Template talk:PD-scan

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Using first parameter, there's an error (template loop detected).--Trixt (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


The translation to Spanish of this file is awful. If you agree, I can sugest you a better text and then someone change it. Cheers. --Andrea (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You can edit Template:PD-scan/es directly - it is not protected. --Jarekt (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
✓ OK --Andrea (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional parameter[edit]

I think it would be useful to add a second optional parameter to embed things like {{PD-old-auto}} or {{PD/1923}} that require an input of their own. So PD-scan could be used with |1=PD-old-auto |2=1899. De728631 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

✓  Done . This has been implemented by Jarekt. De728631 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please fix[edit]

{{edit request}} Currently the first note below the license reads: "--- This tag is designed for use where there..." Please add another dash so a full separator line is displayed. De728631 (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

✓  Done -- Common Good (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

adding a second PD-tag[edit]

For works created outside the US, we usually need two PD-tags: One for the source country and one for the US. Is there any chance that we can wrap them both into PD-scan? --El Grafo (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps another scan template in the style of {{PD-art-two}} would be a good idea. But even now, if the death year of the author is known and the work was published before 1923, you can use {{PD-scan|PD/1923|deathyear=1881}}. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
{{PD-scan|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1881}} would be better. --Jarekt (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks alot, that's perfect for my current needs. But still I think that there might be cases where something like {{PD-art-two}} would come in handy. --El Grafo (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I've created {{PD-scan-two}} now. Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Excellent. This addition is most welcome, so thank you for creating PD-art-two's cousin. De728631 (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Layout template[edit]

{{editprotected}} I think there can be 3 parameters in layout template for the 3 sections of text, e. g.:

{| {{PD-Layout|lang={{{lang|}}}}}
| {{lang|{{{lang|}}}|<!--
{{ {{{1|PD-old}}}|{{#if: {{{2|}}}|{{{2}}} }}|deathyear={{{deathyear|}}} }}

It can simplify the language subtemplates. tacsipacsi (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If someone will deploy this, will you work through all language sub templates? What about using the translate extension? -- Rillke(q?) 21:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it can done with a bot (I not adept in bots), but if not, I can do it manually. tacsipacsi (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


{{editrequest}} The template should categorize files into Category:PD-scan directly if the subcategory does not yet exist. So that you can find cases like Category:PD-scan (PD-old-75) and also cases where the second template is not allowed. --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose against adding expensive parser functions to heavily used templates and against this "magic" because it could be confusing. -- Rillke(q?) 18:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is already a parser function checking for the existence of the second template, which would be superfluous if the template would just check for the non-exiosting catgory. And could you tell me what you mean by magic. --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It should look something like that:

{{#ifexist:Category:PD-scan ({{{1}}}) |  | [[Category:Files where PD-scan category does not exist]]}}

--Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  Not done . No consensus. --Jarekt (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The original itself[edit]

Better say "depicted original" or eventually "photocopied subject" (in german: Ablichtung). --Itu (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would we need this distinction? Sounds redundant to me since there can only be one original, and the very first sentence states already that the image in question is a scan or photocopy of said original. De728631 (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)