uploader. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Who's the target audience for this template? Is it the uploaders, or is it the image patrollers? --Carnildo (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with criticism above -- I have just uploaded a fair use image (Image:Ferneyhough_Etudes_Transcendantales_measure_1.png) with what I thought was every fair use field fully filled out, and now I find this tag applied to the image page and have no idea what I'm supposed to do. The link to Help:Copyright is no help whatsoever because it links to far too big a collection of pages to expect a user to know what to do about it. I happen to know that I was supposed to add {{Sheet music}} to the page, but couldn't expect others to. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} There is no consensus for the current, dumbed-down version. Change it back, please. Or at least add a link to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags in there (see h2g2bob's version at the top of this section) and stick the usage codes (as mentioned by Stifle) back on the bottom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

N Not done for now: which revision should it be reverted to? Happy‑melon 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iwiki

{{editprotected}} Plz, back iwiki

[[fr:Modèle:LicenceInconnue]]
[[ja:Template:No license]]
[[ru:Шаблон:No license]]
[[vi:Tiêu bản:Unknown]]
[[zh:Template:Unknown]]

Alex Spade (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

N Not done, but I set things up so that non-admins can do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary cut off

I don't know why my edit summary got cut off as "don'". What I meant to type was "don't need the Template: part when notifying uploader". --Geniac (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)