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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Missing "Wikipedia copyright" navigation template[edit]

{{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  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to make the Deed ombox a self-sufficient individual template? —James (TalkContribs)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[edit]

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)
Caps should definitely be removed. It makes the article tough to read and the appearance confusing. Also, we have no duty to follow their warnings systems by using all-caps. Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer --ɱ (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand that writing in all caps is a legal way to show emphasis, however, reading all caps text seriously feels like the text is screaming at my face, and is quite painful to read. I suggest emboldening and underlining the text instead; it would serve well for emphasis. 85.154.86.5 (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from JFHJr, 24 September 2011[edit]

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)

 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Interwiki[edit]

Please update Arabic (ar) interwiki to [[ar:ويكيبيديا:نص رخصة المشاع الإبداعي: النسبة-الترخيص بالمثل 3.0]] --Meno25 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Anomie 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

suggested revision to license[edit]

I suggest that a clause be added to the license to prohibit commercial republishers from using deceptive marketing practices, and to prohibit online republishers (mirror sites) from distributing malware. It is perfectly legitimate if you want to create a Wikipedia mirror that aggregates knowledge from other sources, or to create an encyclopædia that improves on Wikipedia, but please do not use misleading tactics to sell Wikipedia articles. Allowing commercial use encourages people to add value to Wikipedia articles, or to use material from Wikipedia as a start to produce something better, but if you are going to package Wikipedia articles into a printed book which you will then sell online, then the description page at the online merchant ought to mention this is what you are doing. 96.255.150.61 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What you are asking to do is for Wikipedia to be re-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 Generic License or a newer version, which will not be done. --Stranger195 (talkcontribsguestbook) 09:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

edit request[edit]

May edit this page per section 15 of the creative commons licence. The attribution comitee has already given me an okay. I just need your final approval — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalufp (talkcontribs) 20:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@Liberalufp: What page are you talking about? Do you want to edit Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License? this talk page? Some other page that you meant to link to but forgot? --Thnidu (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I need to download it. Abubakar Abba (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about removing the license tag from article[edit]

Hi whoever is in charge of the policy. I know that I'm new here. So, let me explain the reason why I want to have this conversation. The reason why I'm talking to this person is that I just had a big concern. You see there is a particular article that is attached, which I don't know if you're aware of this, but I think it goes by the name of Harold Finch (Person of Interest). I know that the content in the article is categorized as plagiarism and it was considered to be a copyright violation. It is on there as a reminder to change the basis of the content in the article to make sure that it is not going to be nominated for deletion. The question is how do I remove the license from the article? Sherlock502 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The short answer is that that licensing tag shouldn't ever be removed from the article unless it is rewritten entirely and thoroughly from scratch. So long as the Person of Interest Wikia is appropriately credited (via the tag you're asking about, for example), then there's no copyright violation and the article shouldn't be in danger of deletion for that reason. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Where do you think I should begin? Sherlock502 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
If you're asking where you should begin in rewriting the article (if the tag bothers you that much), then I'll direct you to Wikipedia:Teahouse where some volunteers can help you with that since I personally am not much of an article writer. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not much of an article writer either. Sherlock502 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello VernoWhitney. As you can see in Harold Finch (Person of Interest), everyone who volunteered to reformat the content of the article, including myself, have been doing the best they can to make sure the article is not at the risk for deletion. I know there's content from Pedia of Interest Wikia that has been adding to the article, but I managed to modified the text as much as I can do. What do you think about the content so far? Sherlock502 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Has there been any progress within the article? Sherlock502 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello VernoWhitney. I know you had not respond to my message for so long, but I am going to tell the truth. As mention in Talk:Harold Finch (Person of Interest), the way that I can redeem myself is by telling the absolute truth about what I did and making a sacrifice to save the article. I rewrote some of the material thoroughly from scratch in Harold Finch (Person of Interest) by going into the List of Person of Interest episodes, John Reese (Person of Interest), and Person of Interest (TV series), as well as watching some of the videos containing the character as a way to find the right words that I choose and copying the articles within Wikipedia, but only in a good way. You can go ahead and take a look, but I'm telling you, there has been progress. Please and thank you. Sherlock502 (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 April 2014[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to add the following translation to Wikidata: w:cy:Wicipedia:Testun y drwydded Comin Creu Priodoliad-RhannuTebyg (heb ei gludo) 3.0. It won't allow me as the page is protected. Marc (Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol) (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Go to wikidata:Q3910767 to make the edit. It's not affected by the fact that it's protected here (and if it's protected there as well, it's a coincidence, and you need to ask for help there). Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Query - Collections[edit]

Section 1 (b) says

"Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) ...

Section 1 (f) says

"Licensor" means the individual, individuals, entity or entities that offer(s) the Work under the terms of this License.

And has nothing to do with listing works in the sense of 1 (b). The wording is the same as at creative commons.org.

Am I missing something here? Or is this a major glitch in out most widely used license?


All the best: Rich Farmbrough16:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

Protected edit request on 8 October 2014[edit]

This is in all caps And should not be per the manual of style

CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS USE. THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED.

BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. TO THE EXTENT THIS LICENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE A CONTRACT, THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS 65.175.250.58 (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's copied verbatim from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode - we cannot alter it, whether because of MOS or for any other reason. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Bogus edit requests[edit]

Hopefully Template:Editnotices/Protection/Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License stops them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is the manner of attribution specified?[edit]

From the license page: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor ..."

  • Where do I find the specifications for attribution by the author?
  • Where do I find the specifications for attribution by the licensor?
  • If neither of this exists, in which manner do I have to give attribution to, say, a Wikipedia article?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.223.2 (talkcontribs)

Licence differs slightly from the one at creativecommons.org[edit]

Text differs slightly from the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported licence at creativecommons.org:

Wikipedia:

Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Creative Commons:

ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Critically, Wikipedia says licence can be same or similar, whereas Creative Common says licence must be the same. I brought it up because the Freemen on the land article claims to be using material from Rational Wiki. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource[edit]

I only want to note that it exists the Wikisource s:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)