Talk:no rights reserved
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
"no right reserved" does not have a basis in law and it's an ambiguous statement. Avoid phrases using "no" for negation. There are better way to negate. "yes" and "no" should be kept for reply to question. Don't claim any right where there is none. I suggest the note "public domain" instead which makes it available to most rights. Lplessard (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see that any of this is per se a basis for deleting this entry. If people use the phrase then we should include it, assuming it passes other relevant CFI, such as meaning more than the sum of its parts. Mihia (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Perfectly reasonable as an entry, given that it is not SOP; compare the entry all rights reserved. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Except that all rights reserved is the traditional way of writing "a statement that indicates the reservation of the property right", as demanded by the Buenos Aires Convention, to the point that it appears on some works right before a free license. It's not really SOP because of that, and has a lot of cultural baggage along with it that other forms, like "no rights reserved", don't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- No way, José. That's simply not how "no" works in English. I might suggest that your general level of knowledge of English is not high enough to be editing a bunch of English definitions, especially on the English wiktionary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep because these are not proper rationales for deletion. I think it's a poor entry but these are not reasons to delete it. Equinox ◑ 18:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: not SOP. From the components of the phrase, one would not know that it is copyright that is concerned. However, we might add a usage note to the effect that the phrase is ambiguous and that there are unambiguous phrases for releasing works into public domain; OTOH, it is unclear whether it is the business of the dictionary to make such recommendations or warnings. For the unacquainted, there is WT:CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Move to RFV and keep if cited, I guess. Ƿidsiþ 06:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
It incorrect language. There is an absence of law on this issue. Henceforth, there is an absence of right. — This unsigned comment was added by Lplessard (talk • contribs).
- If people say it in the real world, we can include it, even if it isn't formal legal language. It does seem rather like a self-evident sum of parts to me, though. Evidently a layman's modification of the better-known "all rights reserved". Equinox ◑ 16:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Should be in the English section, not non-English. DonnanZ (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- RFD-kept. Wrong venue, and no relevant rationale to delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)