Wikipedia talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2

Caps, ©

The GNU license headings are written in all-caps, and it uses (C) and (c) to denote copyright, rather than the preferable © symbol, which is legally less ambiguous. This is evidently so it can be transmitted intact in 7-bit text format, but there's no reason to do this in the rich HTML of Wikipedia (other than for users who might cut and paste it into such a format). I would suggest we make these substitutions, as they would not, in any way, alter the legal meaning of the document, but would make it easier to read. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection, although this sounds like fixing something which ain't broke.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The original text [1] has caps and (c), and I suspect "changing it is not allowed" will be the determining factor here, even for format changes. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 05:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. It's just not very Wikipedia-looking, and things like all-caps headers would have been fixed very quickly anywhere else. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 16:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? It's not Wikipedia-looking because we didn't write it. We just use it. And to use it, we can't change it. So we don't change it. Maybe we can make it look nice once we migrate to the Creative Commons license.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he folks at FSF wouldn't mind us tweaking capitalization (and if they did, it's obviously not an actionable infraction of the permissions anyway). Though I agree that it's not a big problem as is. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On a punctuation note, I love how all of the periods and commas are typed OUTSIDE the quotes. This is contrary to the convention in the U.S. where the Free Software Foundation is incorporated. Also, it gives the writing a very technical visual presentation in my opinion.72.231.135.247 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Spoken version of the text is NOT a verbatim copy

I'm not a wikipedia editor or anything, but out of curiosity i clicked on the spoken version button. The date and version of the document are right, however the adress of the FSF (i suppose) is different in the spoken version. I'm not sure it matters much ( i doubt postal addresses can be copyrighted :D ), but it could be misleading, so i am just letting you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.158.196 (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the edit to change the address occurred just over five months after the spoken version was recorded. It's not a big deal because a new version of the GFDL will be released relatively soon. Graham87 04:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Practical Question

Guys, I've written a nonfiction book and I would like to make a set of appendices out of Wikipedia articles. There is some background information that Wikipedia explains very well: but if I have to sacrifice copyright of the book to do that, that would be a dealbreaker.

So: can I publish Wikipedia articles as an appendix with the GNU free documentation license, making the appendix also available on the web, while having in the same book my own work which remains under my copyright?

I'd much appreciate an explanation. Thanks - CC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.40 (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, any printed material (if more than 100 copies) requires the GFDL licence to be printed in full as well. However, if someone knows differently, please correct me as I'm not an expert. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tivedshambo has it correctly, I believe. As long as you include the full text of the GFDL with the articles, it should be ok. I think the GFDL would also require that you include copies of the edit histories as well (see section 4-I for this requirement).--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

However, don't take our words for it: Wikipedia:Copyrights has an in-depth discussion of how to do what you would like to do.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put a link to Wikipedia:Copyrights at the top of this page (and taken the opportunity to do some archiving at the same time) —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 16:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good call.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I don't see how I could include the history of an article in printed text (without it becoming pretty ugly); and they'll be extracts anyway. I'll check out the copyright article you mention. 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)CC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.40 (talk)

Interwikis

Please add interwiki it:Wikipedia:Testo della GNU Free Documentation License. Thanks--Trixt (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 08:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please also add interwiki he:s:GFDL. Thanks! Fuzzy (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's done. --CapitalR (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Slightly dumb question.

Sorry I am trying to ensure that the Schools Wikipedia complies with this licence but I keep rereading it. Is Wikipedia itself an aggregate in terms of this licence and does it publish itself as an aggregate? If so does it comply given it doesn't carry the copyright notice referred to at the foot of the licence. Anyone know?--BozMo talk 21:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This question is not dumb. Not even slightly. (I'm not going to say that there are no stupid questions, because there are.) From what I know, each Wikipedia article is treated as an independent document, separately licensed under the GFDL. However, because all of the articles are released under the GFDL, it seems to me that section 6 ("Collections of Documents") is more applicable to the way Wikipedia is distributed. The Aggregations section seems to be more referring to aggregating GFDL-licensed works with non-GFDL works, which doesn't seem to apply to your case, either (unless Schools Wikipedia incorporates non-GFDL material). As for the second part of your question, every Wikipedia page carries a footer (under the categories, see below), specifically carrying the copyright notice. Hope that helps, --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am not a lawyer.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But the copyright notice doesn't have the format "Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME." as far as I can see? --BozMo talk 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Point. My best reply would be that the footer does list the date it was last modified, although not in that format. So I just don't know. My advice: contact MGodwin (the Wikimedia general counsel) with your question. (And then post his answer back here, if you would be so kind.) Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 23:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone posted this on the en mailing list when I asked. It sounds right, or at least as well reasoned as anything else we have seen: "The way I see it the Document referred to in the GFDL cannot be an individual Wikipedia article. It has to be the whole of Wikipedia. If the Document were an individual article then Wikipedia would be in breach of its own license. Every time people copy text between articles then they would create a Modified Version under the GFDL. They mostly do not comply with GFDL section 4 under these circumstances on a number of points.

So the only sensible interpretations are the whole of English Wikipedia or the whole of Wikipedia as the GFDL Document. This has the following implications for GFDL compliance: - only need to give network location of Wikipedia, not individual articles - only need to give five principal authors of Wikipedia, not of individual articles - no real section Entitled "History", so no requirement to copy that

This makes a lot of sense to me as: - I don't believe adding five principal authors of individual articles adds a lot of value. In any case this would lead to a lot of disputes and maybe gaming of the system if ever a system of defining principal authors was introduced. - the network location of articles is problematic in the general case of renames - the network location of articles (and thus edit histories and authors) is generally easily found from the article title and the Wikipedia URL - the spirit of GFDL history doesn't seem likely to me to intend every single minor edit - often copies (like Schools Wikipedia) would not want to include vandalism edit histories". However this is an odds with the GFDL compliance pages on Wikipedia which (as the above) are all someone's original research. Presumably only a well sourced external document could resolve this? --BozMo talk 11:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So who are the five principal authors of Wikipedia? Can I be one? -- Gurch (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Common sense would dictate that they don't have to be uniquely defined. --BozMo talk 21:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Compatibility Question

Is the GFDL compatible with the Creative Commons Public Domain license? I know I can put Public Domain contents into Wikipedia articles, but can I do the other way around? The GDFL says "[...] derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense." So, are they free in the same sense? - Tekoteko (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the CC Public Domain certification isn't really a license, per se. All it says is that you believe to the best of your knowledge that the work you are attaching it to is in the public domain, and thus free for anyone to use for anything. Anything in the public domain can be used in Wikipedia. However, work licensed under the GFDL cannot be released into the public domain without permission from all of the authors, so Wikipedia articles cannot be certified as public domain unless you get permission from all of the authors listed in the history. So the GFDL freedom is much narrower than public domain.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Software displaying Wikipedia content

Hi, I want to develop a software using some part of Wikipedia as output for the user: when the user specify some options a wikipedia page is displayed. I want to know if there is a limitation of the license of my software or the license related to the documentation itself. Thanks. Pyabo

I think it would depend on whether the software was simply taking the user to a Wikipedia page, or whether the Wikipedia page was packaged with the software. If your software is simply redirecting a user to the en.wikipedia.org website, then I doubt you need to worry about our licenses at all. However, if you wish to include Wikipedia pages in your software package, then you need to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations. It would also be a good idea to read the rest of Wikipedia:Copyrights, as well. Any further questions you have would probably be better answered by posting at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Also, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end of your talk page posts, like this: ~~~~. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we update this to 1.3?

Should this page be updated to the new GFDL 1.3 license?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no, for two reasons:

1) Is it confirmed that Wikipedia is using 1.3 yet? WP:COPYRIGHT still states that text is licensed under 1.2

2) Some users upload files using the (legitimate) {{GFDL-1.2}} tag, which states version 1.2 and no other versions. That points to this page.

 —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Edittools and WP:COPYRIGHT state clearly "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version"; Free Software Foundation itself said that. I support updating.--OsamaK 18:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If this page is updated, we will need to create a page for the 1.2 version, and ensure all 1.2 only licences point to that first. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Update. All images and other media specified under a specific license should not go to the generic page and instead of the specific page. I propose adding a disambiguation page linked to at the top which describes the differnt versions, although as long as the text includes the corresponding clause and link this is unnecessary. Support updating the primary page to version 1.3, that version is highly relevant to Wikipedia Scientus (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Update - Anyone attempting to use "version 1.2 and no other versions" is using version 1.2, which states that version 1.2 or any later version may be used, nullifying the prior restriction. There is no way to use version 1.2 which does not include an explicit permission to use version 1.3, because there is no such thing as "version 1.2 of the GFDL" which does not include such permission. If people had actually wanted to do that, they would have had to edit the text of version 1.2 to delete the permission to use a later version, and then state that their work is licensed under their modified fork of the GFDL. Nobody has done that that I know of, and if anyone has, we can remove or paraphrase their edits manually. NCC-8765 (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not correct: nowhere in the GFDL-1.2 license does it require you to allow the use of later versions; indeed the inclusion of the phrase "Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version" very clearly implies that the opposite (that a document is published under only one version) is not only possible but is in fact the standard practice. The section at the bottom, "how to use this license for your documents", which includes a recommendation to license under "or any later versions", is clearly marked in the original publication of the GFDL-1.2 as an "addendum", and only reinforces the expectation that omitting the "or any later versions" clause results in licensing under a single version only. Saying that you license a document "under the GFDL" would have significant ambiguity, which is why that is not done anywhere on wikipedia AFAIK. Licensing a document "under the GFDL version 1.2 or any later version" is absolutely clear and absolutely valid; licensing "under the GFDL version 1.2 only" is equally valid. Happy‑melon 18:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If that is true, then do we need to ask the FSF to amend version 1.2 to explicitly allow upgrades to 1.3? NCC-8765 (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be amazed if they agreed to do so. Issuing a new version with the same version number as the previous one not only violates common sense but also the statement on versions in section 10 of the license. Algebraist 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got it completely backwards. The FSF have produced a number of free licenses; these are merely texts that their lawyers say will stand up in court. One of them is called the GFDL version 1.2; another is called the GFDL version 1.3, others have other names and other versions. Wikipedia makes the requirement that any editor agrees to release their contributions under a number of these licenses, being the GFDL-1.2 "and any later versions". The copyright holder (the editor) is at perfect liberty to release the work under whichever and however many licenses they want; they choose (in order to be allowed to edit) to release under the GFDL-1.2, GFDL-1.3, and so forth.

Now in the slightly twisted world in which your suggestion was enacted, Wikipedia would be able to present material released only under the GFDL-1.2 as being licensed as GFDL-1.3, even if its editors had not explicitly released their work under that license. In fact, Wikimedia has done a very similar thing with the license migration: they have persuaded the FSF, after literally years of negotiations, to include just such a provision in the GFDL-1.3: essentially any wiki content licensed under the GFDL-1.3 can be relicensed as CC-BY-SA. That is, any contributor who licenses their work under GFDL-1.3 automatically licenses it under CC-BY-SA as well. Or, any contributor who licenses their work under "GFDL-1.1, or any later versions"; GFDL-1.3 is included in that list, so CC-BY-SA is brought into the fold as well. Happy‑melon 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't need to change this (yet). It is the understanding of all of the principle parties (FSF, CC, WMF) that all text on Wikipedia is licensed GFDL 1.2 or later (which includes 1.3), as recorded in the text below the edit box and Wikipedia:Copyrights. The Licensing update, if enacted, will rely on this to move all current and future Wikipedia text to dual license GFDL 1.3 / CC-BY-SA (ignoring some of the caveats described at the license update page). Dragons flight (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC) (member of the license update committee, speaking in personal capacity)

{{editprotected}}

Template talk:GFDL-1.2-en#Deprecate because the restriction is self-contradictory may be helpful for showing why the change to 1.3 should be made sooner rather than later. The longer we allow people to refer to this version, the more likely it is that someone will try to prevent the dual licensing. NCC-8765 (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.

Please stop using the editprotected template purely as an attention-grabbing flag; that's not its purpose at all. Please read the instructions at the top of CAT:EP. We cannot change the version shown on this page unless we also change the site license to be "GFDL-1.3+", as this page is linked both from the editpage disclaimer and the site footer. Changing the site license is a Foundation issue and cannot be done without the approval of the Foundation Board. Happy‑melon 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that my request to update this page to version 1.3 was not made in good faith? It most certainly was. The Wikimedia Foundation Board has already approved this change.[2][3][4] Since you have stated your opinion that my editprotected request was made "purely as an attention-grabbing flag," would you please do me the courtesy of reconsidering this request as if it was made in good faith and update this license to version 1.3? NCC-8765 (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the WMF has supported the development of GFDL 1.3, but the Board's decision on whether to adopt the end result isn't expected until the conclusion of the licensing update process. Your request is premature. Dragons flight (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think that the Board needs to decide the same issue a second time? NCC-8765 (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the difference between saying "I would like a new house" and saying "yes, this particular house meets with my approval". GFDL 1.3 was not yet written at the time of the original resolution and the details of how the CC-BY-SA transition would occur were not yet specified. The Board has always held that final acceptance was conditional on reviewing the details involved. In addition, the Board has made clear that no transition to CC-BY-SA will occur without first engaging in a process of community consultation and vote requiring at least 50% support from the community. Until it is officially ratified, both the community and the Board have the power in principle to reject this migration and continue using 1.2 indefinitely. Incidentally, that vote will be starting in only about a week. Dragons flight (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My request to you was to stop misusing the {{editprotected}} template as an "attention-grabbing flag", rather than its correct use to draw admin attention to edits that are uncontroversial or already have consensus. I did not mean to imply that your request itself was "attention-grabbing", my apologies if I gave that impression. Your request is impossible for the reasons I and Dragons flight have indicated: the Foundation Board has not yet approved the change of license that is a necessary prerequisite. Happy‑melon 11:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that in this case the editor thought (in good faith) that the change was not contraversial I guess, so "misuse" was a bit strong... --BozMo talk 12:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's more the positioning; being added immediately after a post that begins with the word "no" and followed by a comment that presents a (GF) argument rather than an explanation of why the edit is uncontroversial or has consensus, indicates to me that the problem is a simple misunderstanding of how to use the {{editprotected}} template. Ditto the very similar use at Template talk:GFDL-1.2-en#Deprecate because the restriction is self-contradictory. I did think pretty carefully about that word choice, and concluded that "misuse" was appropriate; if I thought that NCC was misusing the template deliberately, it would have been "abuse". Happy‑melon 13:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You are right of course that misuse does not imply deliberate misuse which was something I missed. --BozMo talk 19:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am more concerned with the word "purely". Is there any documentation pertaining to {{editprotected}} which states it should not be used every time a good-faith request to edit a protected page is made? NCC-8765 (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel

Here's what Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel Mike Godwin says:

GFDL 1.2 expressly says this: "Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation." Seems clear to me that there's no need to amend 1.2 to allow use of 1.3. (That's certainly what the FSF intended.)

NCC-8765 (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just throwing my $.02 in. This should definitely be updated. The tradition with GNU licenses is that the latest holds and everything is updated. Since 1.3 is wikia's intent.... jbolden1517^Talk 04:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect advertisement of the text under its own licence

The footer of Wikipedia says "# All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) " however the licence clearly states that this is not so :

"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

this is a potential infringment of the FSF's rights

Scientus (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Good point. They asked me once to add the note "The license text is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License." to the Arabic translation: "It has the problem that the license is GFDL (due to the standard link below on all Wikipedia articles)"--web-translatorsgnu.org.--OsamaK 05:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah -- when GNU documents are linked elsewhere, it's generally to the FSF's authoritative version. I think this is an oversight that has been allowed to stand for a long time; we shouldn't be linking to a "better" wiki (as suggested above below), it should just link directly to the most authoritative version of the document. Which, I belive, is this. (Note, also, that Google search for GFDL returns the Wikipedia page higher than the FSF page...which is just wrong! And I think we're looking at the source of that problem right here.) -Pete (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Several people at WP:FORK do not regard linking to the GFDL at gnu.org as fully meeting the requirements of the GFDL either (2) to ensure "this license, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies" or (4H) to "include an unaltered copy of this License". I think it is a sensible idea, but Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance suggests linking to an offsite GFDL only provides medium compliance with its terms. --Rumping (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Page move

Given that this page should never be edited and that the edit protected user right may permit editing of it, I think it should be moved to the MediaWiki space to prevent accidental unprotection/editing of it. MBisanz ^talk 15:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply, since this page should never be edited it should not be on a wiki that permits open editing :D. It should be moved to http://www.wikimediafoundation.org . Putting it in the MediaWiki namespace is confusing because it's not a system message. Happy‑melon 17:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that would require the approval of Erik, and I suspect that could take awhile, as an interim move to the MediaWiki space where the Copyright and CopyrightWarning pages are while he thinks it over maybe? MBisanz ^talk 18:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as a particularly nasty problem, especially since it takes at least two blue moon cycles (and a superior conjunction with Venus to align the moonstones :D) to get any configuration changes made such as the editprotected change would require. Moving it to MediaWiki: would be actively confusing, however; it's not a system message or part of the interface, so it shouldn't be there, simple as that. What makes you think that even if/when we do get an unbundled editprotected right that we'll immediately have a horde of editors coming to tweak this page? Happy‑melon 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just link to the FSF site, like everybody else does, like I suggested above? What would it take to get this done? -Pete (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest formatting modification

{{editprotected}} Hi, I'd like to propose changing the list in Section 4 as follows, to enhance readability. I believe it would also be a somewhat more accurate reflection of the original document. The wiki-code is admittedly ugly, but for a document that (as discussed above) should almost never be edited anyway, that really shouldn't matter. And it makes for a much more readable rendered version. -Pete (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
2. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
3. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified Version, as the publisher.
4. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
5. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.
6. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
7. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice.
8. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
9. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.
10. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
11. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
12. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
13. Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version.
14. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements" or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.
15. Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers.

Sounds good to me. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This formatting change  Done Happy‑melon 11:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To save everyone else the trouble of figuring out what's so "ugly"...it's a perfectly normal list using HTML; it's just ugly compared to a normal list using wiki markup, for which you just start each line with a * or #. Brian Jason Drake 06:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, one suggestion I've been meaning to make for some time is to replace the ==Header== format with ;Header format instead. I have auto-number headings switched on in my preferences, so the headings appear to me as
1 0. PREAMBLE,
2 1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS etc.
As this page does not have a TOC, this should make no difference. I've no objection to the format changes suggested by XDanieldx by the way. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the change I proposed (I caused the confusion due to the odd placement of my signature.) I agree about the more general problem you mention, but my HTML knowledge isn't quite sufficient to understand your proposed solution. Are you talking about a change to the Mediawiki software? or...? -Pete (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No software changes required - just a change in the format, as per this example (edit this page to see what I mean):

Currently:

0. PREAMBLE

The purpose of this License...

Proposed replacement:

0 PREAMBLE

The purpose of this License...

And so on for all the headers. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 07:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask, how does this header:

0. PREAMBLE

Look? Does it still have the section numbers? Happy‑melon 11:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but unfortunately it still produces the section numbers. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, I was being dense. I have no quarrel with this. Might consider doing it as follows though, to keep the headings fairly prominent:

0 PREAMBLE

;<big>0 PREAMBLE</big>

Also, what about "Preamble" instead of "PREAMBLE" -- if we're going to host it here (which, as I said above, is probably not a good idea), might as well make it conform to Wikipedia style guidelines where appropriate. -Pete (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its ment to be changed by the looks of #Caps, ©. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 13:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Media file attributions

Not sure if this is the best place to bring this up, but let's try. Popular belief seems to be that links that play sound files need to be accompanied by a link to the file information, for attribution purposes. With an isolated sound file this is perhaps not a great problem, but when you have many such files on a page, these links become either extremely annoying or (if reduced to minimum size) simply confusing.

Look at the pronunciation information page WP:IPA for Polish. Here we have lots of little superscript (i)'s that link to information about the many sound files. BUT: (a) no-one would ever guess that that's what they link to; (b) they actually mislead since they look like part of the phonetic notation. This arrangement is surely not satisfactory for anyone.

My question is: would it be acceptable from a legal point of view to have such attribution links displayed not right next to the links that play the sound file, but listed explicitly at the bottom of the page for example? This could be done automatically by the software (with a note at the top of the page or of relevant sections directing people to the list at the bottom, if that's felt to be necessary). Such an arrangement would be better both from the point of view of attribution (since people would know what the links are), and from the point of view of article layout (since the links wouldn't have to be included in places where they only distract and mislead).--Kotniski (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Please replace {{Spoken Wikipedia|GFDL_(English).ogg|2005-05-28}} with {{Spoken Wikipedia|date=2005-05-28|GFDL (English).ogg}} to account for the update of the template {{Spoken Wikipedia}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)