Template talk:Cc-by-sa

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Template:Cc-by-sa.

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

Rationale

@Josve05a and JuTa: What is the rationale for, from one day to the next, render thousands of files that for years were apparently perfectly validly licensed cc-by-sa 1.0 files to files eligible for deletion? If there really is a reason for this template change, then, before doing this change, all files containing this template should be changed to directly include Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0. It's harming Commons to threaten to bulk delete within 7 days thousands of files that were perfectly valid for years, as many of the users that are now being notified by JuTa probably won't receive the notification within 7 days. --dealerofsalvation 09:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Repeatin the answer on my talk page: :Hi, this template edit by User:Josve05a left thousends of images without a valid license template, I found them in Category:Media without a license: needs history check. I was thinking about reverting the template edit, but the corresponding Category tells us that these images are eligable for speedy deletion since more than a year, but nobody realy cared yet. --JuTa 09:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Similar to {{Cc-by}} we can't assume that anybody has licensed it under a specific version of the license, since they are all different in legal text. I'm just uniforming the two different templates to be the "same". (t) Josve05a (c) 09:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

To reiterate, they did not have a "perfectly valid [license] for years", since we can't assume which version they want to relases it under. And if they do not specify, they actually haven't agreed to any of the licensing terms, and thereby haven't actually released it under a specific free license. (t) Josve05a (c) 09:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes; it was done by Sven Manguard on the other template after a long discussion. Jee 10:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If there was {{Cc-by-sa}} on your file description, then for years the displayed text was "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 1.0 Generic license". How could anyone assume that this does not mean what it says - it says that this is a validly licensed CC-BY-SA 1.0 file? You cannot simply change the message of a template nor of a template redirect retrospectively unless you also change the pages containing that template or redirect, so that the page's message stays the same.

"the corresponding Category tells us that these images are eligable for speedy deletion since more than a year, but nobody realy cared yet" -- do you really think adding a text to a category is a useful means of notifying the uploaders of files in that category? Is every user supposed to regularly check all the categories of their files if someone added some warning to the category text?

Also be aware that the official Commons:Mobile app by default added {{Cc-by-sa}} to the files it uploaded. The users that used this officially promoted app, which was targeted to novices, in 2013 and later, had no means of knowing they were doing something now considered wrong. --dealerofsalvation 10:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Jee: No link to the discussion you mentioned can be found on Template:Cc-by's history or talk page. --dealerofsalvation 10:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Found one. Jee 10:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Raised at Commons:Village_pump#Another_bulk_process_to_delete_large_numbers_of_licensed_files Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Opps; only now I noticed how Sven Manguard handled it: "Before making the change, I moved everything that was cc-by to cc-by-1.0, so there are only three files at the moment that have the cc-by error message, two that were uploaded today and will get fixed when the OTRS permission for them comes in, and one that I created as a test. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)" Jee 12:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Typo

{{Edit request}} Please fix the typo "SharAlike" into "ShareAlike". Thanks, pandakekok9 12:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9:  Done, thanks! --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)