Template talk:Cc-by-sa-1.0

Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0 has been template protected indefinitely because it is a highly-used or visible template. Use {{Edit request}} on this page to request an edit.

I have just noticed that this is only CC-by-sa ver.1.0. It is definitely better to dual license images in CC-by-sa ver.1.0 and CC-by-sa ver.2.0. One cannot re-license from one version to the other. Tomos 10:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

{{Edit request}}

• Please Add Arabic interwiki [[ar:قالب:تشارك إبداعي-إسناد-نفس الرخصة]] --Heshamdiab16 (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thank you! — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 10:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}}

Please remove interwikis and {{In category}} template. Interwikis are now on Wikidata, automatic category is on the documentation subpage. --tacsipacsi (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the five remaining Interwikis ar: en: ru: sr: vi: could be removed when they are on Wikidata, is that the case? I've no clue how to check it. Are the maintenance bots for this job unable to fix protected pages? –Be..anyone (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, only sysops can edit protected pages, usually bots aren't sysops. --tacsipacsi (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for helping out. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be a generic template pointing to the latest version? The template name does not say anything about which version it is supposed to be, if someone want a specific version they should say so. Jeblad (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a note on the talk page for Template talk:Cc-by-sa but ended up here due to the redirect. Jeblad (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, if no version number is pecified one has to assume the lowest possible version. Version numbers have to be specified, one can't assume the highest available version.--Denniss (talk)

@Denniss: : You are wrong, neither is a version number mandatory, nor does the lack of a version number imply the oldest. Without a version number, it is a generic license, and this is always the current vision. Please stop changing templates based on you wrong assumptions. --h-stt !? 12:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong in this. A version number has to be specified or at least you need to indicate you want to use the most current version of the license. With CC licenses you can't assume anything, there's nothing like a generic license automatically switching to most recent version. Versions from 3.x permit reusers changing this into a 4.x version though, in older versions this was only possible for the copyright holder. --Denniss (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is based on what? --h-stt !? 13:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editrequest}} Any content licenced under CC-BY-SA-1.0 can only be relicenced under CC-BY-SA-1.0, not under "similar licences" or "updated licences". Please correct this is the summary! CFCF (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

phab:T148217 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Jarekt (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created MediaWiki:Wm-license-cc-conditions-share alike-text (Cc-by-sa-1.0) and MediaWiki:Wm-license-cc-conditions-share alike-text (Cc-by-sa-1.0)/pl and used it for Cc-by-sa-1.0 templates only please provide corrected translations for other languages. --Jarekt (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]