Wikipedia talk:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Missing "Wikipedia copyright" navigation template

Array[1..10] Of Real; {Création d’un tableau de type Real} {{Wikipedia copyright}}

Shouldn't this page transclude Template:Wikipedia copyright? It's listed in the navigation box thus produced (also shown to the right of this text), and it's kind of confusing when those don't appear on each page listed.

—SamB 19:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In particular, I'm proposing that:

{{Wikipedia copyright}}

be inserted above:

{{ombox

at the beginning of the page.

—SamB 19:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No opposition, so Y Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Wouldn't it be better to make the Deed ombox a self-sufficient individual template? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:06pm • 07:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. Would you like to create the template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

SHOUTING

What's with the ALL CAPS? Sentence case seems like it would be more appropriate here. See:

• WP:CAPSLOCK — "Typing in all caps ("TYPING IN ALL CAPS") on Wikipedia, in line with most internet resources, is perceived as "shouting" and can come across as aggressive. Please do not do it."
• WP:SHOUT — "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate."
• WP:ALLCAPS — "Avoid writing with all capitals. Reduce them to one of the other title cases."

The issue is present in sections 1 ("License"), 1.5 5. ("Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer"), and 1.6 6. ("Limitation on Liability"). — DemonicPartyHat ^talk 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Writing in ALL CAPS is a legally accepted mechanism for drawing emphasis to conditions that might be unexpected or surprising, and thus avoiding claims that the clauses of the contract constitute unfair surprise. It isn't an arbitrary thing. As a legal document we should follow the styling as it appears in the original [1], which includes the CAPS writing. Dragons flight (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.96.172.119, 14 August 2011

Plz i want to add my state name at some reqired places 117.96.172.119 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I belive you intend to edit a different page. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:25, 14 Av 5771 / 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JFHJr, 24 September 2011

This request affects no content. Please insert {{clear}} ahead of line 4, {{Wikipedia copyright}}, for display purposes (OSX/10.5.8, Firefox displays the copyright template over other text). JFHJr (㊟) 02:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

JFHJr (㊟) 02:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Y Done - & it did work on FF just fine. Skier Dude (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Attribution of material copy-pasted from one wp article into another wp article

Hi. The opinions, on the below questions, of those licensed to practice in a State within the U.S. would be especially appreciated. Under our license:

1) When an editor copies-and-pastes material from 1 wp article into another, does the editor have to attribute it in some manner (or reflect attribution history somehow)?

2) Assume a copy-and-paste has been made, as indicated above, and at a later point in time the original article is deleted at AfD. Is there any obligation at that point in time to attribute the formerly copy-and-pasted material in the new article (or reflect attribution history somehow)?

3) If the answer to 2 is "yes", what investigation is or should be made by wp or its closing admin or other editors -- as to articles deleted under the AFD process -- to see if any material exists in other articles that is a prior copy-paste of material in the deleted article (so that attribution can be given, perhaps by reflecting attribution history?

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A similar discussion is undergoing at User_talk:Graham87/Import#translation_import since Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects states that a link is enough. mabdul 12:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If a person copies text between two Wikipedia articles, they should really note this by putting the {{copied}} template on both talk pages, and the admin closing a deletion discussion should really check the talk page for such a template before deleting the article. Or they should *try* to skim-read the article history, checking for clues that they may be about to delete important edits for attribution. But I've encountered (and corrected) many other situations where vital history for attribution has gone missing, often due to deletions to make way for a page move. Graham87 15:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Three thoughts. First, I'm guessing that this view is not understood/followed broadly in the Project (as Graham's comment suggests), either by admins or non-admins.

Second, if a sentence from article x was copied into article y, and article x is deleted, there is nothing in the article history of article x to suggest to a skim-reading admin closing an AFD that he is about to delete edits he should attribute. I whether a rule that we can anticipate will create near-automatic violations at the Project may be a problem (there may of course be other ways to address the problem the rule is meant to protect against). If people who copy a sentence from article x to article y don't presumably typically leave a "copied" template on the articles (due to ignorance of this view, or not sharing it), and there is no reasonable way otherwise for a closing admin to be aware that he is about to delete information that he would (in this view) be violating our license by deleting, we can anticipate that our rule will lead to near-automatic violations, as we don't have a process in place to protect adequately against violations of the rule or "check" compliance with our rule. I'm hoping that is not the case. But -- perhaps I'm being overly sensitive here, and we take some level of risk in many areas at the project, though not with this level of likelihood of not being able to catch the error.

Finally, I assume that where the language at issue is language that the copying editor wrote himself in the first place, there is not such need for him to apply the copied template, and that copies of one's own work would be an automatic exception to this view. Does this make sense to you?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In terms of your final, you're absolutely correct: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed notes that one need not attribute oneself. It suggests at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution the use of {{copied}} at the talk page. If we make it mandatory, that would if not eliminate at least cut down on the likelihood of inadvertent deletion. But I'm not sure that this talk page is the best place for the discussion, as there's nothing we can do to this page. :)

I agree with you that attribution requirements are not widely understood - and in fact I'm recently becoming aware that some admins regard rev-deletion as breaking attribution even when it retains the username of the contributor if the precise edit cannot be seen. I've got a query in to our attorneys about this, but they are all insanely busy right now and only one of them is even in the country. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, add SR interwiki

sr:Википедија:Текст слободне лиценце Ауторство-Делити под истим условима 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Thanks!--Maduixa (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2011

i am requesting an image license so i may be able to upload images for arctiles that i may have uploaded and feel that i need to put in some images so that the article will have pictures to go with the story paragragh.

Darkchick32 (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done. If you're looking for help, please go here, but please more thoroughly explain exactly what it is you're looking for if you do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)