Wikipedia talk:Contact us

See list of subpages of "Wikipedia:Contact us".

run-on sentence

Comma needed as shown here:

Edits are not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organisation that hosts the site) nor of its staff, and edits will not usually be made in response to an email request. --Espoo (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Comma needed after "staff": ...nor of its staff and edits... --Espoo (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Updating to CC-BY-SA 4.0?

Could we get this page updated so that it recommends that editors upload under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license instead of the now-outdated 3.0 version? That would be great! Also, I wonder if the page might be rephrased to be 1.) more encouraging for people to use Commons rather than suggesting that they might just as well upload to Wikipedia directly (when this is inefficient and usually not necessary), and 2.) to be less encouraging that people come up with some kind of declaration of consent on their own, "or use ours", when the fact is that unless they use ours, their statement will be rejected by OTRS, which is only a waste of time. Thoughts? Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444: You don't say which page, but presumably you mean Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing. But has your proposal been approved by the Foundation's legal department? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You know, it has not. Let me contact them and see what they say. Thanks for pointing this out to me. KDS4444 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I've now heard back from Legal. As their disclaimer specifically states that the recipient must not copy or disclose the contents of their messages, I will summarize what I was told by "Jacob": he offered strong encouragement that volunteers begin transitioning to the 4.0 licenses where possible, as he considered 4.0 to be better written and more flexible than 3.0. Apparently they (Legal) are planning on having a community-wide discussion on the topic of wholesale migration to 4.0 "at some point later this year" (whoops, I copied that), but are holding off until Creative Commons finishes translating their latest license into all of their intended languages. The legal team is also not entirely confident about the use of the 4.0 license for article content that was originally created in 3.0, but expressed only encouragement for the increased use of the 4.0 license with regard to images. Inasmuch as what we are talking about here is the uploading of images, I am taking this as a green light from them to update the recommended license from 3.0 to 4.0. How does that sound? (Also, as an aside, I believe Commons is already operating fully on 4.0— I don't know of any page there that mentions 3.0 except for historical purposes.) KDS4444 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, so the next step is to get the upload forms amended so that they offer the 4.0 licenses (we already have the two necessary templates, {{cc-by-4.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}). We should not recommend the use of a license that isn't available when uploading, it only causes confusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I agree completely. So... then we have the license available, yes? All we need to do then is change the text of the page mentioned above so that it no longer "recommends" cc-by-sa 3.0 but instead recommends... nothing? Or something? In either case, I guess my edit request still stands. Can this be done? KDS4444 (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's outside my area of knowledge, and the other 2,200+ watchers of this page are all silent, so I've left a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#License selection lists when uploading images. Also, we should somehow ensure that Commons update theirs too. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The licences for Special:Upload are at MediaWiki:Licenses, and the licences for the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard are in MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js (doc). The latter appears to have been updated by Future Perfect at Sunrise. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I updated MediaWiki:Licenses, and created Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 and Category:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 files. Did I miss anything? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks,JJMC89, Edokter, Redrose64! My only remaining request is that the wording of the Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing page be updated to either reflect the 4.0 license or have its licensing recommendation removed. This is what got me started on all this in the first place. Can someone do that? I think the page is fully protected. KDS4444 (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think we should do a short inventory, because ohter pages linked on there, such as Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, also still list 3.0. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: Yeah, the thing is, if you look at the talk page for that page, I've already tried to get the declaration changed/ updated to 4.0 but no one was willing to implement it. I wasn't the only one making the request, either. But I wasn't able to establish what probably constitutes community consensus to implement the change. Perhaps now, with the permission of the legal department as mentioned above, we can move forward on that. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444: I believe Commons is already operating fully on 4.0— I don't know of any page there that mentions 3.0 except for historical purposes Try going to c:Commons:Upload, select "It is from somewhere else" (which is the same as "Already know the license, and its copyright tag? Go directly to the main upload form") at the bottom), have a look in the "Licensing" dropdown. Seven of the entries, and the templates that they emit, are:

• Own work, copyleft, attribution required (GFDL, CC BY-SA 3.0) - {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|migration=redundant}}
• Own work, attribution required (GFDL, CC BY 3.0) - {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0|migration=redundant}}
• Own work, copyleft, attribution required (CC BY-SA 3.0) - {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}
• Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 - {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}
• Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 - {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}
• Attribution 4.0 - {{cc-by-4.0}}
• Attribution 3.0 - {{cc-by-3.0}}

Only two are 4.0, five are 3.0. Now, also at c:Commons:Upload, if you go for "It is entirely my own work", and have a look in the "Licensing" dropdown, you will find (amongst others), these four entries:

• Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL (recommended) - {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
• Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and older and GFDL - {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|GFDL}}
• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 - {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}
• Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 - {{self|cc-by-3.0}}

All are 3.0, there are no 4.0 in that selection list. Also, only one of these ({{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}) is common to both lists. None of the other options at c:Commons:Upload offer CC later than 2.0. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Even after nearly eight years of doing this, there is still so much I do not know. Thank you for pointing these out to me, I am working on getting them updated! Are there others? KDS4444 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)