Forum:License box metatemplating

Forums: Index > Rin's Travel Agency > Archive > License box metatemplating


		_{19:54, June 4, 2014 (UTC)} Technobliterator ^Talk



		Hey; In similar vein to the maintenance template, with the help of JBed on IRC I have created a license box metatemplate. Basically; this thing is used to construct other license templates, and also allows them to be styled through the css. Full document can be found on the page. Just thought I'd let everyone know why I'm editing every single license template now. Any suggestions/feedback?


		_{20:21, June 4, 2014 (UTC)} Technobliterator ^Talk



		Right. Having metatemplated them all, we've come across an issue in that it seems the Lbox changed more than I anticipated. I have left `{{Fother}}` alone for now, because I'm not sure if people want to keep Relm's image (but I don't see why?) Some of the license templates had a grey background, but it was unsure for what purpose Not sure what to do about `{{cc-by-sa-3.0}}` {{tl\|None selected}}, is there a reason for this template to exist when we have `{{delete}}`? All are solvable, but we need to discuss. I am, as usual, opinionless. Oh, and on a lot of templates, the old "copyright" image was changed to a "fair use" one, just for the record.

I'll respond properly later, but None Selected is actually reason-specific {{Delete}} template, not quite the same as SD. And not quite the same as Delete since it doesn't require discussion, it's meant to give the uploader a chance to license it, while SD is an admin's right to delete it on sight, given an apt reason.

If we wanted, we could force timestamps to be added to it and have the template recat the file as speedy deletion if the file hasn't been re-licensed in like a month or something. JBed (talk) 20:25, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I:

Support replacing Relm with regular Copyright image.
I probably prefer the grey background. That aside, I don't think there really needs to be a special reason to have different colour backgrounds.
I don't know why cc-by-sa 3.0 is used in some of the places it is. SCM says this but I'm not entirely sure I agree. Images uploaded here can be of any copyright, so long as we have/can argue permission. For the same reason as fair use images. CC-BY-SA basically just means we have to credit the author in images we upload using it. If people use our content but don't have the same credit then they are in the wrong. Surely? I'm not an expert.
As above. 88.107.151.62 23:36, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that quickly over one day and probably contains some errors. My understanding, currently, is that if the license of the file conflicts with the license of the wiki we can ask for permission/argue fair use but that section was written assuming you don't ask, because nobody ever does.

Basically, as far as I can tell:

ShareAlike is obviously part of our license so that's fine.
Attribution only should be fine, so, yeah, I definitely made an error there.
NonCommercial we probably need to ask permission for, as Wikia's a for-profit site and using an NC licensed image on a page that generates ad revenue I'm pretty sure results in a conflict. Might be fine if you only intend to use it in userspace.
NoDerivatives and ShareAlike can't be used together so we need permission there.
Version 1.0 is not forwards compatible, so we need permission there. Version 2.x is, so that's fine. Not sure if version 4.0 is backwards compatible, probably is but don't quote me on that.

I might be horribly wrong on several aspects there. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 00:21, June 6, 2014 (UTC)