Template talk:Di-no license

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


On Commons this is Template:No license --GeorgHH (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Many templates redirect here[edit]

Typically templates that are considered invalid are redirected here. This assists with cleanup. Discussion of validity of many of them can be found at

Text is too confusing[edit]


The text is very unclear on what a user should do when an image has been tagged. Perhaps it can be made clearer somehow, something like the following, perhaps:

"Please provide information on the copyright status of this image by adding a copyright tag from this list. When a tag has been added, please remove this notice."

--h2g2bob (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me replacing this tag with ImageTaggingBot's {{No copyright holder}}? --Carnildo (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with that - it's much clearer. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. It's name is "di-no license" because this template was specifically asking for a copyright license tag, along with code to copypaste to notify image uploaders and to add to image captions. Now it doesn't. This isn't "better wording"; it's completely differently wording with an entirely different purpose. I don't consider this to be an improvement at all. --Geniac (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll second Geniac here - it's about a missing license tag, a separate purpose from {{No copyright holder}}. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I've had to revert this. It's a disimprovement because the code to copy and inform the uploader is missing. If you want to make it simpler, sure, but when I put {{subst:nld}} on a page, I don't want to have to dig through WP:UTM to find the right notification template to the uploader. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Who's the target audience for this template? Is it the uploaders, or is it the image patrollers? --Carnildo (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with criticism above -- I have just uploaded a fair use image (Image:Ferneyhough_Etudes_Transcendantales_measure_1.png) with what I thought was every fair use field fully filled out, and now I find this tag applied to the image page and have no idea what I'm supposed to do. The link to Help:Copyright is no help whatsoever because it links to far too big a collection of pages to expect a user to know what to do about it. I happen to know that I was supposed to add {{Sheet music}} to the page, but couldn't expect others to. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} There is no consensus for the current, dumbed-down version. Change it back, please. Or at least add a link to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags in there (see h2g2bob's version at the top of this section) and stick the usage codes (as mentioned by Stifle) back on the bottom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done for now: which revision should it be reverted to? Happymelon 21:44, 17 May

2008 (UTC)

Confusing message about image copyright status[edit]

I added a public domain image to my entry on Charlie Merz. I received a notice that it needed a copyright tag. I thought I added that tag, but I do not see that it appears. Also, the message indicates that I can remove the template that tells me you will remove the photo if I don't add the tag. I see no way I can remove the template. Further, I see no way to edit the information about the image without upload another version of the file. Can someone advise me.

Markdill (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} Plz, back iwiki

[[ja:Template:No license]]
[[ru:Шаблон:No license]]
[[vi:Tiêu bản:Unknown]]

Alex Spade (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, but I set things up so that non-admins can do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary cut off[edit]

I don't know why my edit summary got cut off as "don'". What I meant to type was "don't need the Template: part when notifying uploader". --Geniac (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Template:Di-no_license Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Archived. --Geniac (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change of wording[edit]

Currently, this template reads:

This file does not have information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted after Foosday, 32 Febtober 2011. Please remove this template if a copyright license tag has been added.

I propose changing the wording to the following:

This file does not have information on its copyright and licensing status. Unless the copyright and licensing status is provided, the image will be deleted after Foosday, 32 Febtober 2011. Please remove this template if a copyright license tag has been added.

The reason for this is that a file may have information on its copyright status (by identifying the copyright holder and the date of creation) but lack information about its licensing status (what license the copyright holder has released it under), and in such a case this tag, as currently worded, would seem to be inappropriate. (The {{Untagged}} template seems to be better phrased for such a case, but the documentation there says it is meant for bot use and encourages humans to use this tag.) Any thoughts before I make this change? —Bkell (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done; I've made this change. —Bkell (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal merge with {{No copyright information}}[edit]

Both templates have become hopelessly similar to each other. I request that {{tfm}} be used in the main template with an administrator's approval. I will add a discussion of this proposal in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Here is the template below: {{tfm|Null}} --Gh87 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The big difference between this and {{No copyright information}} is that {{No copyright information}} was designed to be helpful for new users, while this template was designed for the convenience of image patrollers. --Carnildo (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
YesY {{tfm}} added to the template page.  Sandstein  21:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}Please properly format the {{Tfm}} template, by adding the correct parameters - "{{Tfm}} → {{Tfm|Di-no license|No copyright information}}. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


Shouldn't this include (within <noinclude> tags) : [[Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status| ]]? --Elvey (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

s/information/a tag/[edit]

Plenty of people who upload images and try their best to provide copyright information are still hit with the "di-no-license" template when a bot comes along. This is obviously because bots don't read free-form text; they simply check for a license tag. We should make it clear that this "machine readable information" is what's missing. There may in fact be sufficient information as far as a human reader is concerned.

Together with my edit to Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags (which points out a link to templates that were orphaned before), this should make image uploading a bit less stressful. Connor Behan (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)