Wikipedia talk:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing "Wikipedia copyright" navigation template

{{Wikipedia copyright}}

Shouldn't this page transclude Template:Wikipedia copyright? It's listed in the navigation box thus produced (also shown to the right of this text), and it's kind of confusing when those don't appear on each page listed.

SamB 19:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In particular, I'm proposing that:

{{Wikipedia copyright}}

be inserted above:


at the beginning of the page.

SamB 19:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No opposition, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wouldn't it be better to make the Deed ombox a self-sufficient individual template? —James (TalkContribs)5:06pm 07:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, perhaps. Would you like to create the template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What's with the ALL CAPS? Sentence case seems like it would be more appropriate here. See:

  • WP:CAPSLOCK — "Typing in all caps ("TYPING IN ALL CAPS") on Wikipedia, in line with most internet resources, is perceived as "shouting" and can come across as aggressive. Please do not do it."
  • WP:SHOUT — "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate."
  • WP:ALLCAPS — "Avoid writing with all capitals. Reduce them to one of the other title cases."

The issue is present in sections 1 ("License"), 1.5 5. ("Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer"), and 1.6 6. ("Limitation on Liability"). — DemonicPartyHat talk 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writing in ALL CAPS is a legally accepted mechanism for drawing emphasis to conditions that might be unexpected or surprising, and thus avoiding claims that the clauses of the contract constitute unfair surprise. It isn't an arbitrary thing. As a legal document we should follow the styling as it appears in the original [1], which includes the CAPS writing. Dragons flight (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Caps should definitely be removed. It makes the article tough to read and the appearance confusing. Also, we have no duty to follow their warnings systems by using all-caps. Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer --ɱ (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that writing in all caps is a legal way to show emphasis, however, reading all caps text seriously feels like the text is screaming at my face, and is quite painful to read. I suggest emboldening and underlining the text instead; it would serve well for emphasis. (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request from JFHJr, 24 September 2011

This request affects no content. Please insert {{clear}} ahead of line 4, {{Wikipedia copyright}}, for display purposes (OSX/10.5.8, Firefox displays the copyright template over other text). JFHJr () 02:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JFHJr () 02:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done - & it did work on FF just fine. Skier Dude (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attribution of material copy-pasted from one wp article into another wp article

Hi. The opinions, on the below questions, of those licensed to practice in a State within the U.S. would be especially appreciated. Under our license:

1) When an editor copies-and-pastes material from 1 wp article into another, does the editor have to attribute it in some manner (or reflect attribution history somehow)?

2) Assume a copy-and-paste has been made, as indicated above, and at a later point in time the original article is deleted at AfD. Is there any obligation at that point in time to attribute the formerly copy-and-pasted material in the new article (or reflect attribution history somehow)?

3) If the answer to 2 is "yes", what investigation is or should be made by wp or its closing admin or other editors -- as to articles deleted under the AFD process -- to see if any material exists in other articles that is a prior copy-paste of material in the deleted article (so that attribution can be given, perhaps by reflecting attribution history?

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A similar discussion is undergoing at User_talk:Graham87/Import#translation_import since Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects states that a link is enough. mabdul 12:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a person copies text between two Wikipedia articles, they should really note this by putting the {{copied}} template on both talk pages, and the admin closing a deletion discussion should really check the talk page for such a template before deleting the article. Or they should *try* to skim-read the article history, checking for clues that they may be about to delete important edits for attribution. But I've encountered (and corrected) many other situations where vital history for attribution has gone missing, often due to deletions to make way for a page move. Graham87 15:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your responses. Three thoughts. First, I'm guessing that this view is not understood/followed broadly in the Project (as Graham's comment suggests), either by admins or non-admins.
Second, if a sentence from article x was copied into article y, and article x is deleted, there is nothing in the article history of article x to suggest to a skim-reading admin closing an AFD that he is about to delete edits he should attribute. I whether a rule that we can anticipate will create near-automatic violations at the Project may be a problem (there may of course be other ways to address the problem the rule is meant to protect against). If people who copy a sentence from article x to article y don't presumably typically leave a "copied" template on the articles (due to ignorance of this view, or not sharing it), and there is no reasonable way otherwise for a closing admin to be aware that he is about to delete information that he would (in this view) be violating our license by deleting, we can anticipate that our rule will lead to near-automatic violations, as we don't have a process in place to protect adequately against violations of the rule or "check" compliance with our rule. I'm hoping that is not the case. But -- perhaps I'm being overly sensitive here, and we take some level of risk in many areas at the project, though not with this level of likelihood of not being able to catch the error.
Finally, I assume that where the language at issue is language that the copying editor wrote himself in the first place, there is not such need for him to apply the copied template, and that copies of one's own work would be an automatic exception to this view. Does this make sense to you?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In terms of your final, you're absolutely correct: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed notes that one need not attribute oneself. It suggests at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution the use of {{copied}} at the talk page. If we make it mandatory, that would if not eliminate at least cut down on the likelihood of inadvertent deletion. But I'm not sure that this talk page is the best place for the discussion, as there's nothing we can do to this page. :)
I agree with you that attribution requirements are not widely understood - and in fact I'm recently becoming aware that some admins regard rev-deletion as breaking attribution even when it retains the username of the contributor if the precise edit cannot be seen. I've got a query in to our attorneys about this, but they are all insanely busy right now and only one of them is even in the country. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, add SR interwiki

sr:Википедија:Текст слободне лиценце Ауторство-Делити под истим условима 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Thanks!--Maduixa (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please update Arabic (ar) interwiki to [[ar:ويكيبيديا:نص رخصة المشاع الإبداعي: النسبة-الترخيص بالمثل 3.0]] --Meno25 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Anomie 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

suggested revision to license

I suggest that a clause be added to the license to prohibit commercial republishers from using deceptive marketing practices, and to prohibit online republishers (mirror sites) from distributing malware. It is perfectly legitimate if you want to create a Wikipedia mirror that aggregates knowledge from other sources, or to create an encyclopædia that improves on Wikipedia, but please do not use misleading tactics to sell Wikipedia articles. Allowing commercial use encourages people to add value to Wikipedia articles, or to use material from Wikipedia as a start to produce something better, but if you are going to package Wikipedia articles into a printed book which you will then sell online, then the description page at the online merchant ought to mention this is what you are doing. (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you are asking to do is for Wikipedia to be re-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 Generic License or a newer version, which will not be done. --Stranger195 (talkcontribsguestbook) 09:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

edit request

May edit this page per section 15 of the creative commons licence. The attribution comitee has already given me an okay. I just need your final approval — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalufp (talkcontribs) 20:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liberalufp: What page are you talking about? Do you want to edit Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License? this talk page? Some other page that you meant to link to but forgot? --Thnidu (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need to download it. Abubakar Abba (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about removing the license tag from article

Hi whoever is in charge of the policy. I know that I'm new here. So, let me explain the reason why I want to have this conversation. The reason why I'm talking to this person is that I just had a big concern. You see there is a particular article that is attached, which I don't know if you're aware of this, but I think it goes by the name of Harold Finch (Person of Interest). I know that the content in the article is categorized as plagiarism and it was considered to be a copyright violation. It is on there as a reminder to change the basis of the content in the article to make sure that it is not going to be nominated for deletion. The question is how do I remove the license from the article? Sherlock502 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The short answer is that that licensing tag shouldn't ever be removed from the article unless it is rewritten entirely and thoroughly from scratch. So long as the Person of Interest Wikia is appropriately credited (via the tag you're asking about, for example), then there's no copyright violation and the article shouldn't be in danger of deletion for that reason. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. Where do you think I should begin? Sherlock502 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're asking where you should begin in rewriting the article (if the tag bothers you that much), then I'll direct you to Wikipedia:Teahouse where some volunteers can help you with that since I personally am not much of an article writer. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not much of an article writer either. Sherlock502 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello VernoWhitney. As you can see in Harold Finch (Person of Interest), everyone who volunteered to reformat the content of the article, including myself, have been doing the best they can to make sure the article is not at the risk for deletion. I know there's content from Pedia of Interest Wikia that has been adding to the article, but I managed to modified the text as much as I can do. What do you think about the content so far? Sherlock502 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has there been any progress within the article? Sherlock502 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello VernoWhitney. I know you had not respond to my message for so long, but I am going to tell the truth. As mention in Talk:Harold Finch (Person of Interest), the way that I can redeem myself is by telling the absolute truth about what I did and making a sacrifice to save the article. I rewrote some of the material thoroughly from scratch in Harold Finch (Person of Interest) by going into the List of Person of Interest episodes, John Reese (Person of Interest), and Person of Interest (TV series), as well as watching some of the videos containing the character as a way to find the right words that I choose and copying the articles within Wikipedia, but only in a good way. You can go ahead and take a look, but I'm telling you, there has been progress. Please and thank you. Sherlock502 (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request on 15 April 2014

Hi, I'm trying to add the following translation to Wikidata: w:cy:Wicipedia:Testun y drwydded Comin Creu Priodoliad-RhannuTebyg (heb ei gludo) 3.0. It won't allow me as the page is protected. Marc (Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol) (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Go to wikidata:Q3910767 to make the edit. It's not affected by the fact that it's protected here (and if it's protected there as well, it's a coincidence, and you need to ask for help there). Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query - Collections

Section 1 (b) says

"Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) ...

Section 1 (f) says

"Licensor" means the individual, individuals, entity or entities that offer(s) the Work under the terms of this License.

And has nothing to do with listing works in the sense of 1 (b). The wording is the same as at creative

Am I missing something here? Or is this a major glitch in out most widely used license?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough16:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

Protected edit request on 8 October 2014

This is in all caps And should not be per the manual of style



Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's copied verbatim from - we cannot alter it, whether because of MOS or for any other reason. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bogus edit requests

Hopefully Template:Editnotices/Protection/Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License stops them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the manner of attribution specified?

From the license page: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor ..."

  • Where do I find the specifications for attribution by the author?
  • Where do I find the specifications for attribution by the licensor?
  • If neither of this exists, in which manner do I have to give attribution to, say, a Wikipedia article?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Licence differs slightly from the one at

Text differs slightly from the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported licence at


Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Creative Commons:

ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Critically, Wikipedia says licence can be same or similar, whereas Creative Common says licence must be the same. I brought it up because the Freemen on the land article claims to be using material from Rational Wiki. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I only want to note that it exists the Wikisource s:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request on 15 April 2018

Please change the two links to the Creative Commons websites to HTTPS, thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected Edit Request 24/01/2019

Hi. Can a WP:Short description please be added to this page? I suggest the wikidata Wikipedia page explaining the terms under which contributions are licensed. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DannyS712: isn't this already pulling that from wikidata:Q3910767? — xaosflux Talk 03:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xaosflux: Yes, but I thought that we were trying to move away from relying on the wikidata item and towards using the template here on enwiki --DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Donexaosflux Talk 04:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Can a WP:Short description please be added to this page? I suggest the wikidata Wikipedia page explaining the terms under which contributions are licensed. High Zone Shkoder (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xaosflux: Yes, but I thought that we were trying to move away from relying on the wikidata item and towards using the template here on enwiki --DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


Fine. I agree to all this. I am just curious about something I read when I was a child. But "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply" doesn't link to the text. The search is worthless and returns me to the wikipedia article I was looking at. If it's still under copyright, why have a non-existent link to the text? If it's not, ditto. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Protected edit request on 23 September 2021

Hi, I want to request that, in the summary,
[[Moral rights (copyright law)|moral rights]]

be changed to
[[moral rights]]

since moral rights (copyright law) currently links to moral rights anyway, so I don't think a piped link is now necessary here. twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 01:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Donexaosflux Talk 11:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to complain to another web site?

In searching for additional material for an article I recently wrote, I discovered a blog run by a professional book author which had lifted chunks of my text to use in their site. That's perfectly fine, except that they failed to provide the attribution that CC-BY-SA requires, and also placed it under their own restrictive copyright ("Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author/owner is strictly prohibited"). Do we have some standard text that I could use to communicate to this author the need to comply with our license? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RoySmith: Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter. Just make sure that the website is using text you wrote. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022-01-12 edit request

Please change:

From To
You are free: You are free:
* '''to Share'''—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and * '''to Share'''—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
* '''to Remix'''—to [[Literary adaptation|adapt]] the work * '''to Remix'''—to [[Literary adaptation|adapt]] the work for any purpose, even commercially.
for any purpose, even commercially.

This removes a spurious newline, which breaks the last part of the list item out of the list. Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tol: while it is "out of the list" the source material (<>) for this summary does actually keep that third line as a separate list item (they do use li's for all of it) - not having that phrase part of list item number two. — xaosflux Talk 23:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source:

<ul class="license-properties">
 <li class="license share" rel="cc:permits" resource="">
  <strong>Share</strong> — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
 <li class="license remix" rel="cc:permits" resource="">
  <strong>Adapt</strong> — remix, transform, and build upon the material
 <li class="license commercial">
  for any purpose, even commercially.

xaosflux Talk 23:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xaosflux: It looks like this page doesn't quite follow the source in other areas, too. I'll try to figure out what's going on and open another edit request after I work on synchronising this page to the source. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tol: sounds good, I expect there to be slightly different markup due to the underlying systems - but the verbiage itself should be in sync; in this case it may be important if that third clause is attached to the second clause, or not - I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure but didn't want to guess. — xaosflux Talk 23:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request 1 April 2022

(No, not an April Fools joke, although this would be a clever unorthodox page to make one on...)

Please change

<center><div style="font-size:150%; font-weight:bold; padding: 0.3em;">Creative Commons Deed</div>
This is a human-readable summary of the full license below.</center>


{{center|1=<div style="font-size:150%; font-weight:bold; padding: 0.3em;">Creative Commons Deed</div>
This is a human-readable summary of the full license below.}}

Side-by-side comparsion. Should be identical on almost all browsers. However the former markup is deprecated and will eventually not be supported. See WP:HTML5 for more information.

Current Requested
Creative Commons Deed
This is a human-readable summary of the full license below.
Creative Commons Deed
This is a human-readable summary of the full license below.

Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Substed, crap trimmed
Creative Commons Deed
This is a human-readable summary of the full license below.
xaosflux Talk 14:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done-ish, don't love dragging more needless templates in, so substed and trimmed it. — xaosflux Talk 14:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fully-protected edit request 7 April 2022

Please change the short description to "License for Wikipedia contributions"; the current one is over 40 characters and does not display properly (per WP:SHORTDESC). Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Donexaosflux Talk 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My late ww11 father records were restricted after searching 7 years. So still not listed . So I wanted to do a Wikipedia in his name. He passed away at early age. They don’t want to allow it?

This claim is because of me searching so long . He passed away in 1965 and later our home burned, So no records, still not listed. He was a sergeant and its took me years to get here. Am I being petty? Ww11sergeantbeam (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ww11sergeantbeam My sympathies on the loss of your father, but that's not an appropriate use of wikipedia. See WP:MEMORIAL for more details. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fully protected edit request 30 October 2022

Add the shorter shortcut WP:CCBYSA to the list of shortcuts in the page. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 22:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Donexaosflux Talk 16:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 19 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. This seems pretty uncontroversial, and I don't believe a relist is necessary here. I will start a fully protected edit request below. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported LicenseWikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License – "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" is a proper noun, so there must be a definitive article ("the") before it. This also harmoises this name with Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. --Matr1x-101 {user page - talk with me :) - contribs!} 12:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fully protected rename request 27 December 2022

To Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Per the above requested move. I don't think a relist is necessary as this seems extremely uncontroversial, but if others feel differently, please unclose the request and relist. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Avoid colliding with a check process

as this seems extremely uncontroversial

Hi, legal team requires to make sure all wikis have the right legal text linked. We (operations) maintain an automated check that alerts when the expected text doesn't match the returned text. While I agree that adding of a "the" is not controversial at all, the change started alerting us (ops). I wonder how we could make this more streamlined so editors have the flexibility to modify it, legal keeps being happy, plus we can maintain an automated check making sure the text is there. Similar issues happened when Wikimedia-copyright was edited. Could you @Xaosflux: (or some other admin) please join the discussion at T317169 to find the procedure or technical measure that works better for everyone: e.g. setup some kind of coordination or automatic system (e.g. minimal amount of change allowed before alerting) to handle that? Maybe the same exact text could be agreed among all wiki communities? Maybe just pinging a system administrator to update the check? I think we are all open to any solution that both ops, legal and the community agrees with, to make sure a correct text is always present. 0:-). Regards. --jynus (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for the account confusion. I used my personal account to answer, while we are encouraged to use our WMF accounts for non-regular-editing, WMF-related matters. The comment above was done by me in my work as WMF Site Reliability Engineer. Regards. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JCrespo (WMF) can you link to the procedure for updating your alert, and what on-wiki pages it pertains to? We certainly can add a workflow step for our project admins to complete the procedure. — xaosflux Talk 14:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So this is still an open question, there is no yet procedure at all- that is why I want to consult both the community and legal to see how we can do it right. So far the check is implemented at with a simplistic regular expression.
One option (very manual) would be to open a ticket when the resulting HTML output changes effectively so we can update the alerting code (we could even link that as a comment). Other would be to check for only more generic patterns (if legal approves) so no pinging is needed every time. That is why my intention was to start a discussion on the best way to handle this for each of us 3 (technical solution, editors, legal requirements) to ensure the check still exists, but avoiding false positives. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xaosflux: I want to repeat on wiki what I said on the ticket linked above. Thank you a lot for your feedback, as it was key to understand the flaws of the existing tooling (lack of content checking) and improve it so that, thanks to legal's flexibility, it can be more or less be freely edited in the future without removing any must-have section. Thank you a lot. I added a section to the check's documentation at [2] which basically is "you shouldn't worry about the check at all", and just in the infrequent case legal has complains you try to help. Thank you again, and happy editing! :-) --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]