Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-art-1923-3d

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:PD-art-1923-3d

[edit]

This template does not comply with Help:Authoring a license-template (it is, e.g. not translated) I suggest replacing the current contents by {{3-D in PD|{{PD-US}}}} or similar. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. Rillke(q?) 22:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to that sort of solution, but {{3-D in PD|{{PD-US}}}} doesn't work. PD-US says, "This media file is in the public domain in the United States" (my emphasis) which is not necessarily true, it is the underlying 3d work depicted that is PD. {{3-D in PD|{{PD-1923}}}} would be better, because it says "This work is in the public domain in the United States...", but it is still confusing because it could be taken to refer to the photo.
The point here is that, where a work of 3D art is public domain, we need a way to clearly explain that 1) the underlying work is PD because ???, and 2) the photo is PD because ??? or licensed as ???. {{PD-art-3d}}, on which I based this, makes the distinction but is worded for global underlying PD (PD in US AND in 100 years pma countries), which is of course not always the case. cmadler (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a consistent system for flagging the copyright status of the underlying 3D work and the one of the 2D-reproduction. {{3-D in PD}} aimed to do this by wrapping around the actual template but the wording of some templates is inappropriate and they expose wrong machine readable data in this case.
Therefore I suggest that when creating such templates for 3D works, we add a mandatory first parameter: The license for the 2D-reproduction to ensure they are correctly used or work through all license templates making them compatible acting for describing a 2D object or a 3D object. The second option will make a lot of work but it seems to me it could be beneficial for easier use and translation.
I also believe that we should not start using {{Mbox}} and {{PD-Layout}} for consistency reasons. We should also think about creating a template where we just have to set the text and not also the PD-Icon.
BTW, I removed this request from the daily log so we can discuss the matter here. -- Rillke(q?) 19:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you suggest that {{3-D in PD}} should require two parameters, with the first being licensing or PD claim for the 2D reproduction (e.g., photo) and the second being licensing or PD claim for the underlying 3D work. And there would need to be at least a third parameter optional, in case one PD template is needed for the 3D work source country and another PD template is needed for the US? Do I have that right? I do agree that we should strive for consistency in appearance. cmadler (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{Licensed-PD-Art}} and {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}} seem to be pretty good models for this, as they essentially do the same thing (1 or 2 licenses for the work, 1 for the digital reproduction (or in the case of 3D, the photo)) --moogsi (blah) 19:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the end result is, {{PD-art-3d}} needs the same thing doing, I think. Rd232 (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rillke's suggestion seems to be unopposed, so I've implemented it. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-art-1923-3d&oldid=93569631"