Policy talk:Terms of Use

Archives

1, 2, 3

Remove TOC numbering

Can you add template styles or CSS to remove the table of contents numbering on Timeless, etc.? This will prevent stuff like this:

1. Introduction 2. 1. Header 1 3. 2. Header 2

etc.

CSS:

#mw-content-text .tocnumber {
   display: none;
}

Awesome Aasim (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I tested this out and inclined to agree with your assessment that it is indeed annoying on a number of pages and this change makes sense for some of the themes. Thank you for the suggestion, @Awesome Aasim! I have gone ahead and implemented it into wiki's CSS. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Indentation of list item

Under 4 ('Onthouden van bepaalde activiteiten'), the item 'Inbreuk plegen op intellectuele-eigendomsrechten' is not properly indented. I believe this is a HTML error. On lines 1048-1051, the dl tag is closed, and the line : <b>Inbreuk plegen op intellectuele eigendomsrechten</b> is inserted between p tags, after which another dl tag is opened. The line should instead be inserted after the next dd tag and not formatted as a separate paragraph. Jeroen N (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jeroen N: The page uses wikicode and not HTML - but I will look into this and see what I can find out. Thank you for letting us know! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jeroen N: Looks like a typo in the translation text - should be fixed now. Thank you for letting us know! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! That's subtle. I hadn't noticed that a different Unicode character was used. Jeroen N (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jeroen N: In my experience - a lot of display errors are subtle things like that. Keeps quality control work interesting. ;) --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Repeat copyright infringement (again)

@Nemo bis: At Policy talk:Terms of Use/Archive 2#Repeat copyright infringement, you raised concerns that the Terms of Use would no longer cover certain ‘copyvios’. Here, ‘certain copyvios’ refers to contributions that are prohibited by copyright policy, despite being legal. It seems that you never received a response.

It seems to me that your concerns are invalid: the Terms of Use do cover enforcement of project policies, which are the right place to deal with such contributions. Brianjd (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Human rights principles

At Policy talk:Terms of Use/Archive 2#Repeat copyright infringement, Nemo bis also raised concerns about ambiguous references to human rights principles; this time, I share their concerns. The actual terms (excluding the summary) reference human rights principles only once, despite referencing laws many times, and do not explain that term. I cannot find any relevant discussions. Brianjd (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Make sentence gender neutral please

There is a sentence in the policy page which says (bolding added by me) "should make a simple disclosure that he is a paid Wikipedian in Residence with the archive". I think it should be changed to "he or she", or "they". Must be an oversight, right? It's in the section "How does this provision affect teachers, professors, and employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ("GLAM")?". EMsmile (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Clarification: This comment is about the FAQ entry (for which the talkpage redirects here): Policy:Terms of Use/Frequently asked questions on paid contributions without disclosure#How does this provision affect teachers, professors, and employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ("GLAM")?

Thanks for the note. I see that the previous sentence says (bolding added by me): "A museum employee who is contributing to projects generally without more specific instruction from the museum need not disclose her affiliation with the museum." -- I suspect these two sentences were written like this on purpose, to have different pronouns used in each example in order to (1) avoid the potential ambiguity of using "they" twice in a row but for different subjects, and (2) to avoid the slightly awkward (or inherently biased by placing one option first!) "he or she" phrasing. -- However, I will pass this question along to the relevant folks in the Legal dept in case they want to change it. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reply! The reason why I came across this is because the sentence (with the "he") was quoted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Bluerasberry. As the previous sentence (with the "she") was not included in the quote, the he/she sequence was lost. I think using "they" (or similar) would be better so that the sentence is gender neutral on their own, not just within the paragraph. Thank you for giving this some thought. All the best. EMsmile (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)