Template talk:Cc-by-sa

How to migrate
I'm here because this template transcludes error. I patrol for errors. What is the procedure for migrating existing files to another CC-BY-SA template? The solution to errors should be fairly obvious, as generally these are user mistakes. There should be a well-defined, cut-and-dried fix. Noting that it's been seven weeks since this closed, and I'm not sure there's been any action to clear these errors, which generally should be considered to be highest priority. Is anyone working on this? wbm1058 (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently there are 439 transclusions of this deprecated template. wbm1058 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Presumably only the person who uploaded a file can license it. As per Template talk:Cc-by-sa-1.0 this template was moved to Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0 and this now redirects there. It has never redirected anywhere else. Thus all editors using this template to license files have licensed their files under Cc-by-sa-1.0 and we can just use AWB to change Cc-by-sa to Cc-by-sa-1.0. If we can't do that because we can't with confidence say that's what the uploaders intended (because they may have been confused) then our only other option is to delete the files as invalidly licensed and make the editors upload them again. wbm1058 (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be asking anyone besides the editor who uploaded the file to "migrate the existing files license"; only the person who uploaded the file has the authority to license it. wbm1058 (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an error due to ambiguity. There are many cc-by-sa licenses with different version numbers. These require looking. If the file was uploaded ages ago when there was only the first version of the license, re-tag with Cc-by-sa-1.0. Otherwise, check the source and verify which license is correct. If you're confident the person who added the tag (e.g. the uploader) was the copyright holder, you can also re-tag as cc-by-sa-1.0, as that's what the text of this template specifies. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the reason this requires manual work isn't due to intention etc (that's on them), but rather because they may have uploaded someone else's image which is available under, let's say cc-by-sa-3.0, and just didn't specify the version number. In this case, we must look at the source and verify the version number to be correct. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, let's start with File:BrittanyDukes.png – the original version was uploaded 10:39, 8 May 2004. The current version was uploaded 17:45, 21 June 2010. Hmm, "Images which have remained unclaimed for over a year, and which have no other obvious source, despite the above notification should be listed at Files for discussion, as technically unsourced." It's in Category:Unclaimed images thought to be uploader, which has a backlog of 286. Walk me through how to do this one, please. wbm1058 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I suppose I could solve that one by putting Kings and dukes of Brittany family tree up for deletion, as it's totally unsourced. wbm1058 (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The original was released when only CC-BY-SA-1.0 was a thing, so the old version of the image is clearly cc-by-sa-1.0. As for the new versions, I think it's clear those were created by the uploader as derivative works based on the edit summaries. Moreover, if they were not created by the uploader, we could assume they must be licensed similarly because of the ShareAlike restriction on the original license. He didn't change the licensing at the time, so he also licensed them as cc-by-sa-1.0. You can safely change the tag to that. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0 was created on 19 August 2004, three months after the original 8 May 2004 upload date. The derivative works were not all created by the uploader . The derivatives were uploaded by two different editors, the most recent being who is still actively editing. wbm1058 (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They uploaded them to an image page that states the images are released under CC-BY-SA-1.0. That's a valid release under that license. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Why of course. All of these transclude Cc-by-sa-1.0, so each is an image page that states the images are released under CC-BY-SA-1.0 and most formerly redirected to that template, after it was moved from its original title { {Cc-by-sa} }. Which begs the question of why we can't just buzz thru these with AWB, while making a cursory glance for anything obviously out of the ordinary (such as vandalism where someone changed the license without the authority to do that), rather than get bogged down with looking at the edit history, who uploaded it and when, and who modified it and when. As I understand it, editors tweaking files need to keep it under the original license granted by the first editor who uploaded the file. We can't decide that the uploading contributor "chose the wrong license" and "change it to the correct license". All we could do is question the validity of the license, and if we do that our only remedy is to delete the file. wbm1058 (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

On to example #2. Sysop uploaded File:Nutshell-talk.png on 22 February 2007, well after the August 2004‎ creation of Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0. Is there any reason not to change this to Cc-by-sa-1.0? Perhaps you can find me an example of a file that should be changed to something else, to help me understand the criteria that requires a change to a different license. wbm1058 (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree we should migrate any use of this template before 2013-07-11 to Cc-by-sa-1.0 because that would clearly be what those editors meant. I'm not entirely certain about later transclusions, but would argue that migrating to cc-by-sa-1.0 would also be the most appropriate solution. The error message is intended to tell future users of this template to migrate and to attract attention (like you guys) to help migrate existing files. Deryck C. 10:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't mindlessly migrate anything. It requires a file-by-file analysis. If the creator uploaded it using this template, then yes, migrate. The problem is when the uploader was uploading based on a license statement from a website. We need to check that we have the right license in that case. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean a file like File:Securitycartoon.jpg? That's only been on Wikipedia for what, ten years, before someone randomly noticed the website's license was not accepted on Wikipedia. And the solution there is not to fix a license template, but to delete the file. I see from the history that we've had bots running around tweaking license templates; I don't see why we couldn't have a bot tweak this one too. The ten-year patrol of willing volunteers looking for licensing mistakes is a separate issue. For all intents cc-by-sa is cc-by-sa-1.0 – they are one and the same template. Bypassing the redirect is a simple cosmetic edit, which should be doable by a bot. wbm1058 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone's so on top of this that nobody noticed that the documentation still needed to be updated until I just updated it. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We have the error due to ambiguity for a reason. If we just had a bot handle these, we might as well just redirect this to cc-by-sa-1.0. I'll work on the (small) backlog as I have a chance. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Update. 406 transclusions remaining to do. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Now down to 332; slowly chugging away at this. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 232. ~ Rob 13 Talk 10:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping with this. Earlier I asked, perhaps you can find me an example of a file that should be changed to something else, to help me understand the criteria that requires a change to a different license. Now I see that you have changed several to 2.0 licenses, because the pictures are based on flickr where they are licensed under 2.0 – that makes sense to me. wbm1058 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, the other situation I invoked above that likely does not use a 1.0 license is seen at File:PLaSM Sample Geometry2.png. We often have editors upload based on license statements from other websites. If they don't include the number, we can't infer 1.0 because they aren't the actual creator of the image. We have to dig through the website's Terms of Use or license statement to figure out which license version is correct. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Down to 151 (with about 50 more currently nominated for deletion for various reasons). ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Down to 91. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just 25 left! ~ wbm1058 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrapping up
Noting from the July 4, 2017 RfD there were actually five template names: I made the latter four redirects to this template, as we've consolidated this task here. There was only one transclusion one of the aliases so there are 26 remaining.
 * Cc-by-sa
 * CC-by-sa
 * CC-by-SA
 * CC-BY-SA
 * CC-BY-SA license

26 remaining that transclude error. Curiously about 8 of these weren't transcluding error until after I null-edited them.

Are these 26 particularly difficult to resolve? – wbm1058 (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I've just gotten very busy in off-wiki activities, unfortunately. My entire wiki-activity has taken a big hit. I'll try to get to these very soon. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite clear what to do with this one. It appears to be copyrighted on the linked site, but maybe I'm missing something? Second opinion? Ajpolino (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * or this, which best I can tell came from here... Ajpolino (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a lot of experience with working copyright issues, while I see you do. The uploader appears to be asserting that Permission is "Within file content information.", meaning File:Stephanie Berman-Eisenberg.jpg the Metadata. In the metadata I see "Copyright status:	Copyright status not set". The uploader's edit summary says "Uploading a file from a free published source" but I don't see anything other than "All rights reserved" at the source site. Seems like a candidate for WP:FFD rather than commons. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tagged both as WP:F11, which means that a free license has been asserted but there's zero evidence the author actually licensed it under that license. The uploader gets a week to correct the issue, after which deletion occurs if it hasn't been fixed. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This backlog is finally gone, . Is there an easy way to look up other error tags in file templates so I can work on those? ~ Rob 13 Talk 11:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I have this on my user page: Pages transcluding errors in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Error&namespace=6 file namespace]
 * Right now there's just three, and each appears to be different. Sometimes the fix is more obvious than others. When the fix is less obvious or the file might soon be deleted, I generally wait to see if the problem doesn't get resolved by someone else. When errors persist eventually I dig into the cause and resolve them. Hope that helps. wbm1058 (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 March 2019
Please remove the TfD notice - I just closed the discussion as keep. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)