MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyright

Footer invalid html

Please could we change </li><li class="noprint"><a class='internal' href="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us">Contact us</a>

We cannot assume that the copyright will always be printed in a list element - in the mobile site for instance it isn't and leads to invalid html (see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30406)

I believe this has the following line has the same stylistic effect without leading to bad HTML elsewhere: <p class="noprint"><a class="internal" href="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us">Contact us</a></p>

Jdlrobson (talk)

I believe this was superseded by another request. (diff) Whym (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing the CC copyright footer.

I propose to change this at least to the following code: Text is available under the <a rel="license" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a><a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" style="display:none;"></a>; additional terms may apply. See <a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use">Terms of Use</a> for details.<br/> Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the <a href="http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/">Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.</a>, a non-profit organization. This adds the rel-license microformat, which Google seems to be using to find Commons content. Since we have our own license link, which Google likely doesn't recognize, but that we apparently want to use, It also adds a "hidden" link specifically for searchengine purposes. Further ideas about a possible button and more metadata can be found on the VP.—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

←If we're going to use microformats, we should also emit an hCard:

<span class="vcard"><a class="fn org url" href="http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/">Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.</a></span>

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well for this particular case, there are different, more appropriate microformats, see discussion here, but the ideal usage of it is page specific and domas said i couldn't do it. I guess implementing that in the core would be best. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any microformat there, nor know of one anywhere else, which is more suited to marking up an organisation's name and URL, than hCard. The debate to which you refer seems to be about RDFa. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you prefer, I will call both "web-based semantic markup". —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing contact link

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T48392

I don't think this copyright notice should contain the 'contact link' - on the mobile site (beta) we provide our own contact link elsewhere meaning the user interface on the mobile site is confusing. Ideally I would have thought the contact link should appear alongside privacy policy, about wikipedia etc...Jdlrobson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

 Not done That is a problem with the mobile site, then. The contact needs to remain with the copyright information - among other things, it provides a link to the contact people for a DMCA takedown notice, which is legally significant. The link should not be removed, in any case, without consulting with WMF legal counsel first. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The contact link is already provided in the sidebar. It is not necessary to duplicate it here. Other language wikis do not have a contact link in the footer and I would favor removing it here. Kaldari (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is smart. Media attention has repeatedly shown remarks like: "Wikipedia cannot easily be contacted, there is only this small link hidden at the bottom." which you just removed. The fact that people were not finding the link in the sidebar was why we added it to the footer in the first place. I suggest it's added to the footer of the skins before we remove it here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose someone configures SkinTemplateOutputPageBeforeExec hook. Seems much smarter —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done The new (redundant) link is in place now. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. I wonder how long it takes for anyone notice something changed. :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Use ® and not ®

 Wikipedia® is a registered trademark

in this message is the only thing that's stopping regular enwiki pages from being well-formed XML (before all the JavaScript and jQuery kicks in). (curl -o /tmp/Elephant.xml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant , then view file:///tmp/Elephant.xml in Firefox or Chrome)

mw:HTML5#Avoid HTML named entities says "The HTML that MediaWiki outputs is in general valid XML" and explains why named entities hinder this, so please could someone change the ® to the actual ® glyph. Thanks! -- Skierpage (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Bug 37516 - Empty Creative Commons license link (<a>) in footer

Text copied from the bug report:

A empty link is present in the footer section of all pages next to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License link that is unrecognised with assistive technology tools such as JAWS and NVDA and hinders the flow of readability. The section of html that causes the problem is

<a rel="license" href="//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" style="display:none;"></a>

A screenshot was provided. This is a problem specific to English Wikipedia and whoever else copied the format of this footer (e.g. Spanish Wikipedia and also has this problem, Catalan Wikipedia hasn't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qgil (talk • contribs) 05:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

eh it's display none... what the hell are those screenreaders doing looking at it... Can someone test if wrapping it in a span with display none would work ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What is it used for?--Qgil (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It makes CC content engines able to detect the CC license. Note the "rel=license" part. See also http://creativecommons.org/choose/ and all our image copyright templates which use similar constructs to enable engines to pick up CC licensed content. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello from 2024!

Is rel="license" still useful these days?

If it's useful in English, why not use it also in other languages?

And if it's not really useful in English, can it be removed?

This is a follow-up to a discussion at T360497. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheDJ ^ Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor code tweaks

{{sudo}}

Hi.

Current text:

<li class="noprint"><a class='internal' href="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us">Contact us</a>

Proposed text:

<li id="contactus" class="noprint"><a class="internal" href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us">Contact us</a>

The tweaks should be obvious, but explicitly: added an "id" attribute, made the quoting consistent, and made the URL relative. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Use interwiki links instead of HTML anchors?

What if we change

By using this site, you agree to the <a href="//wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use">Terms of Use</a> and <a href="//wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy">Privacy Policy.</a> Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the <a href="//www.wikimediafoundation.org/">Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.</a>, a non-profit organization.

to

By using this site, you agree to the [[wmf:Terms of Use|Terms of Use]] and [[wmf:Privacy Policy|Privacy Policy]] Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the [[wmf:|Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.]], a non-profit organization.

by using interwiki links? Is that a good idea? (The text is identical in both cases. It's only the links I am wondering about.) For what it's worth, the copyright warning message MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning, does use a interwiki link. That's a significant shortening of a message that is attached to every article! 331 chars vs 224. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It won't work unfortunately. The message is parsed as raw HTML, so the wikilinks would show up as the raw wikitext. Legoktm (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Brain fart on my part. Still might be worth doing just to make the message shorter. Thanks for the reply. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

But is there a reason for that message to be parsed as HTML instead of wikitext? If not this could be changed in MW... Helder.wiki 13:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably because that's how the footer is assembled on normal MediaWiki wikis since the beginning of time and good part of it is hardcoded in the skin (its composition used not to be configurable at all). Normally, license etc. come from a configuration variable rather than a custom message. Anyway, worth checking that there is at least a bug for the footer configurability (may depend on skin cleanup). --Nemo 07:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleting line break before registered trademark sentence

There is currently a line break before "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization." I propose we get rid of it. There's questionable necessity for it in the first place but its presence causes the footer to look rather ugly in many cases. Not infrequently, on both desktop and mobile devices, the line break occurs naturally at the spot anyway, so already for many renders, the "br" is effectively not there. Removing it would give a rather noticeable aesthetic improvement in many cases with little to no downside. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did it. Fixed a minor punctuation issue too. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Eh, not sure it looks better. File:No linebreak on enwiki footer.png is what I see. Legoktm (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Hi, Legoktm. That certainly looks bad. Which skin are you using? Are you using any custom javascript to affect the look of Wikipedia? Your footer material (including the time stamp) is center-justified for some reason. The footer isn't centered in Vector; it's left-justified. It is this justification which I believe is the cause of the problem rather than the change. This issue of ugly rendering I believe would have existed before the change for you (my change shouldn't have affected the justification); the change, because it produces a longer paragraph, would have made the issue more prominent. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the non-Vector skins center the footer text whereas Vector left-justifies. My thinking is that this is a problem with those skins rather than the change. Depending on the screen resolution and brower-window aspect ratio, you'd still get the same issue if the BR were re-inserted. It's been a while since I checked the other skins. Cologne Blue and Modern are simply hideous-looking all around and if the skin itself doesn't bother people, I doubt this change will. Monobook is semi-respectable but if center-justified text for the footer isn't what those users want, perhaps they should change it. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm using monobook. We could probably put something in MediaWiki:Monobook.css to make it left align. Legoktm (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Rethinking the text - 2016

I was rethinking the text following meta:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0. I started a conversation at English Wikipedia's policy pump. One suggestion in that conversation was that I come here to ask for more information.

I might be missing information, but I want to make a proposal, and if anyone can, I would like for someone to share any counterargument.

Proposal -

Change current -

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply.

to new

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and the GFDL; additional terms may apply.

Here are my reasons for this. I think all these are correct, but does anyone dispute any of these?

1. The majority of text on English Wikipedia - likely more than 90% - is dual licensed with CC and GFDL
2. The majority of incoming submissions to English Wikipedia - likely more than 90% - is dual licensed with CC and GFDL
3. The notice to readers on English Wikipedia says that the text is CC licensed, but not GFDL licensed
4. The notice to editors on English Wikipedia says, above every "save" button, "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL".

Does anyone have insight on why we tell editors that we only dual-licensed content submissions, but only present one license to readers? I know it is possible to have only CC content in Wikipedia, but almost all content is dual licensed, right? Is there some historical discussion somewhere about deciding not to mention the GFDL, despite almost all of our text using that license? How did CC+GFDL become "CC+additional terms may apply"?

I was thinking that it seems a bit unfair to the GFDL, when it is used everywhere but not presented to readers. Is the licensing not of equal value and prominence? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Only the CC-BY-SA license is universal, because editors are allowed to import content that is licensed only under CC-BY-SA and not the GFDL. It's desirable to only mention the universal stuff in this message; otherwise risks accidental copyfraud. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 00:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: Even the CC-BY-SA is not universal, because submissions could come in the form of CC-By.

Does it seem at all wrong that the GFDL is so commonly used but not mentioned? I said that it is used 90% of the time to be conservative, but I think that 99% is closer to the truth, and it is plausibly the case that 100% of Wikipedia articles (not rounded - actually 100%) are dual licensed because they all get edited by bots or a human at least once after submission and gain the need to note the GFDL forever after that.

I get that in theory some articles could be only CC for a short time, because of the exception to allow CC-compatible text submissions. But in practice, all Wikipedia articles come to incorporate dual licensed text, right? Like for example - could you show an article more than 1 year old that only has CC text, and has never incorporated a contribution which overlays the GFDL over the work? If any such articles exist, then I think they might be in Category:Articles with imported Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 text, but I wonder if any actually exist. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: IANAL, and we're getting into a hairier area, but as I understand it: A work derivative of both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA works ends up CC-BY-SA, because the SA license demands identical licensing while CC-BY is agnostic: in other words, the pair are one-way compatible to CC-BY-SA. The copyrightable elements of subsequent CC-BY-SA/GFDL dual-licensed edits to an article with imported CC-only content are themselves available under the GFDL, but that's not terribly relevant so long as the overall document is not available under the GFDL—the old CC-only content doesn't magically become usable under the GFDL. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 01:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You are here watching a Mediawiki legal template page, so you know enough. This conversation is already hairier than most lawyers would enter so thanks for staying with it.

"A work derivative of both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA works ends up CC-BY-SA" - not quite. Licenses never go away, so how it plays out is that the work is multilicensed CC-By and CC-By-SA, but since the CC-By-SA is the more restrictive bottleneck, then following that one keeps compliance with the others that remain in the background.

"the overall document is not available under the GFDL" I agree with this statement, but this is the challenge to address: how would you describe the license of the overall document which has CC-By and wiki dual license parts? I would say that the best license to list is the most restrictive one, which is the wiki dual license. Theoretically someone could go into the history and pull out the old original text, but it is implausible to think that anyone but a superuser would do that.

Anyway this is a fringe case, since practically all text in all of Wikipedia is originally composed for Wikipedia and comes with the dual license. If we want to be universal and consider even the fringe, then I think dual licensing still applies, because I am not even sure that the fringe case exists outside of theory. Theoretically Wikipedia could host some CC-By or CC-By-SA content (without GFDL), but since any copyrightable editing would overlay a wiki dual license, that means that republishing any Wikipedia article requires giving notice that the work is CC-By-SA/GFDL.

"the old CC-only content doesn't magically become usable under the GFDL." Right, but neither can dual-licensed content be usable under a single license like CC-By-SA. Suppose that someone imports a CC-By text and pastes it in entirety to start a new Wikipedia article. Some time later, someone uses the typical edit process to add a copyrightable amount of text, perhaps a sentence. At this point if the entire work is to be reused, the license to note for it all is CC-By-SA/GFDL, because that is the most restrictive overall license on the work. As you say, the work is not available under the GFDL, but it also is not available under CC-By-SA. CC-By-SA/GFDL is more restrictive than only CC-By-SA, so the more restrictive license is the one we use.

Right? I know you are not a lawyer, and neither am I, but use your intuition and if something seems wrong then point it out even if you cannot explain why. I myself do not know the right answer and am trying to come to understand this. I could be mistaken on multiple points here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: There's a key assumption where you're mistaken. Multi-licensing makes content available under each license individually. In other words, a Wikipedia reuser has three options: reuse the content maintaining the dual licensing, reuse the content under CC-BY-SA alone, or reuse the content under the GFDL alone. In short: CC/GFDL dual-licensing is less restrictive than CC alone. In particular, this lets people avoid the most onerous requirements of the GFDL, e.g. redistributing the full license with each reuse—one of the reasons that Wikimedia requested GFDL 1.3 from the FSF in the first place.

To go back to the example situation: when people edit on Wikipedia, they are reusers of the older revision's content, creating a derivative work (unless the old content's completely deleted). If an old revision imported content available under only CC-BY, then we could probably use subsequent version under the dual-license (IIRC CC-BY is one-way compatible to the GFDL; my previous comments are misleading on that point). If it was CC-BY-SA only, then we could only reuse later versions of the article under CC-BY-SA, although an expert user might be able to pick out copyrightable elements originating only in dual-licensed edits that could be used under the GFDL. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Nihiltres Let me try to repeat that to see if I understand. Suppose that there is a typical Wikipedia article with dual licensing, CC-by-SA/GFDL. Is it correct to say that anyone may republish that article with dual licensing, or only CC-By-SA, or only GFDL? In other words, is anyone free to create a derivative work that removes either the CC-By-SA license or the GFDL from the original work if it is republished? If multi-licensing means that, then I would like to learn more about that. I do not see discussion of that concept in the multi-licensing article, but I might go on to do my own further research if you think things are this way. I never imagined that it was possible to make a derivative work that removed any license which was already applied, but now that you say it, I think this is how most people imagine that the license works and it might be so. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Yes, someone could reuse or redistribute it under either or both licenses. It's mentioned in the lead of the multi-licensing article, although the article's software-centric: When software is multi-licensed, recipients can choose the terms under which they want to use or distribute the software. It does mean that you can "lose" one of the licenses in downstream use, but obviously the original stays dual-licensed. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 21:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Nihiltres I see. That might resolve the issue. I was mistaken on that point, so thanks for explaining it. Let me think on that for a while and read more. Thanks for talking this through with me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Nihiltres is correct on all points. I was incorrect on some.

I am still unsatisfied. The GFDL documentation says that works using the license should contain "a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License". We give notice in that space to the CC license but not the GFDL. I think that almost all of Wikipedia's text is available under the GFDL, and I am not sure why terms of the license are not displayed in the way that the documentation requires. Explanations for this that I have heard are that the GFDL does not apply to 100% of Wikipedia. Whatever the case, I think the license should be displayed when it applies. Other people have said that they prefer the CC license, and wish to emphasize that one, but that hardly seems like a reason to not display the license when it applies and the terms of the license include giving notice.

At some point in the past, there could have been a decision made about whether to show the GFDL. I am unsure how to find any discussion of that discussion. If this discussion somehow never happened, then it ought to happen. If it did happen, I am not sure how it could have found consensus in not giving notice of the GFDL, when that license seems to insist on giving notice of the license in a way that seems equivalent to how we give notice of the CC license.

Is there more to say here? Can anyone explain how it came to be that at the 2009 license revision it came to be decided that there would be no notice of the GFDL, and how that decision was reconciled with the terms of the license? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding the version number?

Recently, I became aware (as leader of a wiki that upgraded in 2013) that it is not permitted to copy from CC-BY-SA 4.0 to 3.0, because the license is not backwards-compatible (more details); and, that Wikimedia has not (yet) converted to 4.0, despite a fairly positive response to the proposal. When this text was originally written, 3.0 was the latest version, but CC-BY-SA 4.0 has been out for over eight years now. A casual reader might assume the license was 4.0, and not click through to find it is 3.0. Moreover, lack of a version number encourages the licenses to be treated interchangeably, which they clearly are not.

To address this, I propose '3.0' be added after 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike' in the link text. This would bring it in line with MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning. GreenReaper (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Good idea — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 11:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 June 2023

As part of the Terms of Use we have switched to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, which has caused the copyright links to be blanketly changed on all wikis by @WMFOffice:. These pages used to contain a non standard link to Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License instead of a link to the creativecommons site, but this blanket replacement has replaced those with links to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, instead of Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Given that these nonstandard links already existed, I assume that those already got cleared by Legal when the changes were first made

Specific changes

• MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright and MediaWiki:Wikimedia-license-links change <a rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"> to <a rel="license" href="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_4.0_International_License">
• MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning change [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ CC BY-SA 4.0 License] to [[Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License|CC BY-SA 4.0 License]] -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 10:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 On hold this should be OK, but first we need to completely review that Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License is equal to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ . @MJL: I see you loaded that page, did you mirror from another project, or do that manually from the external link? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, that appears to be a fork off of the existing page (why?) see Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License vs Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. (@Sobsz:) — xaosflux ^Talk 13:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: It was mentioned to me that we didn't have a copy of this page onwiki, so I took the time and wikified the creative commons page. Turns out that the person who told me that was wrong though.

Geni reviewed this page and confirmed it matched the page before applying full protection.

It's pretty obvious the two pages should be merged. If you had to pick one that should dominate, I'd suggest mine since it more closely matches the actual formatting of the cc page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@MJL we can certainly merge them and then keep yours as the current version. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with merging either way, but I do find MJL's a bit more readable in terms of wikifying. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The merging has been done. Is any more review necessary? Whym (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what to make out of this, but I had a related conversation at m:User talk:Roan Kattouw (WMF)#Link to CC license. Whym (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

So long as an admin is sure everything is in order, hold no longer is needed to proceed. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

As a note: editing MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright requires interface admin rights because it's raw HTML, whereas the other two pages only require admin rights. This request is in principle valid, but it's tricky enough that I don't think it would be wise for me to use my admin tools to carry it out on my second week of being an admin even if I could.

If anything, I'm inclined to decline it as "none of the people patrolling this queue are willing to take responsibility for this edit, sorry" since it's been open since June without action. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Protected edit request on 7 June 2023 is a bit related to this request also. Izno (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for noting that this particular page cannot be edited by admins. It seems that {{edit interface-protected}} won't categorize this page into Category:Wikipedia interface-protected edit requests for some reason (perhaps because this page's title doesn't with css nor js?). As a workaround, I manually added the category. I hope this will make the request more visible to the right people. Whym (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll see if I can finally close this out in the next day. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Done This should be done now, please ping me if any issues. I sent notice to WMF legal as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  ZenDesk request 65030. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Purpose

Why does this even exist instead of leaving it to the default WikimediaMessages messages? Frostly (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The default message doesn't anticipate an internal license page to link to. As to why an internal license page is needed, I think one reason is to be able to give additional context and navigational links to related policies. Whym (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it really necessary?

And if it's necessary in English, why not in other languages?

Another reason is the rel="license" part, but that is discussed in another section on this page. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Update links

The "Terms of Use" and "Privacy Policy" links are redirected, please update them and also add "Special:MyLanguage" to the links, like the other links at the bottom of Wikimedia pages: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use to https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Terms_of_Use and https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy to https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Privacy_policy CyberOne25 (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see above edit request. Izno (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)