File talk:Gears.jpg

Did you find this on a beach? --Kels 00:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, how come you ask? Sprocket J Cogswell 00:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks designed to me! Definitely didn't come together by chance! Sterile 01:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you ask so nicely, I bought it decades ago. I assume it was made (made, not begotten) by some Switzer gnome working for Bulova. Since then, it has been put in order by a human professional that I paid reasonably for the job. Such are the market places where I have dwelt. Sprocket J Cogswell 01:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, look up watches and Intelligent Design to get the context for my question. Also, we probably should cover ourselves and include on the page that you created the image and whatever rights are appropriate.  --Kels 01:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eeks I's been exposed for the noob that I am. I thought the upload automatically stuck a GFDL on the image, but now it's nowhere in sight. I just exposed the thing about an hour ago, I promise. What to do now? Sprocket J Cogswell 01:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like there isn't an "edit rights" option. Maybe just edit the description on the page to include something about GFDL? --Kels 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I just looked again on the upload page and it says "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License."
 * I'll take that to mean that it's all set, taken care of, and nobody need take any further action regarding licensing. Sprocket J Cogswell 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh. I guess it assumes GFDL, but doesn't display it on the page.  Maybe there's something that could be added. --Kels 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I pray that the one that designed the upload function will see fit to instruct its maintainers to deal with it. I think our work here is done, and I thank you for your kind attention. Sprocket J Cogswell 02:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It should have the template:GFDL-self on it. Also you don't need cats for images unless it is an image specific cat. 02:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we inhabit a wiki here, anyone who thinks there are too many categories on this, well, now... Sprocket J Cogswell was having some fun, and will not object to the removal of the superfluous ones, if any can be found.
 * Ah, I see you went and put on the template. Thanks! In the best of all possible worlds, if the upload dialogue stipulates GFDL as a condition of submitting the image, then that placement should be automatic. I'm not in the coding business, nor do I want to be. Who to alert about this? Sprocket J Cogswell 02:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed the text on the upload page. Do you think that is clear for people? 02:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Also looks like you were typing pretty fast, and put an "and" where an "an" should have gone. I'll call that a sign of efficient contribution, and I thank you for it. Sprocket J Cogswell 02:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I have changed your access level so you can fix the spelling here yourself. I will be along on your user page to explain your new buttons in a minute. 02:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well! Must say you know how to make a fellar feel welcome! Sprocket J Cogswell 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What I'm a bit curious about is the fact that the image upload assumes GFDL regardless of whether you're releasing all rights (like I often do), or using Creative Commons. Someone seeing that on the upload page will likely not bother including a template, since they'd assume it would be done, leading to questioning on the talk page. It strikes me that's not the best way to do things. --Kels 03:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By default all contributions that are your own are GFDL, if you choose to use a more relaxed licence such as relinquishing all rights that is really up to you. 03:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It should not assume GFDL, things could be public domain, released for use only here (many occurrences of that), fair use (really fair use), etc. 03:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is released for here only who is the copyright holder, keeping in mind we chose not to incorporate RationalWiki? All other contributions are GFDL so why are we not applying the same licence to images? 03:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If something is posted here that's a Creative Commons image, we still assume it's GFDL? --Kels 03:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pi, can you say that more clearly? Here's an obvious counter-example: "I uploaded this image to which I retain full copyright, for use only on RationalWiki"  03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd like to point out that our frigging logo is not GFDL, it's copyright Linus or whoever the heck made it. 03:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @Kels if it is already creative common licensed that we cam use it here under the creative commons licence. @All My point is that if the text that you are the personal copyright holder automatically becomes GFDL when submitted, then so would an image. If it has a previous free distribution licence such as PD or CC then it would retain that, however if your are transferring licences so that it can be used here then it would be GFDL. 03:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the assuming GFDL issue, which is problematic enough, how does your average user know they're supposed to put a template on the page, or what the templates that apply are? --Kels 03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are links to the templates and the help page on the upload instructions. 03:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I go to upload a pic for the first time. It's something I made, so I own it.  Open up the upload page, looks pretty straightforward. Put in my file, put in a description of what it is, we're good to go.  Why, exactly, should I divert to go to the help page instead of just clicking submit and going forward? --Kels 03:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is why I had the GDFL-self stuff there as it would be the most common form of self release of an image. 03:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. How about we get all smart, and figure out a way to create a check off box or drop list for people to choose from any number of copyright options?  03:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've enabled the dropdown, but our licensing templates need a major overhaul, they have inconsistent formatting, several options are missing, etc. For more info, see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Image_Administration#Licensing. --  Nx / talk 08:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, on Wikipedia the toolbox link points to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload which uses links that preload some stuff into the description textbox on the upload form. We could do the same, once I figure out how to change the link in the toolbox. found it --  Nx / talk 09:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've asked before for a better image upload system. The uploader shouldn't have to research and learn a licensing template format. This is modern-day software and you should be able to select a suitable license from a list and then fill in the necessary details, including from where the original file was obtained so its provenance can be checked. 09:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I was getting at from the start, although you worded it better. If we can make it easier to deal with the licenses, then we should.  --Kels 10:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The licensing dropdown doesn't allow parameters to be inserted. To be able to use templates that require parameters, like Template:Fair use we could provide links like this:

[ Fair use]

I've taken the syntax description of Template:Fair use, removed the html comments (they don't work), replaced every | character with | and every { and } character with { and }, respectively, then put it into this:. This will produce the following link:

[ Fair use]

Click it and the summary will already be filled in. Wikipedia also does some trickery with the "uselang" parameter to change the options in the dropdown and the instructions, it's a bit overkill, but we can do that too. --  Nx / talk 12:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)