Template talk:Cc-by-layout

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

Height[edit]

Could this template be restored to its previous height? I understand the interest of the update, but it really takes an awful lot of space. --Eusebius (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous hight? This template always was the same height. Making it smaller is not possible because of the text which is rather important to include. Multichill (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we used to see different layouts because of autotranslation. This is how I saw this template until today. More or less the same content (+ language links, are they really useless?), less than half the height. To rephrase my previous comment, I understand the interest of the present text layout, but... --Eusebius (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You're mixing up templates, this templates was created less than 24 hours ago. But how would you propose to make it smaller? Multichill (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? The template I point out is older than that? Maybe there's a misunderstanding, by "this template" I meant "the CC-BY-3.0 template". Anyway it is not my point, my point is "it is how I used to see it and it looked fine to me". About your last question (the interesting one), I'd tend to keep the bold font but drop the bullet list (with a slight rephrase). But I'm not the only user on Commons, other people have discussed the change already, spent some time on this template (family) and on the translation. But I'm more and more lost in those complex templates. As soon as I understand the autotranslated template framework, standards change to some other technique. It is now impossible to me (unless I spend a significant amount of time in MW documentation) to see whether this kind of license template is translated in a given language, or to make any kind of correction on it. I can't even find the French version of the text. It really becomes a private edition area, reserved to our now irreplaceable happy few. This is not a criticism, only an observation, I hope you know I respect your work. --Eusebius (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This may not have been widely advertised, but the translation of license templates has been relocated to TranslateWiki. In order to get more translations, as it is way less painful to use TranslateWiki than setting up a Autotranslate subpage (we shall still use Autotranslate for most templates). See Commons talk:Template i18n#Next step in translations for the discussion. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
So if I understand well, the decision of the precise phrasing of our licence templates (I take it as an example as it seems one of the sensitive aspects of i18n here, since licensing is probably the key feature of Commons) takes places on a third party website, formally? Whose users decided, for instance, that the French translation of the CC-BY should not mention anymore that it is compulsory for reusers to name the licence? Disclaimer: I'm not trying to fight for something or even to question anything, I don't aim at criticism here. I would just like to be sure that I understand well, and I don't find it totally absurd to make this kind of detail clear (and written). --Eusebius (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The license templates are just a simple explanation of a license. The exact meaning is always in the legalcode at the Creative Commons site. This doesn't mean that the translations shouldn't be correct. The French translation was done by User:IAlex. Multichill (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, translation of the sentences looks correct. I've rethought the sentence that bothered me yesterday, only the translation of the sentences is externalized, the choice of which sentence to use is still made on Commons. No problem for me about that, then. But still, we lose visibility on other translations, and in the case of this particular template, the previous layout gave more information in a more discreet way. --Eusebius (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

License landing page[edit]

{{cc-by-3.0}} links to CC-BY 3.0 unported instead of CC-BY 3.0. I need the latter for two CC-BY 3.0 images copied from the CC site. The two affected files have a note with a link to this page, please fix this as you see fit. -Be..anyone (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don’t understand. Both links you provided are identical (they go to a human readable summary of the license), and “CC-BY 3.0” is exactly the same as “CC-BY 3.0 Unported”. --Mormegil (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Explanation: I copied the icons from CC where they have CC-BY 3.0. Here this turned into CC-BY 3.0 unported, I did not know that this is supposed to be the same thing — thanks for checking. Nevertheless, the unported business can be confusing, if it is not only me... -Be..anyone (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes, it is a bit confusing. The thing is there are various country-specific versions of CC licenses (e.g. CC-BY 3.0 Germany), plus the “original” nonspecific license (e.g. CC-BY 3.0). If you want to refer to any relevant implementation of CC-BY 3.0, you just say that. Or you might want to refer specifically to the nonspecific version (no pun intended), so you explicitly say “CC-BY 3.0 Unported”. (The version number is similar: you might say just “CC-BY”, meaning “the most recent version of CC-BY”, or you might say “CC-BY 3.0” meaning exactly the specified version.) And the deed.en part is just a specification of the language you want to use on the creativecommons.org website – check e.g. German, French. --Mormegil (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I removed my temporary "fix" with links to this page — if it is already confusing I shouldn't make it worse... ;-) For CC-BY-SA 3.0 there is no version without unported, the CC-BY 3.0 bug or feature is clearly on the side of CC, not in {{cc-by-layout}}. Thanks. -Be..anyone (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

BR vs. pt-BR[edit]

Anybody with a clue how stuff works, please watch {{cc-by-3.0-br}}. For the English version I'm confident that MediaWiki_talk:Wm-license-cc-by-3.0-br-text will do the trick. But the native language is pt-BR, not pt, let alone BR. At some point in the i18n procedure you'll need a link to say .../by/3.0/deed.pt_BR. Maybe this already works as expected, but I don't see where it is handled. — Be..anyone (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The language is not bound in any way to the country the template talks about. You can read {{cc-by-3.0-de}} in French, and it links correctly to …/deed.fr. In the same way, you could get any template localized to pt_BR instead of pt, if somebody provided the translations (in the same way there is a French translation of the German license).
So, you need to 1. ask for new messages for the license to be created (wm-license-cc-by-3.0-br-text) so that {{cc-by-3.0-br}} can work, and 2. to provide pt_BR translations for other (already existing) templates/messages to be able to read everything in pt_BR and link to …deed.pt_BR. For both things, you should register at translatewiki: (if you did not do so, yet), you can ask for help (you will need a developer for #1) at translatewiki:Support there.
--Mormegil (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Clear, but I pulled a {{sofixit}} at the original request on a project talk page, copied below for later reference, because it's a frequently archived page:
Update, as you can see on the two talk pages these system messages are not changed locally per Wiki, but in a procedure involving translatewiki: and presumably later ending up in the MediaWiki software for all Wikis. That is clearly better than a local fix, but you should do it, because you can help with any pt-BR translations (unlike me), and maybe you have an account on translatewiki: (unlike me - years ago anything remotely related to i18n was done on meta). — Be..anyone (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change for licensetpl_link[edit]

Please see this proposal. /skagedaltalk 20:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}} Remove the |link= from the file links to provide attribution as required by their licenses by enabling linking. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done You mean the “Some rights reserved” and “By” thingy? This sounds like overreaching to me. I don’t believe Creative Commons themselves link them. And I would be tempted to deem them {{PD-ineligible}} anyway. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the license says you have to. If you think it is PD ineligible, then start a discussion somewhere. But right now, it is licensed and needs attribution, which is done by linking. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 Not done it's {{PD-ineligible}} and linking is very confusing in the interface. Multichill (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)