Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 21

March 21

Template:PD-VenezuelaGov

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Izno (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Template:PD-VenezuelaGov (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as on Commons. Industrial property protects coats of arms and symbols of Venezuela from being registered by people as trademarks. That does not mean they are in the public domain. The intellectual property law of Venezuela makes some provisions for works that could be in the public domain, but makes no express mention of the coats of arms and symbols. These need to comply one of the conditions of the same law to be in the public domain. Files using this template should be reviewed. Bedivere (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• @Magog the Ogre, Felix QW, Stefan2, Fastily, and Whpq: Can we get additional input from people more familiar with commons file licensing templates? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Bedivere: Just so that we see what is going on, could you perhaps link to the Commons discussion that you are referring to above? Many thanks! Felix QW (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• We could just sync the content of the template with the one on Commons? Then nominate any non-conforming files. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Will do as soon as I can. right now I'm on the phone. But if you can find it first, it's the deletion discussion of the template for Honduran coats of arms that were incorrectly tagged as public domain. Bedivere (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bedivere, Felix QW, and Magog the Ogre: Any updates on this? It would be great to close this discussion! Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have not been able to get into a computer lately. Just want to point out that the legislation cited in the template is invalid as it makes no mention of coat of arms and symbols of Venezuela. They might be public domain under one or more of the conditions one work may fall in the public domain, due to their expiration. The template, as it reads, incorrectly suggests the symbols are public domain as per the law itself but that is plain incorrect and unless their public-domain-cy can be determined otherwise, they should all be deleted. On the other hand, the Venezuelan industrial property law does mention coats of arms and symbols but only to establish these can't be trademarked, which is a different area to copyright protection. Bedivere (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a sweeping public domain clause in Venezuelan labour law, cited on the Commons template as

Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector—or financed through public funds—that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition.

If this is accepted as referring to copyright, then it would certainly justify a PD-VenzuelaGov template. The remainder of the Commons template text, after

The texts of laws, decrees, official regulations, public treaties, judicial decisions and other official acts shall not be protected by this Law.

, seems to belong more properly to a PD-Venezuela template than to a government one. Felix QW (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point but that is a dubious approach. We would be assuming all of the coats of arms, symbols, etc., were intelectually created by public employees, which may be true in most cases but it should motivate a case-by-case review. Bedivere (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• update to match text of the commons template and check all transclusions for correctness. looks like a valid template on commons, so I don't see why it can't be used here. Frietjes (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:!(/)!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Template:!(! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:!)! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates are redundant given the existence of Template:!(, Template:!) and Template:Bracket. They had one use in mainspace, which I replaced with Template:Bracket. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Added Template:!)! to discussion, as it is the analogous template for ], reformatted original message to match this update. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment: This is not redundant as implied. Please read Template talk:!(#Template-protected edit request on 31 January 2022 for context. I created it for a purpose and I never really wrote a documentation or advertised it, or else I believe that it could've been a lot more used template. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to explain what it's meant to be used for then? Gonnym (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• delete, looks like the issue was resolved, so unless there is some new compelling reason provided by CX Zoom, no reason to keep it. Frietjes (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).