Apparently, some people don't like the GNU drawing in the GFDL template and so, for esthetic reasons, a new template was born:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GFDL-nologo
The reason given, on the edit summary, was:
"some people were annoyed by the cartoon"
Should we have many copyright templates, one to fit everyone's taste or just one standard, vanilla-flavored template?
On 7/9/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Apparently, some people don't like the GNU drawing in the GFDL template and so, for esthetic reasons, a new template was born:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GFDL-nologo
The reason given, on the edit summary, was:
"some people were annoyed by the cartoon"
Should we have many copyright templates, one to fit everyone's taste or just one standard, vanilla-flavored template?
It doesn't really matter. As long as it carries out the same function.
Should we have many copyright templates, one to fit everyone's taste or just one standard, vanilla-flavored template?
g> It doesn't really matter. As long as it carries out the same function.
Oh, cool. Then, I'm preparing a flower-power GFDL template, one art-nouveau, hm... maybe even some stuckist templates!
Then, we'd need some guidelines for do-it-yourself custom GFDL templates, just like for userboxes. Of course, we'd need a directory for them, too.
I wonder whether anti-Iraq War-themed GFDL templates would be allowed...
:-)
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
Should we have many copyright templates, one to fit everyone's taste or just one standard, vanilla-flavored template?
g> It doesn't really matter. As long as it carries out the same function.
Oh, cool. Then, I'm preparing a flower-power GFDL template, one art-nouveau, hm... maybe even some stuckist templates!
Then, we'd need some guidelines for do-it-yourself custom GFDL templates, just like for userboxes. Of course, we'd need a directory for them, too.
I wonder whether anti-Iraq War-themed GFDL templates would be allowed...
WP:BEANS {{GFDL-goatse}}? </WP:BEANS>
On 7/9/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
WP:BEANS {{GFDL-goatse}}? </WP:BEANS>
Copyvio images will be deleted.
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
Should we have many copyright templates, one to fit everyone's taste or just one standard, vanilla-flavored template?
g> It doesn't really matter. As long as it carries out the same function. Oh, cool. Then, I'm preparing a flower-power GFDL template, one art-nouveau, hm... maybe even some stuckist templates! Then, we'd need some guidelines for do-it-yourself custom GFDL templates, just like for userboxes. Of course, we'd need a directory for them, too. I wonder whether anti-Iraq War-themed GFDL templates would be allowed...
WP:BEANS {{GFDL-goatse}}? </WP:BEANS>
WP:HOLE {{GFDL-gnu-se}} </WP:HOLE>
HTH HAND
On 7/9/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Should we have many copyright templates, one to fit everyone's taste or just one standard, vanilla-flavored template?
g> It doesn't really matter. As long as it carries out the same function.
Oh, cool. Then, I'm preparing a flower-power GFDL template, one art-nouveau, hm... maybe even some stuckist templates!
Fine may make cheaking images more interesting.
Then, we'd need some guidelines for do-it-yourself custom GFDL templates, just like for userboxes. Of course, we'd need a directory for them, too.
I wonder whether anti-Iraq War-themed GFDL templates would be allowed...
No they interfere with the template's funtion.
I dislike such a POV-fork of Wikipedia-space stuff, almost as much as I do an article one.
-Matt
On 7/9/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Apparently, some people don't like the GNU drawing in the GFDL template and so, for esthetic reasons, a new template was born:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GFDL-nologo
The reason given, on the edit summary, was:
"some people were annoyed by the cartoon"
Should we have many copyright templates, one to fit everyone's taste or just one standard, vanilla-flavored template?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gee, as the creator, I think I have some say here. I did it in order to deprecate and replace GFDL-small, which was on TFD and was deleted.
This was in order to get rid of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:GFDL-small&oldid=4158... which ws an attempt at minimizing the most possible the display of the GFDL notice.
So I got rid of it, but then people complained, so I opted for a smallr and simpler version of GFDL as a compromise on both issues (noral tempalte is huge, but -smalll was almost afootnote)
See my talk and TFD archives for the discussion.
Ask first, shoot later.
On 7/10/06, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/9/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Apparently, some people don't like the GNU drawing in the GFDL template and so, for esthetic reasons, a new template was born:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GFDL-nologo
The reason given, on the edit summary, was:
"some people were annoyed by the cartoon"
Should we have many copyright templates, one to fit everyone's taste or just one standard, vanilla-flavored template?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gee, as the creator, I think I have some say here. I did it in order to deprecate and replace GFDL-small, which was on TFD and was deleted.
This was in order to get rid of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:GFDL-small&oldid=4158... which ws an attempt at minimizing the most possible the display of the GFDL notice.
So I got rid of it, but then people complained, so I opted for a smallr and simpler version of GFDL as a compromise on both issues (noral tempalte is huge, but -smalll was almost afootnote)
See my talk and TFD archives for the discussion.
Ask first, shoot later.
my talk being [[User talk:Drini]]
On 09/07/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Apparently, some people don't like the GNU drawing in the GFDL template and so, for esthetic reasons, a new template was born:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GFDL-nologo
The reason given, on the edit summary, was:
"some people were annoyed by the cartoon"
Should we have many copyright templates, one to fit everyone's taste or just one standard, vanilla-flavored template?
Should Wikipedia not be including copyright notices as well as the link to GFDL? Or is my understanding of the licence incomplete.
It's rather annoying that often images etc. are often not tagged with the author, and their copyright marked as well as their licencing their work under the GFDL.
File history is not reliable - all the more so with stuff happening like people uploading the image to Commons, keeping nothing but the GFDL notice, and deleting the original file history at en (or wherever).
Wikipedia's attitude towards copyright seems lax at best. GFDL is not the same as public domain, and even for pd - politeness and courtesy dictate proper attribution.
Zoney