Talk:2023 in public domain

60/80 years

These sections are very specific to certain countries: India/Bangladesh/Venezuela as well as Colombia/Equatorial Guinea/Spain. Therefore I decided to remake the 60 years list to include relevant people, the 80 years list was Spain from the start while the 50 and 70 years lists are much more inclusive. Hekerui (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I changed my mind, 50 should be less inclusive due to the limited reach. Hekerui (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Canada

Per the final law version the copyright extension is not retroactive and comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. Hekerui (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The date is December 30, 2022 per order. Hekerui (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Misunderstandings regarding public domain

Take "Countries with life + 50 years" for instance. Just because Canada is no longer on this list, does not mean Canadian authors and other creators should be removed. Authors from all over the world that passed away that spesific year belongs on the list, no matter what the copyright laws in the home country of these authors are. Rhynchosaur (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Number 1: personal attacks do not replace a meaningful argument and were removed per WP:PA. Stop personal attacks and keep personal attacks out of edit summaries, and post comments on the talk page. Number 2: what authors to include is a matter of discussion. You can make an enormous list of people for all sections but for whom is it really relevant? I think it makes sense to have more comprehensive list of people in the section that is most inclusive, whereas I included only those people in the other sections that are relevant for those places. What were your criteria for adding the people you added? Appears random. Hekerui (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

How you can consider this personal attacks is beyond me. Either way, who decides which persons are worthy to be mentioned? You? Several of the names you find worth keeping I have never heard of. And there are no rules that says you need to mention examples of an author's or artist's work, or that the name should be deleted if not. I have my own reasons for adding those I add, just as others have their reasons. Should their reasons count less? As long as there are no redlinks, it shouldn't be up to random moderators to decide which names are allowed to stay and which not. Rhynchosaur (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect opening description?

"The following is a list of works that entered the public domain in 2023" No it is not. It is a list of "Authors" whose works have/may have entered the public domain, surely? Ncvm (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ncvm That’s just the start of the problems. I came here via commons:Commons:Public domain day/2023 and expected something better developed. Here we have a start-class article, 2022 has a stub-class article and 2021 has a list-class article, yet all articles are essentially the same except for the list items and some other details, and all have the same problem with the introduction.

Apparently, this pattern goes back to 2007 (list-class) and forward to 2024 (start-class) and 2025–2026 (stub-class); the last three also call for additional citations (for what?). Brianjd (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Brianjd and @Ncvm You both make great points, this article needs a good deal of attention from an expert or two in the field. I am helping host a Wikipedia Day celebration here in NYC, where we will also be celebrating Wikipedia and Public Domain Day. I will bring it up to those attending about the need to update these articles. There will also be an online component of the meet-up, so feel free to show up online or in person if you're interested. Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia Day 2023 - Wil540 art (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks correct to me, the article describes the conditions for works to be public domain in its sections, which happens to be based on death date or date of publishing, among others. Hekerui (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hekerui The article is indeed about the public domain, but that seems to be the only thing we agree on. The article currently contains lists of creators. Some of those creators don’t even have any work listed for them. How can you possibly describe that as a ‘list of works’? Brianjd (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It's been phrased like this since 2007 when all creator entries listed works. It's not wrong now because all works by the listed person are in the public domain under the conditions set in the section. However, not all works are notable by themselves and/or have articles - on the other hand, for film director, there are often many notable works with articles to name. I assume the style in use since the 2015 article clutters the page less and has remained for that reason. Hekerui (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Stand alone article? 2023 in public domain in the United States

This is such a complex topic that varies greatly by location; therefore, I think it would be worthwhile to have a USA specific article as it is a unique year here in the US in terms of public domain. - Wil540 art (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, so I creates a new article. It's not much, but it's a start. I then remains to see if others wants to add more content. It's called 2023 in American public domain (thinking about it, I should probably have called the article "2023 in the American public domain" instead). Rhynchosaur (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rhynchosaur Then the main articles should be called ‘[year] in the public domain’. Brianjd (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)