Template talk:Cc-by-nd-2.5-in

December 2017

{{makeprotected}} -- Important license template needs to be protected.
•–• 07:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, before it is protected, could we have a rename so it matches other similar templates such as {{cc-by-nd-2.5}}? Green Giant (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I think ideally we should use the {{CC}} format but it doesn’t have the capacity for country-specific elements. So, I have drafted a modified version of the current template with some icons and a shrunken form of the text at {{CC BY-ND 2.5 IN/Sandbox}}. Tell me what you think. Green Giant (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done other license templates aren't protected either. --SVTCobra 07:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Two wrongs does not make a right. And if this template is messed up with, it will affect more than 200 photos.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it should not be moved to {{cc-by-nd-2.5}} because the shorthand notation of the license has a space between "CC" and "BY" and it is in uppercase.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There are hundreds of photos using other licenses. Why do you think yours are special? And it's not a wrong, so stop using that stupid turn of phrase. --SVTCobra 14:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, so why are you so scared when saying “IPs could vandalise “ your userpage, which might hardly cause any issues. But if this template is messed up with, and someone changes the text of terms of the license, do you even realise what is at stake?
103.254.128.130 (talk),

Less personal all around, please. --Pi zero (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Entirely different scenarios. If vandalism occurs or a bad edit occurs to the template, it will be reverted. Your user page argument was that IP edits to user pages should be assumed to come from the user and left to stand. But I guess I don't realize what is at stake, because as far as I can see there's nothing at stake. --SVTCobra 19:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at other sisters, templates like this are fully protected on Wikipedia and Commons, entirely unprotected on the other sisters I looked at. --Pi zero (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing the point about 'at stake' is that an image with the wrong license on it could result in someone misusing a resource, with legal ramifications. Changes to these templates can be handled well enough via {{editprotected}}; I've no objection to fully protecting these.

Regarding the name of the templates, the naming style used by the other templates seems to be the standard on other sisters; and what actually appears on a page depends on the markup on the page rather than the internal name of the page. So I'm inclined to allow that too. --Pi zero (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Did Wikipedia and Commons do so after a history of vandalism? That is the question. We haven't yet had one, so I don't see this, or the other nominees for protection, meeting Wikinews:Protection policy. --SVTCobra 19:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as the risk, a bad faith actor could just as easily change or remove the template from the image files. So protecting the template doesn't offer any real protection. --SVTCobra 19:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Not as easily. A single edit to a template is easy, and also comparatively easily overlooked; changing many individual image pages is much more work, and has a much larger footprint in RecentChanges so it's less likely to be overlooked. --Pi zero (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Btw, looks like there's a specific clause in the protection policy about copyright pages that would cover this. --Pi zero (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but it is for the key copyright of the site itself as well as the Wikinews logo. Not secondary templates. --SVTCobra 20:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not the end of the world if this gets protected, it just means that we also have to protect all the other licenses. And it's unnecessary. But with the exponential growth of this discussion, I don't know which is less work at this point. --SVTCobra 20:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

They're key if we choose to deem them so. In any case, common sense tends to apply to protection justifications; "high impact" and similar terms often appear in edit summaries, iirc, and seem to me to be within the penumbra of the policy. I'm surprised to see so many words in our protection policy; we tend to shun red tape; Commons has a much shorter policy page. Btw, I checked a Wikipedia template's history at semi-random, and it was protected in 2007 on grounds of being used on a lot of pages; and a couple of Commons templates, one of which cited "file licensing protection policy" or some such folderol (with a link to their policy that did not apparently, either then or now, anywhere specifically mention file licensing), while another just said "No need to edit this, used too often".

I do think we've probably made about all the substantive points that can be made on this. --Pi zero (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Pi zero: Thanks for renaming the template. I’ve updated the associated usage doc. The only thing left to do is possibly rename the associated category and relocate the files therein (a job for an idle half-hour). Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me the category should be renamed, since it seems more associated with the name of the license than with the name of the template. --Pi zero (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That may be, but I don't think it ought to be a subcategory of Category:Non-free license templates. We have Category:Media files by license for that. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. --Pi zero (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)