Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

See also:

Commons:Licensing – Related at Wikimedia Commons

Edit request 21 Feb 2016[edit]

I found a grammar error (subject/verb agreement).

Change:

The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about is the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission.

to:

The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about are the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission.

(Emphasis added for clarity.)

Thanks,  DiscantX 06:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ: I don't think this is correct. The subject of that sentence is "content", which is singular (or possibly a mass noun--I don't know). KSFTC 02:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 March 2016[edit]

I found a few very minor errors and unclear phrases.


In the red box near the top of the page, it says this:

"The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations."

That means that they don't own copyright on both, but they could on one. I think it should be this:

"The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts or illustrations."

(emphasis added)


The paragraph under that box says this:

"such text will be identified either on the page footer, in the page history or the discussion page of the article"

That sentence uses "either" with three items, which is confusing, and it doesn't use a serial comma, which makes it ambiguous. I would write it like this:

"such text will be identified on the page footer, in the page history, or on the discussion page of the article"


The next sentence says this:

"Every image has a description page which indicates the license under which it is released"

Either there should be a comma before that "which" or it should be replaced by "that". I think the latter is better.

KSFTC 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Seem to be uncontroversial improvements — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Old Belvedere Cricket Club[edit]

I have serious concerns about the articles recent expansion, included images uploaded as own work example of such. I was wondering, I have just posted on the articles talkpage, could someone with a better understanding of the process throw some light on the ins-and-outs. Thanks for your time. Murry1975 (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 May 2016[edit]

Section: 3.1 Reusers' rights and obligations; Sub-section: Licensing notice

Original text: "Each copy or modified version that you distribute must include a licensing notice stating that the work is released under CC BY-SA and either a) a hyperlink or URL to the text "

Change Request: Shouldn't "... CC BY-SA and either..." be changed to "... CC BY-SA by either..."? where, "and" is replaced with "by"; the present form does not appear to make much sense.

Regards, AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's trying to say we need to satisfy these 2 conditions:
  1. State the work is released under CC BY-SA.
  2. Give either a hyperlink to the license OR give the full license text with your distribution.
The phrase is fine. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 02:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, my bad. AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries :) Happy editing! — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 06:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 May 2016[edit]

Tosifafaqi (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Empty request. — xaosflux Talk 12:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Illegible headnote[edit]

The "Important note" at the top of the page on a pink background is almost entirely unreadable on a mobile device in portrait orientation, at least this one*. The box it is in is just one character wide

a
n
d
l
o
o
k
s
l
i
k
e
t
h
i
s
:
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
n
o
t
e
:
T
h
e
W
i
k
i
m
e
d
i
a
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
o
w
n
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
W
i
k
i
p
e
d
i
a
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
t
e
x
t
s
o
r
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
I
t
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
p
o
i
n
t
l
e
s
s

... to continue this sample any further. This is true whether I choose the mobile or the desktop version.

  • Samsung S-6 Verizon SM-G920V, Android version 6.0.1

--Thnidu (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I see the same think on my Nexus 5. Pburka (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)