Last modified: 2014-09-24 01:26:55 UTC
I would like special pages to show my copyright message as wiki pages do. I dont like the "two different" footer looks that you get. Also for example search results with abstracts do still come under the copyright. In addition the copyright is a way to get your own messages easily in the footer (without editing the skin directly). There is no specific footer text functionality (well not that hasn't been recently reverted). Maybe this could be an option if wikipedia doesn't want it to function like this ?
Created attachment 6852 [details] patch to enable copyright on all pages Here is a patch to enable display of copyright message in footer on all pages. I personally don't see why people shouldn't see the site copyright on other pages. However, if this is something you dont want, let me know how you want me to roll it. I can add a configuration variable instead for example. I would like this functionality, as I would like my visitors to see my site copyright in all areas.
fixed in rev r61005
Reverted and reopened, see r61510.
A clarification on why this isn't wanted would be handy. I can give some reasons for it: copyright message often contains important information, which is relevant to the whole site. on wikipedia for example it gives the trademark and the contact link. special pages may well include data from the site, (and certainly page titles etc" so I think displaying the copyright to show the license makes sense here too. I'm happy to add a config option, but it was mentioned on irc that there was enough globals and that it wouldnt be needed. I don't have the log. Comments please.
The copyright footer implies that the contents of the page is under the given license. This may be incorrect for special pages. Would it help if we had a message for generic footer text, which was displayed in all cases?
that would help in my case yes.
Marking this patch reviewed, since Tim reviewed it. Jools, does the current footer per https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Footer fulfill your needs?
Thanks, yes that would seem to cover the issue. A minor request, but I had a few patches committed around that time, and the one reverted r61510 was the one that had me listed in the contributors, but it would mean a lot to me if that part was changed back to include me :) thanks for updating this issue.
