Template:TextLicenseFreeUse is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit protected}} to notify an administrator to make the requested edit. This template does not have a documentation subpage. You can create the documentation subpage here. If the template page contains categories or usage notes, move these to the documentation subpage. If the template does not require documentation, add |doc=no to this template ({{permanently protected}}).
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.
The other multilicensing template don't seem to do this, but it doesn't hurt to be explicit. I wonder also whether this should apply to talk pages. Deco22:44, 8 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Better now, but some things still have to be done:
Perhaps it should be changed to English Wikipedia (sorry, I thought about it 1 minute after leaving).
This template needs to be protected, like the older ones are.
And last but not least, somebody who is not afraid of flames should spam all the people with the "deprecated" templates (I know I would feel grateful for it if I hadn't noticed the discussion before, but some people might get annoyed).
Thanks again for your advice. I'm not sure what section to drop a Village Pump note on — perhaps policy. I'm waiting for 4 days before deprecating the multilicensing PD templates, to give people a chance to complain. The image PD templates have already had a link to can't grant added, so I expect that to grab some attention. There are so many people using the PD image templates that I fear only a bot will be able to get in contact with them all, though. Deco02:02, 9 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore the above. I no longer contend that it is impossible to release one's works into the public domain - I am not a lawyer and there is no legal precedent in this matter. Relevent discussion. Deco05:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not done@Catfurball: (consider this a BRD) - this is a user template, it is meant to be used by a user - to place on their own page. It is not for licensing media. That it is not in the shape of a traditional userbox doesn't make it any less user-specific. (Also combined all these to one request as it is all the same matter). — xaosfluxTalk18:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is actually a big sloppy mess of categorization going on here - so we should probably get a wider discussion going as to the best direction. Notably your requested 'to' category is not listed as a "userboxes" category. There certainly is use of categorizing these, and making it clear that there is a difference between templates intended to be used by a user on their own page, and templates to be placed on media descriptions. — xaosfluxTalk18:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we just need better documentation on the two category pages. One should say "This cat is for templates that go on User pages" and the other should say "This cat is for templates that go on File pages." Or something like that, maybe with a bit more nuance of which I am not aware. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done @Catfurball: (consider this a BRD) - this is a user template, it is meant to be used by a user - to place on their own page. It is not for licensing media. That it is not in the shape of a traditional userbox doesn't make it any less user-specific. (Also combined all these to one request as it is all the same matter). — xaosflux Talk 18:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Done Izno (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)