Template talk:CC-AR-Presidency-old

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

¿Es válida esta licencia?[edit]

¿Alguien sabe si esta licencia cumple con los requerimientos de commons? es decir, puedo legalmente tomar una imagen del sitio de presidencia y usarla para imprimir un poster y comercializarlo? por ejemplo, o puedo usar partes de estas fotografías, editarlas y crear nuevas obras?. Me gustaría que eso quedara claro para que no tengamos problemas en el futuro. Gracias --Martin Rizzo 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The above comment was posted when this template was "PD-AR-Presidency", and is not applicable to the current Creative Commons release through OTRS ticket 2007042610015988. —Pathoschild 23:07:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

¿Escudo presidencial?[edit]

Presidential Standard of Argentina.svg

Una pregunta: ¿De dónde sale el escudo con fondo azul y cuatro estrellas que se usa acá? Está desde hace tanto que se vuelve una de esas cosas en las que uno ya ni se fija, pero la otra vez pensé en el tema, busqué un poco y no pude encontrarlo por ninguna parte (afuera de Wikipedia o sus proyectos hermanos, quiero decir). De hecho, en propagandas o avisos institucionales o donde sea que se usaría un escudo presidencial, la constante es el escudo nacional (sin agregados) a la izquierda y "presidencia de la nación" a la derecha, y el ministerio o secretaría (de corresponder) encima de ese texto.

Creo que habría que cambiar la imagen a otra de este último tipo. Pero también está el tema de que esta es una plantilla de licencia, muy usada en todos los proyectos, un cambio así no debería hacerse sin consenso previo. Belgrano (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC) e

Tenga un vistazo a http://flagspot.net/flags/ar_pres.html --ALE! ¿…? 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Parece un poco traído de los pelos, algo propio de la marina y no algo de uso habitual en lo referido a la imagen presidencial (como lo sería File:Seal Of The President Of The Unites States Of America.svg en Estados Unidos). Se puede ver por ejemplo aquí, no se usa ese escudo. Creo que tendría más sentido usar File:Coat of arms of Argentina 2.svg Belgrano (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Bueno, por que no? Pero yo preferisco File:Coat of arms of Argentina.svg. --ALE! ¿…? 08:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Pero si uno compara con Estados unidos: Lo tuyo seria el escudo nacional (no es los mismo que el sello del presidente en el caso de los estados unidos File:Seal Of The President Of The Unites States Of America.svg) y el mio seria el estandarte presidencial (como File:Standard Of The President Of The Unites States Of America.svg). A mi me da lo mismo que usar. El imagen mio es mas especifico a la presidencia. Pero como te dijo. A mi me da lo mismo. --ALE! ¿…? 10:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuevo template[edit]

Alguien sabe como se puede hacer para crear un template como este pero para fotos de www.mindef.gov.ar y wwww.fuerzas-armadas.mil.ar ? --Jor70 (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad template for new files[edit]

"Terminos de uso" are now http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/es/deed.es which is Non Commercial, and I think the tough decision to discard this template for new contents must be taken . See : Commons_talk:Licensing#Template:CC-AR-Presidency. Teofilo (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The archives of this discussion are at Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 32#Template:CC-AR-Presidency and Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Template:CC-AR-Presidency follow-up. For a time period, the images were released under an acceptable free licence, but at some unspecified moment, the site changed the licence to non commercial. Images released during the good period can stay (free licencing is irrevocable), but images published after the date are not, and should be speedily deleted.
The last date we know for sure that the licence was still valid was 27/10/2009. So, it will be used as the turning point. Images published after that date should go. Cambalachero (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no real problem, if you roll down, you can see "BY-SA" http://www.casarosada.gov.ar/

You can remove the warning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.167.131 (talk • contribs) 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's really interesting. First they changed they licence to by-nc-sa. Then, wikipedia (in the broad real-world perception) starts to delete their files because of their incompatible licence. Or, more specifically, I did that; it was discussed by many peoples some times ago, but it was me who decided to finally close the open issue. And then, only then, and right after that, they fix their licence. In short: I have manipuled the presidency to release their photos under a by-sa licence, which is public this time. Not bad. I should write that in my curriculum.

As for the current situation, this changes everything that was discussed. The site is still distributing all the photos they had produced, so they are all available under the new licence, with no distinction of dates. The photos that were once distributed under by-nc-sa, are now being distributed under by-sa. They are now free forever. At least, all the files released up to the 14-08-2011 (for future reference, in case they ever change back the terms; and to stay sure we may periodically confirm that the licence is valid and notice it).

However, they were nearly a hundred of files, so it will take some time to restore all of them back. They are in my deletions log, if some admin wants to help. And please told if some file deleted by someone other than me for this same reason; as I explained somewhere else, deleted files have no "categories", and are not organized anywhere. And commons delinker will not restore them to the articles they used to be, so that should be made manually. Cambalachero (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, a technical detail. The former good licence was cc-by, this one is cc-by-sa, which is compatible as well with Commons, but not the same one. It adds the "share alike" requirement. Cambalachero (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So we should have two templates. One CC-by for the old images before the change to cc-by-nc and a CC-by-sa template from now on. --ALE! ¿…? 07:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! presidencia.gob.ar has many many important pictures that puts Wikipedia up to date. Thanks again! Alakasam (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn it. I did not thought on the two-licences thing. But, fortunately, half the work is done: all the images currently available should have this licence, with the old terms, and all the new ones plus the deleted ones should have another, with the new terms. I guess the best thing to manage this is to rename this licence to something else, as "CC-AR-Presidency-old", run a bot to update all the images to the new licence, and then create in this name the new licence. That way the deleted images may be simply restored just as they were (speeding up the work), and users who were aware of this licence and did not even realize the past days events will not need to change anything or follow any discussion, just take the photos and use the licence as they ever did.
Before starting anything, I need to check around how to do the bot thing Cambalachero (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

New pictures will use the standard cc-by-sa 2.0 or a special template with the explanation and a flag? Alakasam (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I am having a look at this problem again. I think the http://www.presidencia.gov.ar/images/stories/cc-license.png 107px × 20px logo inscribed with "CC BY SA" without any actual link to the Creative Commons website page where readers can read the full legal code of the license is a very weak evidence that the contents are actually licenced under a free license. Without a version number, be it CC-BY-SA 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0, it is difficult to say that any license is actually applying to those contents. There was an expectation that the Argentinian chapter of Wikimedia would solve this issue ([1] [2]), and it seems that it is not the case. I am quite disappointed. Teofilo (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do NOT (!) relicense the old images as CC-by-SA is more restrictive as CC-by! We just use the old (present) template for the old images and a new template for the new ones. So NO need to run a bot on the old images! --ALE! ¿…? 12:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Teofilo: by default the licence is 2.0. The lack of link isn't a problem. The sign is an explicit declaration of will. Alakasam (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The bot would not relicense anything. The idea is to rename the cc-by template, and fix the images using it (which are too many, but will not grow) to point to the new name. Then, the "Template:CC-AR-Presidency" page, which would become unused, would be edited to have the new cc-by-sa template. Then, I can begin a mass undeletion of files: they all use the {{CC-AR-Presidency}} code, which is the incorrect licence right now, but with this trick it would be the good one.
The thing here is that there are files that would use one template, and others that would use another. I have already done the tedious work of going file after file checking dates, I'm not willing to go again though that if there are alternatives. If I simply undelete everything right now, then there would be no alternative but to do it manually.
An alternative, now that I think about it, would be to fit both licences here, with a disclaimer: if the photo is from before the X date, then it's cc-by, if it's later than that, it's cc-by-sa. But I'm not sure how acceptable would that be, I don't remember to see any such "multiple choice" template. Cambalachero (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The last alternative with a "multiple choice" license is not good. Please proceed as you have explained before we have to do it manually ;-) . --ALE! ¿…? 06:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please remember the current official domain is casarosada.gob.ar instead presidencia.gob.ar. Alakasam (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

www.presidencia.gob.ar also works / is the same site. And the webmaster's address is webmaster@presidencia.gov.ar (with giv instead of gob. So they are all the same site. --ALE! ¿…? 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I left a request at the section for bot requests. Now, we should wait for an answer. Cambalachero (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

.gob and .gov are both nicknames. Alakasam (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)