Template talk:GFDL-ja

When to add this and comment about the disclaimers

@Stefan2: and I have a discussion on mediawiki about when to add this template.

When I translate with Google I get this: "Of the files transferred from the Japanese version of Wikipedia to Commons, the files that were uploaded in the Japanese version before July 2009 and had a single GFDL license were always {{GFDL}}, not {{GFDL-ja}}."

I understand this as we (Commons) should use GFDL if file were uploaded to ja.wiki before July 2009. Stefan translate it the opposite way.

I think the best solution is to go to Japanese Wikipedia and change the original files to whatever is correct. That would make it much easier to transfer files to Commons.

My plan is to move all the free files to Commons so we can get the "license migration show" done. It will take a little time because there are 64,500+ files in ja:Category:GFDL画像.

I also think it is bad to link to the disclaimers on ja.wiki. How Can we host files on Commons and tell everyone that they are free to use except for <link to a text in Japanese outside Commons>. The disclaimers should be copied to Commons and translated. That way we can can make sure the disclaimers are compatible with Commons policy and we can control the changes. --MGA73 (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

ウィキペディア日本語版からコモンズへ移入されたファイルのうち、日本語版で2009年7月以前にアップロードされたGFDL単独ライセンスだったファイルには、必ず {{GFDL}} ではなく {{GFDL-ja}} のタグを付してください。

Translation: For the files transferred to Commons from the Japanese-language edition of Wikipedia and which were uploaded to the Japanese-language edition before July 2009 and used the stand-alone GFDL licence, always use the {{GFDL-ja}} tag, not the {{GFDL}} tag.

Google Translate misunderstands the text. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, GFDL requires you to preserve all disclaimers. If you translate the disclaimer, then it's not preserved, but changed. Compare with {{GFDL-en}} which links to a page in English which you can't translate either. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Stefan2: If it is not allowed to change anything then is this not a problem (changes in English disclaimers)?

But at least it should be possible to make an unofficial translation. The problem is that ja:Wikipedia:著作権 is a big page just like en:Wikipedia:Copyrights and it is (at least to me) not clear where the disclaimers start and where they end. And if you see Japanese history they change it non-stop.

So I think that we should be absolutely sure that we do not add any disclaimers to any file unless we are sure that we have to add it. To me it seem like that if we forget to add a disclaimer we can just add it later. But if we add one by a mistake can we remove it again? --MGA73 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I made a suggestion at ja:MediaWiki‐ノート:Licenses#Suggested_changes_of_licenses_2020 in hope that it is possible to avoid GFDL in the future. --MGA73 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If the GFDL is added to ja:Template:Self then there are no disclaimers. So it seems that own work are without disclaimers. --MGA73 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You could interpret the disclaimer rule in GFDL in two ways. One interpretation, which I think is the most likely one, is that you have to provide the original disclaimer URL, but that it doesn't matter if anything is changed on the linked page. Another interpretation is that you have to link to the revision of the disclaimer which was current at the time of the upload. The former interpretation is of course a lot easier for us to handle.

Check the old history of m:Template:GFDL. At one point, the template linked to m:Meta:General disclaimer, which at that point just linked to the disclaimer on English Wikipedia. The page now links to a disclaimer on wmf: instead. Also, I think I've seen redlinked disclaimers on some project. I'm not sure what to do in such cases. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that ja:Template:Self is very confusing. Try changing the order of the licences.

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}}: GFDL has no disclaimers. It doesn't say whether CC-BY-SA-3.0 is an acceptable licence on jawiki or not. It says that the uploader is the copyright holder.

{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}: GFDL has disclaimers. It says that CC-BY-SA-3.0 isn't an acceptable licence on jawiki. It doesn't say that the uploader is the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Lol oh nice! The order of the licenses is set at upload so they probably think that GFDL is always first license. To me it seems that the general idea is that there is never any disclaimers if the GFDL is used together with cc-by-sa-3.0. Only if it is uploaded alone as the only license.

They also mention a date. I think the idea was that no disclaimers should be added either before or after that date.

The easy solution is a static link and if someone care they can look in the history. Not very helpful but it is impossible for us to link directly to the version that applied at the time of the upload.

I have seen redlinked disclaimers too I think but only for files that originally came from en.wiki. In those cases we should just move the file from en.wiki to Commons and delete the local files.

I think the best solution is to check every wiki and persuade them to close for local uploads of free files. If they do not want that then change the licenses so that GFDL is not used at all. If they do not want that then at least use GFDL together with cc-by-sa-4.0. And IF they use GFDL then no disclaimers! --MGA73 (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt, LERK, Dragons flight, Tacsipacsi, RP88, De728631, and Liuxinyu970226: I just pinged all that have edited the template and are still active. If you have any comments they are very welcome and if you have no comments that is also okay. --MGA73 (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my only ever edit to this template was adding a category. Since I don't read Japanese I'm also not quite sure about the difference between GFDL-ja and the regular {{GFDL}}. De728631 (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I made (another post) at ja:Template‐ノート:GFDL#Subject_to_disclaimers_-_what_is_the_status. I hope someone there can help clarify. The problem is that some files have "disclaimers" and some files don't. --MGA73 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Suggest to ask Japanese-speaking administrators to investigate the status quo: @Miya, Whym, Yasu, and Y.haruo: . --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Comment My only comment is that it might be impossible to follow every GFDL disclaimer rule perfectly, as some of those are not well compatible with image collection. Be flexible and focus on spirit of the law when it is impossible to follow the letter of the law. And yes get some Japanese speakers involved, so we are not making decisions based on bad Google translate. --Jarekt (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I myself cannot offer much insight, but is the problem inherently limited to Japanese Wikipedia? I wonder if it applies (or applied) to some of the old GFDL files from projects other than Japanese Wikipedia, and if does, whether and how the issue was resolved for them. whym (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC) / User:青子守歌 was involved in ja:プロジェクト:ライセンス更新 (License Migration project) regarding GFDL. He might be able to share insight that I don't have. whym (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Whym: According to the prefix search and the category there is a few other templates (example {{GFDL-el}}) with disclaimers. But el.wiki only seems to have 92 files with GFDL and they all have disclaimers.

What makes Japanese Wikipedia special is that there is not a 1-to-1 between the template on ja.wiki and the template on Commons. The Japanese GFDL-template sometimes have disclaimers and sometimes it does not. It depends on how it is used. I do not know any other wikis that have it like that. --MGA73 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)