Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Iran

Noinclude

@Aymatth2: Is there any reason to place the entire section of "Treaty issues" into noinclude tags? 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• @4nn1l2: Not a strong reason. The country pages are transcluded into lists like Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list Southern Asia, and the {{Copyright notes}} template seemed a bit jarring in earlier versions when it dominated the country description. Now the descriptions are longer, I would have no problem removing the noinclude tags on this and the other handful of pages that have the template. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  I had forgotten about consolidated lists, so I thought that was just a simple mistake. No problem with the tags. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  @4nn1l2: The transcluded lists are sort-of-useful for maintenance. I doubt there is a need for anything but the English versions. The pages tagged for translation are not transcluding properly. In Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list Southern Asia#Iran the translate tags display, and Commons:Freedom of panorama/Asia#Iran does not pick up the contents of the "Freedom of panorama" section, possibly because the <!--T:15--> comment on the heading line is confusing the #section-h function. I see these as just minor technical glitches that should be fixed sometime. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Aymatth2: Special:Diff/334508988 should solve the problem of geographical consolidated lists such as Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list Southern Asia#Iran. However, the problem with #section-h function (MediaWiki extension) is more complicated and needs more investigation. I leave a note at COM:TN to get more input. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  I guessed as much with #section-h. A work-around would be to label the sections to be transcluded, but I am concerned that the markup is already getting over-complex = fragile. These pages should be steadily updated and expanded as laws change, precedents are set and missing aspects are covered. We don't want the pages to keep breaking. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok-NotOk conflict for currencies?

 Not OK...after 21 March 1991, but OK...before 22 March 1992? Is there any typos on either part? Or how do we judge if Iranian currencies designed *between* 21 March 1991 and 22 March 1992 are ok or not? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed A problem caused by calendar conversions. You may know that Iran does not use Gregorian Calendar at all, but uses its own unique calendar shared by Afghanistan called Solar Hijri Calendar. [Alas, Taliban wants to change the calendar system of Afghanistan :-((]

By the way, this 21-22 March, i.e., Nowruz, is just an imitation of the Western copyright laws. The Iranian copyright law does not actually postpone the expiry of copyright to the 1st day of the following year! 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)