Template talk:Creative Commons text attribution notice

ENGVAR
Per WP:ENGVAR and MOS:S, the spelling "license" should be only be used in articles written in American English. In other varieties, it should be spelt as "licence". Two of the CC licences are specific to Australia, so for these the template is only likely to be used in AusE articles - I've therefore amended the spelling in the template for these two. But the other licences could be used in articles written in any variety of English. Would it be possible to add another parameter to the template code to enable the appropriate spelling to be chosen? I'm afraid the coding for this is a bit beyond me. Bazonka (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 18:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 19:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ARTCON you should use the subject's own spelling. In this case, even for the AU licenses, Creative Commons specifically uses the "LICENCE" spelling only in the AU licenses. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * I think you used the wrong spelling above, but I take your point. However, I guess it depends on whether the word licence/license is a descriptor of the thing called "CC BY x.x", or whether it's part of the name itself. I think it's the former (there is no capital L, and it doesn't appear in the title of the CC web pages), and so I feel that the template should use the spelling that matches the article's English variety. Bazonka (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I corrected myself above. Creative Commons does use the "CE" spelling in the legal text of the AU license, but not in the others, including international. I understand your point about whether it is part of the name or not, and I can see both sides of the argument, but if you go to https://creativecommons.org/choose/ and look at the output, it does capitalize the work "License" (for example, "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License"). --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Yeah, it's not clear at all. Of course the easy solution is just to assume that "License" is part of the name, so no complex template coding would be needed (although we might want to capitalise all Ls), but it does seem wrong when the S spelling appears in a non-American article. Bazonka (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Date / accessdate
Given that the source may be subject to change over time, shouldn't there be a date field and an accessdate fields to provide some indication of which version of source is being attributed. Obviously a source date is preferable but in its absence an accessdate is approporiate. Thank Kerry (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Specific attribution text, indicate modification
I would like to use some CC-BY 4.0 content from Google Developers. Google Developers has an attribution policy where they want certain attribution text to be displayed at the bottom of the page, apparently verbatim. "Portions of this page are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution License." Also, CC-BY 4.0 requires that you indicate whether modifications were made. How can we use this template or how should we modify this template to be able do that? —Enervation (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

CC by 3.0 CL
Is it possible to add CC by 3.0 CL to Creative Commons text attribution notice? The article Claudio Gómez incorporates Spanish-language text that appears to have been taken from the BCN de Chile. The text from BCN is licensable under CC by 3.0 CL, but the template doesn't support that. I tried seeing if I could add a switch for by3cl, but VRT permissions are required. In the meantime, I have the basic CC by 3.0 version of the template on the page, which I've started trying to clean up. Thank you, —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Error documenting CC-BY-4.0 license
In the table showing usage parameters, the short name by4 maps to Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0). By rights, it should map to Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). That is: "International" and not: "Unported". More information here: https://spdx.org/licenses/ and specifically here: https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-4.0.html. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've corrected the documentation. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA 1.0
According to Creative Commons, [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses There is no compatibility mechanism in CC BY-SA 1.0. You must use version 1.0 for your contributions to adaptations of material under BY-SA 1.0]. Although few websites use this old version, some don't list the version clearly and you need to click and see. Proeksad (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 10 articles: Monde Nissin. In 2012, correct version 3.0 Republic Biscuit Corporation. In 2012, correct version 3.0 Alaska Milk Corporation. In 2012, correct version 3.0  RFM Corporation. In 2012, correct version 3.0  Japanese dolls. In 2021, correct version 3.0  Francesco Filippini. In 2015, correct version  3.0  Scipione Pulzone. In 2011, correct version probably 3.0 Luigi Bisi. In 2011, correct version probably 3.0  Southern Ndebele people. In 2020,  unknown license CC Information commons. In 2021, correct version 1.0 Proeksad (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * not found in Wikipedia in other languages Proeksad (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Update needed
As of June 7, 2023, Wikipedia is licensed under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. So I think this means that it's now okay to copy from journal articles bearing that license. If so, this template and its documentation needs to be updated to reflect that fact, since CC BY-SA 4.0 should now be a compatible license. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @JJMC89: I wonder if you could have a look at this? CC BY-SA 4.0 is now listed at WP:COMPLIC as being a compatible license. Could help me out here and update this template? I am afraid to attempt it myself. Thanks in advance. — Diannaa (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa: I've done the important part of the update to allow use for CC BY-SA 4.0. The categories need some work, but I'll look at that later. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 10:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — Diannaa (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

IGO, too?
Could CC BY 3.0 IGO be included as an option, please? "IGO" stands for intergovernmental organization. Here's the legal code. Thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)