Template talk:PD-old

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Translations[edit]

Should there be some indication on this template that a translation of a public domain work isn't necessarily public domain? This template is appearing on translated works that may well be public domain, but not due to the age of the original source material. Gavroche 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note that will appear when used on author pages. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:02:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Space[edit]

I'm concerned that that extra space right after }} and before <includeonly> may create useless extra space problems in the future. Please delete. And I'd say get a bot to proof read other nono's like this (in templates and pages, etc.).24.65.69.8 00:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Yann (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammar is wrong[edit]

With the change, it either needs to say

  • This work , published before date 1 Jan 1923, etc.
  • This work was published before etc.

Overall, one might think that the wording changes to this template would be run past the community, rather than unilaterally modified, especially due to its widespread use. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if my bold maneuver has annoyed. The version of the template I changed from said "Published before January 1, 1923, Works by this author are" when used in author space, which was extremely ugly and incoherent. I think "This work published before January 1, 1923 is..." is perfectly grammatical, but I have no objection to adding the commas.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't looking for an apology and I don't particularly mind boldness. I was reflecting that this was something with which the WS community may have liked the opportunity to have some input, or some notification.
Grammatically ... the work didn't do the publishing, as people/companies publish, the work has the publishing done to it so that the action/verb is applied to it. So the work was published, though we can, by use of the commas, bring it from being an AND statement though still not exactly pretty, though bearable. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
My perspective on the grammar was that in "This work [that was] published before 1923 is...", eliding the words in brackets was perfectly legit. Adding the commas merely moves from an necessary attribute ("this work, the one that was published before 1923") to a descriptive one ("this work that happens to be published before 1923").--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Then let us use was. The date of publication is descriptive for it only adds perspective to some books for some copyright; as the 1923 date is neither exclusive nor definitive for copyright of all/these books. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible template misuse[edit]

I have added a function to this template to include the date of the author's death (see Template talk:PD-US-no-renewal). In updating some works, I have noticed there are a lot of anonymous Times articles using PD-old licences. I'm not sure if this is the correct licence for these works. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that it is appropriate or right logic, for if they are anonymous it is the date of publication as there is no year of death. plus as I explained at that other page this is already managed by two other templates. To the mentioned issue for the Times if they are anonymous, they should be {{PD-anon-1923|YYYY}} or {{PD-anon-1996|YYYY}} (and it has probably been me not being accurate in my earlier times), or we can just use PD-old-XX. I understand that we are able to publish anything from the Times up to 1945 as then it was 50 years cut-off.
I have undone the changes, at least for the moment. Jusjih (talkcontribs) did a lot of work in this area and I do not believe that it has been clearly demonstrated where the existing tags and system are failing, nor that there is even a hole. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)