Template talk:PD-anon-expired

1923~1925 works and Wikisource

If @Billinghurst: warned me correctly on my en.wikisource talk page, it seems that at least enwikisource may still in favor of 1923 instead of 1925 for the "published before" day. What should we do for this gap? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not what I said, I said it takes a community consensus to make moves. If you had cared to ask or cared to look you would see a conversation about this matter at s:Wikisource:Scriptorium.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now I agree that enwikisource has right to extend the 95 term to 97, just based on "consensus", but I just don't know that panorama before, and I'm not tried to hurt many things, if enwikisource is really so obstinated, then shouldn't there have an additional clause (like {{PD-old-warning-text}}) to explain this gap? (PS: in the last year @Jusjih: changed that year to 1924, should their edit be also reverted?) --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Read the conversation, don't misrepresent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: See what Ankry responed to you below, also what means "misrepresent" by you? If that consensus isn't "hey enwikisource doesn't allow 1923~1925 works" (which is what I've looked that like), then what's the actual consensus? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

NB: That renaming was also done on en.wikipedia (fyi). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You are making statements about English Wikisource that are not reflecting the conversations there, so they misrepresent the situation. I don't need to justify, nor summarise those continuing conversations here, they belong at that wiki. Read the conversation if you want to find out. If you don't understand the conversation there and want it explained, then ask there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: fyi --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wcam, Ankry, and Aymatth2: How do you think this issue? --117.136.55.137 22:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with this at all. We intentionally changed the name for all these templates to refer to 95 years ago, and people have been adding it for 1923 and 1924 pages. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any need to add a Wikisource consensus related templates on Commons. If there is no legal reason to distinguish between pre-1923 and pre-1925 works, then there is no need to create separate templates for these works. And English Wikisource may do what they want: eg. not use works published between 1923 and 1925. I think their consensus (or lack of consensus) would refer to works PD in US and not PD in the country of origin that were published 1923+. They are not suitable for Commons anyway. Ankry (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, User:Liuxinyu970226 boldly moved s:Template:PD-anon-1923 to s:Template:PD-anon-expired because that would be consistent with Commons, then user:billinghurst undid the move because there was no WikiSource community consensus. I have no problem with either action. The next step should be a discussion about the proposed move on s:Template talk:PD-anon-1923, not here. I am inclined to favor the move, but am open to arguments against it. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Some IP pinged me so might as well respond. Nothing needs to be said here anymore right now. It's time to do the community conversation part on Wikisource and that will most probably result in updating the template. Maybe report back here when that is all done? Multichill (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Mnn, that template is, even by de facto keeping pre-1923, having math wrong, as 2020-97=1923, not 1924. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)