Template talk:GFDL

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Info non-talk.svg Template:GFDL has been protected indefinitely because it is a highly-used or visible template. Use {{Edit request}} on this page to request an edit.
All new translations are welcome. However, in order not to place too much strain on the servers, it is preferable to add multiple translations at once.

Something really, really weird... why can't I see this template in any of its categories???! pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

When updating much-used templates, some queries to the database may fail because they take too long. This may cause inconsistencies, especially in category listings, what-links-here, etc. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 13:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Language bar[edit]

How about we add a language bar to this template with different language, like we do with other templates? / Fred Chess 23:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. The current scheme makes no sense at all. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 07:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It would then look like this:
GNU head GFDL: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the 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. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
Fred Chess 10:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea... well, the templates should be renamed to the standard sscheme for translations, i.e. using /it not -it; also, all direct uses of the translated templates should be changed by bot, and they should be removed from any categories (after they have been unlinked). -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that only some say "subject to disclaimers" - but i don't really thing that's a problem. Since the disclaimer applies to everything on the site, that could be mentioned in all versions. or in none. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


What exactly is the point of the self-link at the beginning of the text? It just shows up as bold-text GFDL: and doesn't really seem especially helpful for anything. Angr 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed, kinda useless. NielsF 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Related question: Does the GFDL license require a link back to the file using the template? I though this is only required by Creative Commons license types. In case you don't know what I'm talking about, it's the this document part linking back to the file using the GFDL template. It was added by User:Sassospicco with (link to the document using Media:{{PAGENAME}} (like in CC template)) . --Denniss 19:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit]

please add the following inter wiki links to the template,

[[vi:Tiêu bản:GFDL]]

thanks, —Cacuija 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, w:template:GFDL is equivalent to template:GFDL-en (notice "Subject to disclaimers"). So this template, is actually equivalent to w:template:GFDL-no-disclaimers, at least for the time being.
I can't tell if the Vietnamese translation has this line or not, so I won't add it for now. The Spanish one appears OK. The eu: one does not exist (doesn't anyone ever follow interwiki links?? :P). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I've checked the links according to the translations, and here's what I found:
Each link is redirected to the local page. Yuval YChat • 00:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Some more:


--Eduardoferreira 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please delete interwiki link cs:template:GFDL, page is not exist. Michaelbrabec (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

this document[edit]

Hi ,please replace ([[Media:{{PAGENAME}}|this document]]) with ([[{{FULLPAGENAME}}|this document]]). You can see the difference here --OsamaK 12:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

All licence templates use the same ([[Media:{{PAGENAME}}|this document]]), I assume it's because the licenced object suould be in the Media: namespace. Michelet-密是力 05:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 Not done The media link makes a link to the raw file, which reflects the fact that the license applies to the raw file, not the text and/or media on the image page. The media link is the right link. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If this is the case, it does not conform to the GFDL licence, which stipulates that the licence and the licence tag should be included in the GFDL document itself. The GFDL document cannot therefore be the "raw file", but must be the image page with at least the GFDL tag (the direct link to the GFDL licence being considerd as a sufficient quotation). The "raw file" may have an external CC licence, but not a GFDL one. The GFDL licence should read:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the 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. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License. "This document", as covered by this permission, consists in the media, the present copyright tag, and the GFDL licence text, which may not be separated under the GFDL licence terms".

ermmm. interesting point.
Given that an image file doesn't have a "title page", I wonder what is the best thing to do. Maybe you're right that the image page is like the "title page". It also contains the history, for example. and it's not actually a problem to consider the image page as part of the package because it's GFDL, although it may make authorship somewhat more messy.
Given that this is a very high-profile template and widely used, I will seek out some more opinions about this before possibly making this change. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I totaly agree with User:OsamaK. Please take a look at my page Image:Pieris japonica (Mountain Fire).jpg, where 'this document' points to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Pieris_japonica_%28Mountain_Fire%29.jpg. It doesn't make sense. Merlin 19:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It certainlay woulden't be a good idea to use it as a sandbox! ;o) Michelet-密是力 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Auto Translation[edit]

To make it auto translated please move this template to Template:GFDL/en and change the content of this template to "{{GFDL/{{int:Lang}}}}". thanks. ערן (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The result: {{GFDL/{{int:Lang}}}}

For now it works in French, German, Hebrew and Italian and after this move also in English. To make it work in other language, sysops should create more [[MediaWiki:Lang/<LANGCODE>]] (as in MediaWiki:Lang/he). ערן (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And imprtant: keep the categories of the en page in the end of this template! ערן (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict)To prevent World War III Commons-Admin-War-I I believe you will not find anyone to move this template, but I've restored an old redirect and now it works :) ✓ Done regards, abf /talk to me/ 15:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I've copied the template to Template:GFDL/en so now it should work without need to move this page. Please consider using {{GFDL/{{int:Lang}}}} instead of the english template here, to make it auto translated. keep here the "{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Image|[[Category:GFDL|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}" which is neccesry for categories. ערן (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Why dont we use the redirect? abf /talk to me/ 16:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I want to remove the English content from here and to include it using template - as the content removed from here and moved to template, everyone will the the template in their language. ערן (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Example: Template:GFDL/autotranslated. ערן (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please change, or let me change, this template as I did in Template:No permission since: Users with French interface see this template in French[1], users with German interface see this template in German[2] and so on. ערן (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of languages don't work, see for example nl. Please fix this first. More templates seem to be affected. Multichill (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all, when it doesn't work in some language the users see this template in English - the same as now - so there is no problem with this. Second, in nl it works perfect after you created MediaWiki:Lang/nl - but you must purge the template to see the change. try this link to purge. To make it work in other languages, MediaWiki:Lang pages should be created for any language. ערן (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, I'm unclear what the requested edit is. Please clarify that and place editprotected again.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please use {{Autotranslate|base=GFDL}} instead of the current content (but keep the category and the noinclude content). Thanks, ערן (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ops, don't to it - see bugzilla:14404. ערן (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, I read this talk page and the bug comment before messing all the thing! :)
I'd suggest that when the issue is fixed, a note should be dropped here. Then we'll decide if we replace the current template code with the following:
<noinclude>{{heavily used template}}</noinclude>{{Autotranslate|base=GFDL}}<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Image|{{{category|[[Category:GFDL|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>



* {{tl|GFDL 1.2}}
* {{tl|GFDL-with-disclaimers}}

[[Category:GFDL license tags|{{PAGENAME}}]] 
[[Category:License tags attribution|{{PAGENAME}}]] 
[[Category:License tags share-alike|{{PAGENAME}}]] 
[[Category:License tags full-text|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[vi:Tiêu bản:GFDL]]
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 00:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I just had a word with Brion on IRC. He says, that we should not worry about this causing performance problems and at the moment, no change of this functionality is planned. Thus we are allowed to continue using it for template translation. If there are no further objections, I plan on changing the code this weekend. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done now. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Preparing for the license migration[edit]

Hello ladies and gentlemen. I am visiting your fair talk page today as a representative of the Licensing Update Committee. I have been tasked by the WMF with figuring out the best way to migrate all of our GFDL media to a dual GFDL 1.3 and CC-BY-SA license. As this is a rather huge migration, it has been suggested that we modify the main GFDL templates rather than trying to mass replace the tags on a million or so files. I would like to get feedback on whether or not this is feasible, and if so, what the best way to go about it would be. My best guess so far would be to either:

  1. Add a language-appropriate cc-by-sa tag to each of the GFDL language templates.
  2. Add a check to the {{Autotranslate}} template where if "GFDL" is the base parameter, also include the language-appropriate cc-by-sa tag in the output.

Any opinions on which of these would work better (or something totally different) would be appreciated. Please note that this migration must be completed before August 1. Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

GFDL 1.2+ (or whatever versions they were released under) and CC-BY-SA, unless there are files licensed with 1.3(+) only, right?
Have any new GFDL 1.2+ files been incorporated into Commons since November 1, 2008?
--AVRS (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC), 21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree A license is a contract. You can't change the terms of a contract without the contractor's approval. First send E-mails to each copyright holder, and change the terms of the license according to their answers, on a case by case basis. I disapprove any massive change. For example the maps from http://www.maps-for-free.com/ are licensed under GFDL. You can't change that without that website owner's approval. Teofilo (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The GFDL is NOT a contract.[3] Kaldari (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The decision to re-license GFDL content (with the exception of 1.2-only or otherwise not applicable stuff) additionally under CC-BY-SA is a final decision that has been made by the WMF Board of Trustees in accordance with the community vote. It is not up for further discussion. The WMF's legal position is that such a migration is sound under the re-licensing language of GFDL 1.3. The Free Software Foundation has explicitly allowed migration of any GFDL content, regardless of its origin, in the GFDL 1.3, if it was published in a wiki prior to November 2008, and that is what will happen. That is as official a comment as you'll ever see me make. :-)
Regarding the November 2008 cut-off: this only applies to externally originating content. There's not yet an agreed upon process on how post-November GFDL files should be treated, though at least for clearly community-created files, it's probably safe to migrate them unless the uploader explicitly objects and can point out external publication.
Going forward, new GFDL 1.3 content should be dual-licensed CC-BY-SA just like text. Whether GFDL 1.2-only media files should continue to be allowed is an open-ended Wikimedia community decision.--Eloquence (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Won’t new files under GFDL still be allowed to be uploaded after the relicensing deadline? --AVRS (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought media files don't have to have the same license as the Commons license. We have cc-by, cc-by-sa, mozilla ...etc. I don't see why you would want to relicense all files to cc-by-sa now. Does that mean we can't upload gfdl files anymore?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The variety of licenses will not change much -- but GFDL licenses for media are being deprecated, and GFDL content is being relicensed to cc-by-sa because cc-sa is close in intent to GFDL in most ways, but does not have the same requirements for direct inclusion of the full text of the license, which can make media reuse (for instance) difficult. +sj + 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The licensing update does not require that GFDL stop being used for media. WMF is explicitly allowing the communities to decide whether or not they want to continue accepting GFDL files. Existing files that happen to be GDFl 1.2 or later versions will participate in the one-time relicensing though. Dragons flight (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I strongly feel that the meaning of a tag should not be surprising. So I disagree with simply rewriting {{gfdl}} to equal {{gfdl}} + {{cc-by-sa}}, since then one gets more than they expect when they add {{gfdl}}. (A related question is whether {{gfdl}} should actually be retired.) Plus you get into duplication problems if the image is already tagged GFDL + CC-BY-SA add you add an additional CC-BY-SA tag. I know enwiki has had bot runs that retagged >100,000 images at a time, and I think doing this the right way would be to carefully define the parameters of the migration and commission a bot for that task. Dragons flight (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Moved constructive discussion to Commons:License Migration Task Force#Discussion of implementation ideas. Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

RTL template[edit]

{{editprotected}} I would like to suggest a minor change for the RTL languages. Usually, the GNU head faces to the right, which is appropriate when the text follows in the right side of the image. However, for RTL languages, the text appears in the left side of the GNU head. I think for RTL languages, it is be much more appropriate to place a GNU head which faces to the left. Follows are the current and purposed template.

Regular LTR language template
Regular RTL language template (with GNU image faces to the left)
Purposed RTL language template (with GNU faces to the text)
GNU head يسمح النسخ والتوزيع و/أو تعديل هذه الوثيقة تحت شروط رخصة جنو للوثائق الحرة، الإصدار 1.2 أو أي إصدار لاحق تنشره مؤسسة البرمجيات الحرة؛ دون أقسام ثابتة ودون نصوص أغلفة أمامية ودون نصوص أغلفة خلفية. نسخة من الرخصة تم تضمينها في القسم المسمى "رخصة جنو للوثائق الحرة)".


If you believe this change is worthwhile, the change can be done within the {{GFDL/layout}} template, by replacing the image

[[Image:Heckert GNU white.svg|64px|link=|GNU head]]


[[Image:{{#ifeq:{{Dir|{{{lang|}}}}}|rtl|Heckert GNU left white|Heckert GNU white}}.svg|64px|link=|GNU head]]

Regards, – Fuzzy – 17:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One last thought...

GNU head Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the 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. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".


Regards, – Fuzzy – 17:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. I also adjusted the line height as you suggested, though I did it directly in {{GFDL/lang}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't get to see many rtl templates, so this may be a known issue, but the pipes are messed up. Sometimes there's two of them. It's werid that they don't show up on each side at the end of each line. كوردی and Kurdî get split up (but still a working link). Rocket000 (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done, I think. The problem is that the pipe is a "neutral" character which adopts the direction of the surrounding text. Since most of the language names are in LTR scripts, most of the text, including the pipes, gets rendered LTR regardless of the global text direction. However, in places where a pipe happens to separate LTR and RTL text, the ambiguity gets resolved according to the global text direction, which produces unexpected results is it's not LTR.
The easy fix would've been to simply add dir="ltr" to the <span> tag in {{GFDL/lang}}, making the whole list render LTR even in RTL contexts (albeit still right-aligned). The "correct" fix, which I've hopefully managed to implement, is to:
  1. pass the text direction as a parameter to the "/lang" template,
  2. use that parameter to give the pipes an explicit directionality by wrapping them in <span dir="ltr/rtl"> tags, and
  3. wrap the language links themselves in <span dir="ltr"> tags to make them always render as if in an LTR context.
The last step is needed because at least {{#language:be-tarask}} ("Беларуская (тарашкевіца)") contains parentheses that will render incorrectly in an RTL context; it won't affect actual RTL language names, since the directionality of the text still overrides the dir attribute (at least unless any of those happen to contain parentheses...).
BTW, I'm pretty sure this isn't the only template with this problem. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonder if this is why MediaWiki:Pipe-separator (and other *-separator) exists. Maybe we can use that to cut down on the spans? The thought of internationalizing pipes also seem silly to me but maybe this is the reason for it. BTW, I updated {{lang links}} to use this new condensed style for all templates it's used for (but not anything else). {{langlist}} uses the new font-size but not the line height. Same for {{lang links subst}}, which is commonly used for the manually made ones like {{GFDL/lang}}. We should try and keep these all on the same page for consistency. Rocket000 (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

GFDL 1.3[edit]

Since the license of all "GFDL vesion 1.2 or newer" content in Wikimedia projects was auto-upgraded to GFDL 1.3, shouldn't this template already be saying that the files are under "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version"? Wouldn't this be easier instead of changing this template to {{GFDL-1.3}}? --Geraki TLG 10:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, any content released under GFDL 1.2 will continue to be usable under that license (as will anything released e.g. under "GFDL 1.1 or any later version"). I see no reason to deliberately hide this fact from our users. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that you miss something, because in order for an image to be migrated, it must be under GFDL 1.3 (the one with the migration clause). Wikimedia upgraded the GFDL content to version 1.3 (except where a user opted-out). For example wikipedia content is GFDL 1.3 and not 1.2. So every image that is migrated to CC-BY-SA-3.0 it is GFDL 1.3+CC-BY-SA-3.0 and NOT GFDL 1.2+CC-BY-SA-3.0. --Geraki TLG 20:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
No, migrated images are actually GFDL 1.2 + GFDL 1.3 + any later version of GFDL + CC-BY-SA-3.0. (Well, technically there could be migrated images whose license doesn't include GFDL 1.2, if they were uploaded after GFDL 1.3 was released and licensed under GFDL 1.3 (only / or later), but I rather doubt we have many of those, if any at all.)Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

GFDL minefield[edit]

See Commons talk:Template i18n#GFDL minefield. Multichill (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Could someone please add the ig (Igbo) translation to the GFDL/lang template, Thanks. -- Ukabia (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Add parameter[edit]


Could an additional option be added to the "migration" parameter of this template? I'd like to see a "redundent" parameter be added, with the same effect as "redundant". I'm always misspelling this word; it's always clear what is meant when someone types "redundent", and it would be helpful if images with this misspelling weren't tagged as unreviewed. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. The edit would have to be done at Template:License migration.
  2. Is it really useful? AFAICT this is not a common misspelling…
--Mormegil (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The second one first — probably contributing to your observation is the fact that this spelling currently produces a significantly different visual appearance (i.e. there's an extra CC license tag), so people like me are very likely to notice the error immediately. And for the first — sorry, but I didn't know that. Shall I wait, or should I post it now? Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 Not done . Multichill (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

CSS-Class noprint for Languages[edit]

{{editprotected}} The Wikilink to all those languages add a lot of not usefull text to a print out of a image description page.

By declaring the language links as noprint it would save some paper/ink.

-- MichaelFrey (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done You’re right, language links are of no use in print, I’ve changed {{lle}} so that it will apply everywhere. --Mormegil (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change for licensetpl_link[edit]

Please see this proposal. /skagedaltalk 20:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}} Remove the |link= from the file links to provide attribution as required by their licenses by enabling linking. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It took some hunting to find it, but the majority of the images were on Template:License migration announcement/layout. I have removed all (I think). Killiondude (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Link update[edit]

Commons:GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 redirects to Commons:GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2. --CiaPan (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

CiaPan: 1,5 years later: Fixed with Gerrit:202410, pending review. Raymond 15:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


Per mw:Help:Extension:Media Viewer#How can I disable Media Viewer for unrelated images? I want to add class=noviewer to [[File:{{#ifeq:{{dir|{{int:lang}}}}|rtl|Heckert GNU left white|Heckert GNU white}}.svg|64px|GNU head]] so that the Gnu is not longer shown in the MediaViewer. Any objections? Raymond 15:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Raymond 09:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


About 500 files have inconsistent use of parameter migration, which put them to Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. {{GFDL}} does not define a value review at all. What does this construct mean? And how can it be solved to foster the removal of the maintenance category and - more important - close the open license migration issue? If this must be done on an individual basis, I don't have any idea on how to apply proper rules. So help is appreciated. The search term might be too narrow. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Likely possible to remove the invalid migration=review string via Bot. License migration reviews have to be done manually as bots are prone to errors.--Denniss (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, this is possible with a bot, it's also easy with VFC. But the question still open is: do these files (despite the mispelled parameter argument) still need manual attention and relicensing or can this be removed without any legal consequences? As I was not involved in this license migration and as I do not fully understand the legal circumstances, I hoped that somebody confident with this topic could take the necessary actions. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)