On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Codeispoetry
<codeispoetry(a)adrianlang.de> wrote:
Hi Nilfanion,
On Thu, March 13, 2008 5:43 pm, Nilfanion wrote:
{{GFDL-1.2}} was nominated for deletion on the
grounds it is not
actually that free. I'm not trying to express an opinion on whether it
is worth keeping or not, but feel that COM:DEL should not be used as
the primary discussion venue for the validity of a template.
I've closed the debate (though I may end up getting overturned), and
moved the discussion to the (previously empty) talk page -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:GFDL-1.2
This post is just to notify of the discussion and to see if this
approach (establish validity and determine strategy on the template's
talk as opposed to COM:DEL) is more appropriate than on a deletion
discussion - which with high-use templates tends to generate badly.
While not criticizing your decision itself, I just wonder why you did not take the
actual use of
this template into account. We are currently having some problems with User:Steschke
[1]
illustrating the current typical usage of this license. AFAIK Gmaxwell is the only
contributor
broadly releasing files as GFDL-1.2 who did not retract GFDL-self.
Regards,
Adrian / Codeispoetry
[1]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steschke/licence&di…
and following diffs (the ip is steschke itself while blocked)
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Because people misuse a template should not be a reason to delete the template.
I believe there are some regular FP contributors who use this
template. Deleting it many images.
Bryan