MediaWiki talk:Licenses/en-ownwork

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: This talk page concerns the license selector menu in the "my own work" upload page.

CC 3.0[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Please change 

***self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0|Own work, copyleft: Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5 and older versions (2.0 and 1.0)
***self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-2.5|Own work, attribution required (Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5)
*** GFDL-self-no-disclaimers|GFDL (self made -for things that are entirely your own work)
*** PD-self|You created this yourself, it is all your own work and release it to the public domain
** Creative Commons licenses:
*** cc-by-sa-2.5|Attribution ShareAlike 2.5
*** cc-by-2.5|Attribution 2.5

to 

***self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|Own work, copyleft: Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 and older versions (2.5, 2.0 and 1.0)
***self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-3.0|Own work, attribution required (Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY 3.0)
*** GFDL-self-no-disclaimers|GFDL (self made -for things that are entirely your own work)
*** PD-self|You created this yourself, it is all your own work and release it to the public domain
** Creative Commons licenses:
*** cc-by-sa-3.0|Attribution ShareAlike 3.0
*** cc-by-3.0|Attribution 3.0

per MediaWiki talk:Licenses#cc 3.0. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Nihiltres(t.l) 19:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User-friendliness[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Please change this page to read: 

*subst:nld|I do not know the copyright licence
*Non-commercial use, commercial use, and modifications allowed as long as others attribute you and share alike
**self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|Multi-license with GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (recommended)
**self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|Multi-license with GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 and older
**self|GFDL|GNU Free Documentation License
**self|cc-by-sa-3.0|Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
*Non-commercial use, commercial use, and modifications allowed as long as others attribute you
**self|cc-by-3.0|Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
*No rights reserved
**PD-self|Public domain

This make the language used on this option much easier to understand. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the "view source" link at MediaWiki:Licenses/en-ownwork shows the current wikicode for the selector menu used at the "my own work" page. I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to view the wikicode on many special pages. Also, why is it so difficult to find the talk pages like this one?
I like your idea of better explaining the options in each section of the selector menu.
But I wonder why this option is offered:
**self|GFDL|GNU Free Documentation License
GFDL is not recommended for sharing free images that might be used in print publications. See GFDL#Burdens when printing.
Any free image could possibly end up being used in print publications, so this is not a good license option to offer to uploaders. For a more detailed explanation see commons:MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/ownwork#Can we explain the "Best practices" choices?. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

You have a point. GFDL is not really suitable for images, so let's just remove "GFDL only" from the list. I doubt that anyone who knows what they're doing would license a media file as "GFDL only". After these changes go live then we should change Mediawiki:Uploadtext/en-ownwork to explain the pros and cons of the GFDL and why it is not listed by itself.
Again, there is no significant change to the actual licenses offered, it's almost entirely how they're presented to the user, so we can continue tweaking the interface as necessary. The current selector does such a terrible job that a change is badly needed.
*subst:nld|I do not know the copyright licence
*Allow non-commercial use, commercial use, and modifications as long as others attribute you and share alike:
**self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL|Multi-license with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 and GNU Free Documentation License (recommended)
**self|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|GFDL|Multi-license with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 and older and GNU Free Documentation License
**self|cc-by-sa-3.0|Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
*Allow non-commercial use, commercial use, and modifications as long as others attribute you:
**self|cc-by-3.0|Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
*Reserve no rights:
**PD-self|Public domain
—Remember the dot (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 23:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I suggest also adding a table showing the license tag code in case people upload images with the wrong license tag, and then need to go back and paste in the wikicode for the correct tag. A table something like this:

{{self |GFDL-no-disclaimers | cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}
{{self |GFDL-no-disclaimers |cc-by-3.0}}
{{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}
{{PD-self}}
{{cc-by-sa-3.0}}
{{cc-by-3.0}}

For more on the reasoning please see:

At the above link one can see the suggested license tag table for the commons "own work" upload form. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We might just want to link to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. In any case, let's get the license selector problem fixed first. Hopefully an admin will be by soon... —Remember the dot (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just changed the line "No rights reserved" in my edit request to "Reserve no rights:" for consistency. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to the page. I bookmarked it. I added links to the above table of license tags. I don't see any reason why the admins can't add the table too. With the links the table further clarifies the meaning of the choices in the selector menu. It took me a long time to find all the info in the table. There is no reason that newbies should have to spend hours trying to find that info. They probably couldn't do so anyway. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thrilled about the table idea. However, I am working on revised upload instructions for the "own work" form. Please feel free to help out at User:Remember the dot/Sandbox. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the table below to reflect your changes today in the selector menu. I will take a longer look at the revised upload instructions when I get a chance.--Timeshifter (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table of linked license tags[edit]

{{editprotected}}

[Note. Request has been moved. See comment farther down]

I've disabled the editprotected request for now. For one thing, this isn't the right page to request that. Secondly, I've added a similar box to User:Remember the dot/Sandbox. If you agree with the changes I've made, then we can request that this new version go live. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved my request to the correct talk page here:
MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/en-ownwork
Please do not disable my editprotected request there. Since the request is now in the proper place it would be a violation of WP:TALK for a non-admin to edit my comments there. I see no reason that the table can't be included now in the "own work" instructions. Additional instructions from your sandbox page may be useful too. But I am not sure I like how you have edited the table there. So that may or may not require additional work on your part. I can make some suggestions when I have more time. But feel free to go forward with editing your suggested instructions regardless. Some admins may like the way you incorporate everything. I may also. But that is down the line. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please update with 4.0[edit]


I think we should update to {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} just like on MediaWiki:Licenses. Also Cc-zero is called {{CC0}}.

Since GFDL is a really bad license that we tried to kill long ago I think it should not be the recommended choise. So I moved cc-by-sa-4.0 up just like on MediaWiki:Licenses.

(Personally I think GFDL should be removed but I did not do that this time in case someone disagree. I think that if someone really really want GFDL they can add it manually.)

  • subst:nld|I do not know the copyright licence
  • Allow non-commercial use, commercial use, and modifications as long as others credit you and share alike:
    • Self|Cc-by-sa-4.0|Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 (recommended)
    • Self|Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|Multi-license with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 and older
    • Self|Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|GFDL|migration=redundant|Multi-license with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 and older and GNU Free Documentation License
    • Self|Cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL|migration=redundant|Multi-license with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 and GNU Free Documentation License
  • Allow non-commercial use, commercial use, and modifications as long as others credit you:
    • Self|Cc-by-4.0|Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
  • Reserve no rights:
    • Self|CC0|Public domain

--MGA73 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if possible also update the other subpages of MediaWiki:Licenses/whatever with 4.0 --MGA73 (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done: I've synced this with what is in MediaWiki:Licenses — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: That look good to me. Thank you! --MGA73 (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Licenses/en-ownwork&oldid=1109412980"