Template talk:No licence

Links to Wikimedia Commons

There are several links to Wikimedia Commons in the present box text of the template. IMO, these links shouldn't lead directly to Commons without any explanation. It is confusing wikis IMHO. We could link to a (new) help page here in wiki and place those Commons links there, in combination with an explanation, that Commons and Wikipedia are rich in information and can serve as a good examples. What do you thin? --Chris2map (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 18:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it really a better name?

I see that {{Unknown}} got duplicated.

But is this template name actually better? For example Template:PD-shape files have no licenses and do NOT require a license.

If fair use files will be allowed in some scale (and likely at least sponsor logos will be allowed to stay) then they will also have no license and will be allowed to stay.

Also, some files have licenses but are ineligible to stay on OSM Wiki (though in this case maybe files should be nominated straight for deletion?) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As I tried to explain on Template:Unknown/doc it is not duplicated. What name do you propose? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It duplicates in sense that now files can be marked either with {{Unknown}} or {{No licence}} which makes thinks more complicated. I was fine with {{Unknown}} Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)