File talk:Argyrodes flavescens at Nayikayam Thattu.jpg
|
This file has been used in:
|
License[edit]
Adding more text to a not only for you and me confusing legal issue makes it worse for folks trying to figure out what it actually means. Your suggested offline attribution in in essence the online suggestion with plain text instead of links, and your online suggestion is almost identical to what the template already says, so this field is completely redundant and hostile to readers from my POV.
Share, adapt, attribution, and share alike are sufficiently covered by the template and the real license, repeating it in other words before the template is also hostile to readers (excl. lawyers.) The disclaimer part is acceptable, for readers wondering if you have patented this spider, or offer a warranty that it existed as shown. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Be..anyone: 1. I too think that "creditline"/ "attribution" field is redundant and can be removed? 2. It is not my interest to repeat that generic license tag; it is only because of our nonsense policies. That's why I "collapsed" it. ;) Jee 03:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Be..anyone: I suppressed the attribution thingy. Will try to remove the generic license tag too soon. :) Jee 04:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Jee 04:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Much better, but check the weird tracking categories, somewhere is a template with 1=foo and 1=bar or similar, and "no machine readable license" is just odd. Plan B, a standard i18n license section with the normal CC-BY-SA tag should work. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
