User talk:RP88

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 00:38, 1 January 2024 by RP88 (talk | contribs) (→‎Leap Seconds: reply)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to my talk page.
  • Please sign and date your comments by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
  • I will generally respond here, on my own talk page, to comments posted here unless you request otherwise.
Start a new talk topic.

1, 2


Template:PD-Old-assumed

Hi RP88,

I have seen the changes you had done in the template. Nice work. Since I have planned to prepare a new {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} (you can see my first sketches hardcoded in my sandbox, a few remarks.

  1. maybe the wording at least some works of this author were created over 140 years ago (or the author was born over 160 years ago) would be more appropriate? {{PD-old-assumed/text}}
  2. since both templates {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} would use the same code, it would be better to make them more flexible:

I hope you accept my proposals. If not feel free to revert my changes made in {{PD-old-assumed/core}}

Regards Draco flavus (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Draco flavus: For various reasons (categorization, template loops, bot processing) it is preferred to carefully control the overlap in the templates between US license templates (such as {{tl|PD-US-expired), source country templates (such as {{PD-old-auto}}), and "both" templates (such as {{PD-old-auto-expired}}). In principle I don't have an objection to {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} and I am more than willing to assist you in building what you want. You currently can get the effect, if not necessarily your desired appearance, of {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} with "{{PD-two|PD-old-assumed|PD-old-auto-expired}}" or "{{PD-old-assumed}}{{PD-US-expired}}". Take a look at some examples at User:RP88/PD-old-assumed examples. I think you desire a version of {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} that is comparable to the minimalism of {{PD-old-auto-expired}} (see example 5) that removes all warnings, but we could create a template that does #3 or #4 immediately. I would be happy to build a version of {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} that looked like something like #5 updated for PD-old-assumed, but it wouldn't match the community approved template. The approval of the {{PD-old-assumed}} was somewhat tortious — I'm a little concerned about removing the "countries with longer copyright terms and no rule of the shorter term" warning that was part of the community approved language. I'm going to revert your change for now, but take a look at User:RP88/PD-old-assumed examples and let me know what you think. —RP88 (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your answer. The desired version is (now) the last one on my Sandbox page. The proposal for the voting was actually "A formulation could be: "If the copyright situation of a file is based on the date of death of the author, but we do not know when the author has died, we assume the file to be PD if at least the lenght of copyright protection + 60 years have passed since the latest possible date of creation of the work. (e.g. 130 years if copyright is based on de PMA+70 rule). If we know of an older work of the same author, we base the situation on the date of creation of that older work. If we do know the year of birth of the author, we use the year in which he/she reached the age of 20 in the calculation instead of the year of creation of the work." Doesn't it back the proposed text. Regards Draco flavus (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Draco flavus: That was one of the proposals, but was not accepted, the result in the closure was only "I am closing this as a consensus of 120 years.". The closed version of the discussion can be read at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template. As part of the closure the discussion was directed to Commons talk:Cut-off date for PD-old files for working out details, which resulted in the creation of the current {{PD-old-assumed}}. My recent changes left the copyright logic and text intact, but conformed the template to be more inline with similar templates like {{PD-old-auto}}. Let me see what I can do about making a {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} that looks like what you want, derived from {{PD-old-assumed}} with shared resources in much the same was as {{PD-old-auto-expired}} is derived from {{PD-old-auto}} with shared resources. —RP88 (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} to be very similar to the last example on your sandbox page. Your existing work was very close to the final template. {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} now share translations at Template:PD-old-assumed-text, Template:PD-US-expired-text, and Template:PD-old-warning-text, but don't commingle their layout templates. —RP88 (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RI88,

many thanks for your help. I am not so familiar with the teplates on Commons. The main time I spend on Polish Wikisource. I have preapared a short cheat sheet for our users (s:pl:User:Draco flavus/brudnopis77). Even if it is in Polish you can certainly understand the first table there.
In our project we accept the works that are both in Poland and in the USA in the PD (sometimes also in the country of origin if it is a translation).
So in the scope of our interest are mostly these -expired templates.
Regarding the copyright laws we are actually more conservative than the general rules on Commons.
We accept the old-assumed works after 140 years (assumed published when 20 or older, lived not longer than 90 years). So the PD-old-assumed-expired licence does not cover 100% all cases but I suppose is good enough for us. Once more, many thanks and regards Draco flavus (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PD-old-auto and used-with-US

I think this is actually broken (or I am very confused; or probably both). :)

It'll show the US warning if either used-with-US is missing or empty, or if the number of years since deathyear is less than 100. That is, if (A || B) {show_warning();}. But the logic should really be that if there's a separate license tag for the US, this template should never show a warning. Primarily because the warning literally says "you need a US license tag" so once one is present the warning becomes nonsensical. But also because there is no obvious connection between the number of years since the author's death and the need to provide a US license tag. Even in {{PD-old-presumed}} territory (which is pub + 120, not pma. 100) you still need to provide a US license tag.

  US = true US = false
deathyear < 100
deathyear > 100

I am also uncertain where this number of 100 comes from? Longest normal US copyright term is pub. + 95. PD-old-presumed is pub. + 120. Longest known international copyright term is pma. 120. Typical modern copyright term is pma. 70. And then of course there are the myriad arbitrary minimum terms like 2038, 2042 etc. But on the flip side there are tons of works that expired after pub. + 28 years due to non-renewal or similar.

My suggestion is to either remove the "pma. 100" part of the logic, or, if it's needed for something I'm not seeing, nest it inside the "missing or empty used-with-US" case. Xover (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover: No, it's correct, but I can see why it is confusing. The awkward construction using De Morgan's law is to due to the way the template parser handles defaults / empty parameters / logic / coercion to boolean. The code in question is hiding the warning section only if used-with-US is true and X>=100. This is because the warning section text (from {{PD-old-warning-text}}) can actually contain two different warnings, and so the warning section is needed if either will be output. The two warnings are the "need a US tag" warning and the "countries with longer copyright terms without rule of the shorter term" warning. You can see an example of both pieces of warning text at {{PD-old-70}}. In the implementation of {{PD-old-warning-text}} the "need a US tag" warning is suppressed when used-with-US is set and the "countries with longer terms without rule of the shorter term" warning is suppressed when the number of years since the death of the author is >= 100 (because there is no country with a longer term than pma+100). —RP88 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, oh, I see. I had indeed not accounted for the "longer terms exist" warning (well, or more generally, that there are multiple possible warnings). And it doesn't help that the template parser / ParserFunctions kinda forces you to put orthogonal logic in the same #ifexpr (Lua would be much clearer here). But, setting aside my aversion to having symbols plastered all over for a normal state of affairs, that makes sense then. Thanks for the explanation (and apologies for the noise). Xover (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very badly misbehaving bot

It was doing much the same (on another IP) for a few hours on other pages yesterday, and the day before too. They tried to run it on en.wiki, but it hit too many filters to do much damage. All the IPs are Rostelecom addresses. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its back on 46.48.146.118 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They will keep hopping around on the /17 subnet. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the second IP. —RP88 (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mako001: Thanks for the additional details. I'll try to keep an eye on it while I'm online. —RP88 (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ive asked for a global block of the /17. They've been at this for weeks using other IPs, accross at least 3 different wikis. (Commons, enwiki and wikidata) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need your input on a policy impacting gadgets and UserJS

Dear interface administrator,

This is Samuel from the Security team and I hope my message finds you well.

There is an ongoing discussion on a proposed policy governing the use of external resources in gadgets and UserJS. The proposed Third-party resources policy aims at making the UserJS and Gadgets landscape a bit safer by encouraging best practices around external resources. After an initial non-public conversation with a small number of interface admins and staff, we've launched a much larger, public consultation to get a wider pool of feedback for improving the policy proposal. Based on the ideas received so far, the proposed policy now includes some of the risks related to user scripts and gadgets loading third-party resources, best practices for gadgets and UserJS developers, and exemptions requirements such as code transparency and inspectability.

As an interface administrator, your feedback and suggestions are warmly welcome until July 17, 2023 on the policy talk page.

Have a great day!

Samuel (WMF), on behalf of the Foundation's Security team 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request for Module:Roman

Hi! Could I ask you to take a look at my edit request for Module:Roman at Module talk:Roman#Edit request: add function p.Arabic? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leap Seconds

Are you able to update the graph at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second#/media/File:Leapsecond.ut1-utc.svg please?

Last update is given as August 2022. Thanks in anticipation, --DLMcN (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. It looks like the date in the info box was a typo. Leapsecond data was actually updated in August 2023. I fixed the typo. —RP88 (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RP88&oldid=837426717"