User talk:184.21.204.5

Welcome to Wikisource
Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * Help pages
 * Style Guide
 * Inclusion policy
 * For Wikipedians

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to  [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. Creating an account on Wikisource has many of the same benefits as creating an account on Wikipedia. For one thing, if you continue to edit without a username, your IP address is used to publicly identify you.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:184.21.204.5&action=edit&section=new edit] ) and place  before your question. Again, welcome! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I noticed that you reverted my edits to Module:PD-US. I know most people probably won't use it, but it retains compatibility, so it should work just like it used to in that case. Does the extra code have any adverse effects in these cases? 184.21.204.5 00:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason I reverted your edits is that I don't think a parameter is going to get much if any uptake for this template, since it doesn't affect how the template looks or categorizes pages. Given that, it's better to keep the code simple, especially for a template as widely-used as PD-US. At a certain point, we kind of just have to trust that users will apply license templates appropriately.
 * In other words, I'd prefer to keep the code simple to reduce maintenance burden. That said, if there's a reason the parameter would be useful apart from double-checking that the template is appropriate, I would be willing to put it back. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When pubyear is given, it does show the date in the template. It showed something like "...because it was published in 1923, which is before the cutoff of January 1, 1928." 184.21.204.5 00:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'd missed that! And I agree it's nice to have the option of more specificity in the template. There are a few code things I'd like to do differently, one sec. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And done. Thanks for updating the documentation, BTW! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking of whether users are using the template correctly, it would maybe be more accurate to say, "trust but verify", because you can for instance do a PetScan like so and follow up on any anomalies. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm not quite sure what that scan did; did it search for pages using PD-US incorrectly? 184.21.204.5 01:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It searches for pages that are using PD-US but are also categorized as being published in 1928 or later (more accurately, works that are in Category:20th century works or Category:21st century works and not in Category:1900s works through Category:1927 works). Some of these pages are actually using PD-US correctly, like translations where the original work was published before 1928 and the translation, published later, is freely-licensed for a different reason. But some of the works are in fact using the template incorrectly. I might go through the scan and check each work later. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, thank you! (I created an account.) I'll probably go through some too. What should I do with ones that don't appear valid? Tag them as ?? Luke10.27 (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Luke10.27 Yeah you can tag them as copyvio and start a discussion at Copyright discussions. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)