Template talk:PD-US-expired-abroad

Template:PD-US-expired-abroad is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Does anyone know why the 9th circuit restriction is on this tag? IronGargoyle (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Hirtle chart Haukur (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to know the servers are not in the 9th district. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE 'what's my goal': I want images that aren't suitable for Commons to appear in Category:Media not suitable for Commons, which is useful for tooling. I thought both my attempts were fine—I don't think that the category is specifically for that one template since it's got a nice and generic name and I couldn't figure out what the issue with pdsource was, and I think the wording of {{Do not move to Commons}} and the template's current wording is close enough to make no difference—but I'm going to have another go now, similar to the last one, and specifically mention verifying source PD status. If that's unsatisfactory, could you (User:RP88) please have a go at doing that in a better way? Facing the Sky (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly OK with your latest edit (basically I just moved the old content plus some of your new content to the reason parameter of the {{Do not move to Commons}} template, rather than as small print underneath it). The only thing I still don't like is the duplicated logic triggering the {{Out of copyright in}} both here and inside the call to {{Do not move to Commons}}, but I suspect a good fix for that is probably equally annoying. —RP88 ^(talk) 06:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that happening? It may be an easy fix, you never know; I can't see where it could possibly happen, though. Here's the relevant bit of code with syntax exploded for easy reading:

{{
  #if:{{{out_of_copyright_in|{{{1|}}}}}} <!-- Parameter checking, not template call. -->
    | {{ out_of_copyright_in | {{{ out_of_copyright_in | {{{1|}}} }}} }} <!-- No call to {{Do not move to commons}} in this branch. -->
    | {{Free in US media}} {{Do not move to Commons}} <!-- No call to {{out of copyright in}} in this branch. -->
}}

It looks like the two templates can't occur at the same time, since {{out of copyright in}} doesn't occur anywhere else in the template. Facing the Sky (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wasn't clear enough. I'm a little uncomfortable that both this template and the {{Do not move to Commons}} template both have logic (i.e. out_of_copyright_in and expiry, with different off-by-one computations) that pottentially trigger a call to {{Out of copyright in}}. If things are working correctly obviously they shouldn't both get triggered, but I still find it mildly annoying since it seems like a layering issue. However, as I mentioned above, a proper fix for this is probably even more trouble at this point. —RP88 ^(talk) 06:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin or template edtiopr review the changes in {{PD-US-1923-abroad/sandbox}} against the sandbox and swap them into the main template to restore some functionality that appeared to have got lost in some past editing?. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's strongly recomended having done that the template is appropriately protected against it breaking further...

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be renamed "PD-US-1924-abroad". Jonghyunchung (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better to remove the year altogether rather than changing each year. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is publish+120 years If the date of death of the author is unknown,but If that date is know,It will always be life+70 years SigmaAnt (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The call to the template {{Out of copyright in}} needs replacing with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons in}}, as there has been a successful merge request. Xeroctic (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. As far as I can tell, this drop-in replacement works, but if parameters need to be adjusted, ping me and link to an affected page. I will come back to take a look. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current default wording states the file "should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons unless it can be verified to be in the public domain in its country of first publication and that at least 70 years have elapsed since the author died." Commons does not have any special 70-year restriction (only the source country's copyright law), so this statement is incorrect as currently worded.

Can we remove that clause? The quoted section would then change to: "should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons unless it can be verified to be in the public domain in its country of first publication."

As far as I can tell, this clause (diff) was not the result of any discussion. Pinging ShakespeareFan00. Wikiacc (¶) 01:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

70 years is the US term for works with a defined authorship, and with the exception of some other countries, is the generally applied term globally. The addition may have been motivated, by a desire to retain locally media that would get deleted on Commons, because of ambiguities in determining their status definitively. I've got no objections to a careful rewording, provided that it's not going to make it harder for commons movers..

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a lot of exceptions, but yes, 70 is used in many countries. Suggested revision:

[...] should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons unless it can be verified to be in the public domain in its country of first publication. (For many countries, this requires that at least 70 years have elapsed since the author died.)

Thoughts? Wikiacc (¶) 23:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]