User talk:Rosenzweig

Babel user information

de-N	Dieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch als Muttersprache.

en-3	This user has advanced knowledge of English.

fr-1	Cet utilisateur dispose de connaissances de base en français.

la-1	Hic usor simplici lingua Latina conferre potest.

You can also use my talk page at the German wikipedia (in German, English or French), but since I enabled notification by e-mail, it might be only marginally faster.

Archiv(e)

Löschantrag Puchinger Bäuerin (Peter Geymayer)

Peter Geymayer ist leider 2022 verstorben, siehe hier. --Kuhni74 (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

War mir bekannt, dennoch danke für den Hinweis. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 20:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

URAA fun

See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Public_Domain_Day_2025 and Commons:Deletion requests/Henri Matisse not public domain in 2025. I see quite a few inconsistent deletion request closures where {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} is used for files uploaded after 2012. Do you know what is going on here? Category:URAA-related deletion requests/pending currently has quite a few open cases and closing should be consistent. Multichill (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is official Commons policy that if something is still protected in the US because of the URAA, that is a reason for deletion, even if it is the only one. One should check for several things (like the actual duration of the copyright term in the source country on the URAA date – not every country had 70 years then –, or the matter of actual publication, not easy for things like paintings), but if URAA protection is positively established, it's a reason for deletion.

Not-PD-US-URAA is an old stopgap (goes back to 2007) from the time when the US Supreme Court had not yet decided on the URAA. It must not be used for anything uploaded after March 1, 2012. In the discussions after the Supreme Court had finally decided, the debate went back and forth, but finally it was decided that yes, URAA was a reason for deletion and Not-PD-US-URAA should not be used for new uploads. With all that debate, it's quite complicated, and it took me a while to come to those conclusions. Unfortunately, some people did not want to acknowledge the outcome of the debate (some still don't) and try to continue keeping files and labelling them with Not-PD-US-URAA. That has become less over the last few years though, see the discussions you mention above. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that confirms what I was thinking. People are quite hostile about it so I guess that kept people from nominating files. No fun at Commons:Deletion requests/File:La robe de bal (035303).jpg.

So looks like we have nearly 4700 files that use {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} and are uploaded before the cutoff date, see https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=30749520

And over 10.000 files after 2012 that use it, see https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=30749533

Quite the mess. Multichill (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nothing new unfortunately. The same thing happened last year with Commons:Deletion requests/File:The chess game 2001 NYE 08515 0126 000(024845).jpg and various other DRs. --Rosenzweig τ 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

URAA is very unpopular (something that also came up in discussions I had at Wikimania 2024). But consensus is clear, post-2012 uploads have to be deleted if URAA restored copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Émile P. Torres profile 2024.png

Hi, I actually didn't want this file and the cropped version to be deleted, I was just following the instructions in the speedy deletion box telling me to open a deletion request if I disagree. This is why I replied with the reason why I think the files shouldn't be deleted. Would there have been a way to make that clearer? Rismari (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood that. I have restored the files. In case something like this happens again, please retain the text (This file was initially tagged by XYZ as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: ...) and then write that you object and for what reason. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rismari (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

Les Jours and East View Press join the library
Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril de La Patellière

Monsieur. Est-ce vous qui avez supprimé les fichiers concernant Cyril de La Patellière? L'artiste est encore en vie comme vous dites et il est parfaitement au courant de ces photos. Les droits lui appartiennent. Je propose donc que vous remettiez ces fichiers. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:CB1D:6A0:E100:1A03:675B:3D6E:1C0 (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP 2A01:CB1D:6A0:E100:1A03:675B:3D6E:1C0,

I did not delete the files, but I nominated them for deletion. If the author is fine with these files hosted at Wikimedia Commons under a free license, we need a written permission by him, sent directly by him per e-mail to Wikimedia Commons. For the details about the procedure, please read COM:VRT/fr. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've missed it by a day...

...but happy 20th year of being a Commons user! JayCubby (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already? Don't worry, I completely missed it too. Thanks! Regards --Rosenzweig τ 05:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belated happy 20th anniversary, Rosenzweig. I've definitely learned a lot about DACH matters from you in the 6 years (feels like longer) I've been on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noinclude code

Hi. I thought there was a bot that was adding the code now. Did that not end up working out or something? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still working AFAIK, but the bot is apparently adding them only to open DRs. When people add them to already archived DRs, no bot will come. So I'll sometimes still add them manually when I happen to see something, even if the DR is still open. Done is done :-) Regards --Rosenzweig τ 12:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That makes sense. I'll have to just add it myself anyway since there's really no reason not to. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition at Help:Contents

I got notified of the following change: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Contents&diff=prev&oldid=985872543 . Why write that on the general help page? Was that an error or am i misunderstanding something? ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 19:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks for notifying me. The VisualFileChange script did that, and I think it happened because of this redirect (which I have now removed). Regular users would not be able to write to Help:Contents, but since I'm an admin, I can, so it happened. Why did you get notified? Because you have this page on your watchlist? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I still have it on my watchlist. But I don't understand why for this change I got an email notification, while for others on my watchlist I don't. Not a problem, just odd. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 19:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carl Gentner AK Dschewat Pascha (Cevat Çobanli) - alamy Wasserzeichen.jpg

World War I era German postcard illustration. Claimed to be an anonymous work from Carl Gentner (Göppingen) and has a PD-old license. Should I start a DR or just leave it alone? Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cevat Çobanlı. Carl Gentner is not the artist, but the company which published the postcard. German works of art before July 1995 like this one cannot be anonymous works, so unless someone can find the artist and they died before 1955, the file is not ok for Commons before 2039 (based on a 1918 publication date). Regards --Rosenzweig τ 06:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

URAA on Karl Arnold

The bulk of the artist's work was published before 1930 and he died over 70 years ago. Is there any special reason for URAA flag on Karl Arnold (artist)? Do we just add it to anything for good measure or should I assume there is a particular reason? Thanks for your help, and for creating the category. :) Jerimee (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He probably created works after 1929, and those would still be protected in the US because of the URAA. de:Karl Arnold (Künstler, 1883) says he suffered a stroke in 1942 which left him unable to work, and that's well after 1929. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gallica / BnF

Hallo Rosenzweig, es gibt da möglicherweise ein Problem.

Wenn du die Seite https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b53153042m aufrufst, gibt es mehrere Möglichkeiten: entweder du bekommst das von der BnF auf Ranzösisch oder Englisch ausgeliefert oder du bekommst das auf Deutsch, wobei ich nicht weiß, wo das herkommt.

Wenn du es bspw. auf Englisch bekommst, hast du in der Spalte links "About" und nach aufklappen ziemlich weit unten den Copyright-Status, in dem Fall public domain.

Wenn du es auf Deutsch bekommst, hast du im Dropdown "Über" praktisch dieselben Infos, aber ohne der Copyright-Status. Die Zeile fehlt! Es kann also sein, daß deutschsprachige Benutzer, die den Lizenzstatus eines hochgeladenen Bildes überprüfen, fälschlich von einer URV ausgehen, obwohl dies nicht der Fall ist, und in der Folge einen unberechtigten LA stellen, der, wenn der Admin die Seite auch auf Deutsch bekommt, natürlich ausgeführt wird.

Wie ist das bei deinen Einstellungen? --Matthiasb (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Das Problem ist im Prinzip bekannt. Ich kenne diese Website eigentlich so, dass man rechts oben die Sprache wählen konnte (Frz./Engl./Dt./Russ./Ital.), aber das finde ich nicht mehr. Womöglich haben sie die Website verändert. Entscheidend ist am ehesten das französische Original, und da steht oft genug eben nicht domaine public, selbst wenn der englische Text das Gegenteil behauptet. Ich halte die Angaben der BNF generell für problematisch. Diverse Werke haben sie vor etlichen Jahren für gemeinfrei erklärt, jetzt plötzlich nicht mehr. Vielleicht haben sie sich ja anfangs nicht richtig mit der Urheberrechtsthematik befasst. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 12:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zum Thema: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/11#Deprecate Template:PD-BNF and Template:PD-GallicaScan. In der frz. Version steht of Droits : Consultable en ligne, auch wenn im Englischen was von public domain behauptet wird. --Rosenzweig τ 12:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Design der Website wurde am 7. Januar 2025 geändert gem. [1]. Wenn man da nicht mehr sehen kann, welcher Urheberrechtsstatus im Original angegeben wird, ist die Website für alle außerhalb der französischsprachigen Gebiete nicht mehr viel wert. Zumindest, wenn man sich für das Urheberrecht der Werke interessiert. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 12:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Die Anzeigesprache richtet sich anscheinend nach der Browsereinstellung (bei Firefox & Co. heißt die Einstellung Bevorzugte Sprachen für die Darstellung von Websites). Wenn ich das auf Französisch stelle, bekomme ich die Gallica-Seiten auf Französisch, und als Rechte-Information kommt bspw. bei deinem obigen Link « Droits : Consultable en ligne » Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 16:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Das funktioniert auch, wenn ich alle bevorzugten Sprachen lösche; dann fällt die Anzeige auf Französisch zurück. Aber, wenn ich explizit Englisch einstelle, bekomme ich es nicht auf Englisch. Aber vielleicht haben die bei der BnF selbst einen Fehler in ihrer Config, denn heute morgen war sie mal gar nicht erreichbar und inzwischen bekomme ich sie auf Französisch ausgeliefert, auch dann wenn ich die bevorzugte Sprache auf DE habe.

Die Sprachauswahl FR/EN/DE/IT/RU auf der Hauptseite gab es wohl bis Januar und jetzt nicht mehr und jetzt nicht mehr. Aber vielleicht sind die entsprechenden Übersetzungsseiten noch vorhanden, sodaß das tw. über die Browsereinstellungen gesteuert wird (?). Matthiasb (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchinson's story of the nations

Hi, I get a lot of edit conflicts with you. Do you have any idea what is the signature at File:The dawn of life Building a home.jpg and File:The flight of Sultan Hussain Sharki of Jaunpur, A.D. 1479.jpg? And how do you get the same of Richard Bertram Ogle for File:The great earthquake at Agra A.D. 1505.jpg? The signature is not readable for me. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yann, yes, I noticed. I have not identified the two yet, I'll try. While hard to read at times, the signature of R. B. Ogle is rather distinct with added lines at the beginning and at the end, so if you have one that is clear enough, you can see the similarity in those which are less clear. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 12:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The artists are Horace van Ruith and Gerald Leake. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 13:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Did you check all images in Category:Hutchinson's Story of the Nations — India and parent category for signatures? Just that I don't need to do it again. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have checked all files, but some illegible signatures remain. I've started looking at Category:Hutchinson's History of the Nations. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 10:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Alexander C. Weatherstone and Alfred C. Weatherstone are two different persons, i.e. [2]. Alfred was already active in 1883, so he can't be born in 1888. Yann (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1888 and 1929 are not birth and death years, they are the years in which he was known to be active, see ArtUK. Some sites stupidly made birth and death years out of those. Someone then came up with the "Alexander" name, and there we have the "Alexander C. Weatherstone (1888-1929)" persona claimed by some auction sites. All the large art sites, including Artists of the World by DeGruyter, have him as Alfred C. Weatherstone, and I was able to confirm that in the UK records (1921 census, 1939 register, National Probate Calendar in 1945). So not two different persons, but an artefact perpetuated by several auction sites. --Rosenzweig τ 10:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christie's is a rather striking example of that stupidity. [3] by "Alexander" and [4] by "Alfred" are both said to be signed as "A. C. Weatherstone" and are so similar that they are obviously by the same artist. --Rosenzweig τ 10:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity check for a photograph from American premiere of Jonny spielt auf

I'll probably just upload it to enwiki but I have found a photograph from Metropolitan Opera's production of Ernst Krenek's Jonny spielt auf from 1929. The photograph is credited to Carlo Edward and was published in the New York Times in the January 20, 1929 issue. It depicts the finale in which Jonny is at the North Pole. I know it's public domain in the US since the photographer appears to be American and the underlying work was published in Vienna in 1927. The question would be if Krenek's copyright applies since he died in 1991 and this was as mentioned published in Austria which is PMA 70 and so if Krenek's copyright applies, it cannot be hosted on Commons until 2062. Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a photograph showing an actor in a performance would be a derivative of the text or music of the opera which was performed. If that were the case, we would have to delete several photographs in Category:Jonny spielt auf, including two uploaded by me. --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the photographer is Carlo Edwards. Conductor, vocal coach, journalist, photographer. Quite a renaissance man :-) --Rosenzweig τ 21:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I could import it from enwiki where I uploaded it as en:File:Michael Bohnen as Jonny in the American premiere of Jonny Spielt Auf, 1929 photo by Carlo Edward.jpg with corrections so it could be imported. Abzeronow (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Request Appeal

Good evening, Rosenzweig

I recently became aware that a deletion request was carried out on 27 January of this year. As the creator of the file, I advocated against its deletion, citing Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz) § 5 Amtliche Werke. I gave my reasoning in two components:

1. According to § 5.1 of the German Copyright law, official works such as coats of arms and flags are gemeinfrei (in the public domain). Since the Federal Republic of Germany is the legal successor of the Weimar Republic as well as of the "Third Reich" this law is also applicable to flags and coat of arms promulgated before 1945.

2. Furthermore, the insignia is part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German authority or court, which means it is classified as gemeinfrei by the same law (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG).

You responded to this, asking me to name the "statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment" that I was referring to in the second component. Unfortunately, I was out of town at the time and thus did not see your request until after the file had already been deleted.

I would like to follow up on this. I am not a native German speaker, so I believe I misspoke regarding the nature of the official work in question in that I was not intending to refer to a written law that depicts the coat of arms. Rather, the coat of arms is that of a German military unit as depicted in photographs. These photographs are considered official works under § 5.2 UrhG and my illustration of the insignia meets the criteria specified under § 62.3 UrhG.

This aligns with German Wikipedia's official stance regarding "Other official works" (paragraphs 5-6), as it meets the criteria outlined by the prohibition of modification under § 5.2 UrhG.

Please let me know if any further information is required. I am happy to add the required tag to the file to indicate its status.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Best Wishes, Moose Onyx Moose US (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I am the deleting admin. There is a similar file under UDR now that also originates from Nazi Germany. Abzeronow (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Abzeronow

I presume that "UDR" stands for "un-delete requests." Would you please verify?

Best Wishes,

Moose Onyx Moose US (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Commons:Undeletion requests. --Rosenzweig τ 10:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental question here is: Is this really an official work as defined in § 5 (1) UrhG? Is it really “part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work)” (which is I asked to name the one it is a part of)? If it is not, it might be an “other” official work as defined in § 5 (2) UrhG, but those are not accepted here because one is not allowed to modify them, and that is not free enough for Wikipedia or Commons. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 23:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have addressed the § 5 (2) part, but again, those are not accepted because they do not meet the definition of free content as required by Wikipedia and Commons (Commons:Licensing). That is the same reason why Creative Commons licenses with an ND component are not accepted. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 23:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hasty response.

I would like to address § 5.1 and § 5.2 separately, since either of these can serve as basis for reinstatement of the file.

Regarding § 5.1

According to Article 27 of Federal Bill 7/550 (page 355), § 123 of the UWiG (now § 124) permits the use of coats of arms or official flags:

"not only from the express authorization of the competent authority, but also from the point of view of social adequacy (e.g., decorating a shop window with the federal coat of arms on a national holiday). Likewise, the use of an official flag can be "authorized" either on the basis of a permit (e.g., use of an official flag of a state by a sports club at a national event) or From a social adequacy perspective, this may be justified (e.g., flags during a state visit)."

The same legal status applies to symbols from WWII because the Federal Republic of Germany is the legal successor to the Weimar Republic and the "Third Reich."

I cannot provide the lame of a law that contains this specific unit insignia because none exists. However, the symbol in question is that of a subsidiary of the Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht itself was established by the "Edict for the Buildup of the Wehrmacht" signed into law in 1935. As such, the Wehrmacht classifies as a non-private "Corporation Under Public Law" and therefore its symbols fall under public domain. These symbols, of course, include those created in an official capacity by its representatives- which include the units and personnel of the Heer unit in question.

Regarding § 5.2

As you suggested, we could instead approach this from the angle of "other" official works as defined in § 5.2 UrhG. Official works under this classification can be labeled "free use" on Wikipedia and Commons if they meet the prohibition of modifications criteria defined in § 62.3 UrhG, as is the case with numerous examples of "other" official works of the German state currently present on Commons. As stated in Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, "it would generally be illegal to use any Commons illustration to commit fraud, but this fact does not mean that the material from Commons isn't free content."

As such, this symbol can be modified and distributed as this insignia is:

Not subject to any copyright restrictions (§ 5.1 and/or 5.2, 6.3 UrhG)
Does not fall under any non-copyright restrictions that prevent its classification as "free use" on Wikipedia (§ 123 UWiG, Article 27, Drucksache 7/550).

There are other laws such as § 90a and §132a StGB that further specify the misuse of state symbols, but these laws do not prohibit derivative works. Both sections are examples of non-copyright restrictions that have no bearing on the "free use" of this insignia.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please let me know if any additional information is needed.

Best Wishes,

Moose Onyx Moose US (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Onyx Moose US,

the OwiG is a law about misdemeanors and prohibits the use of official coats of arms, use meaning displaying them in a manner to imply that you or your institution are the owner/official bearer of that coa. It does not prohibit to show the coa in an informative way, and that's what Wikipedia and Commons do. What this does not address is the fact that Commons and de.wp only want free media, as mentioned above. This is not a matter of laws, but of site goals and policies.

I'm not sure what you mean by “free use”. Probably en:Fair use? To make it short: "Fair use" is not allowed on Commons, see Commons:Fair use. The same is true for de.wp. en.wp does allow fair use files to a degree, see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 10:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By “free use” I mean “free content” as defined by Commons, which is why I linked and quoted the page. I am not referring to the concept of "fair use."

The page on Commons:Non-copyright restrictions makes clear that laws prohibiting the fraudulent use of content does not mean said content isn't free. Moreover, the page states that "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia, and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations."

I have illustrated that the insignia is not protected by copyright due to § 5.1 UrhG. Onyx Moose US (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you meant “free use” as mentioned in Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. That term is not widely used here. Anyway, the ban on modifications is not considered a “non-copyright restriction” here, but seen as contradicting the definition of free content. See also Commons:Licensing#Forbidden licenses, where the Creative Commons No-Derivatives (-ND) licenses are explicitly listed for precisely that reason.

As far as § 5 (1) is concerned, you have claimed that the insignia is covered by that paragraph, but you cannot name any statute etc. which contains it. Yes, the Wehrmacht was an official body, and yes, the FRG is the legal successor of the German empire (Reich), but no, not any media produced by the German state or its subsidiaries is automatically covered by § 5 (1). Only those which are “part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment” are, and you failed to show any such statute etc. which contains the insignia in question. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 13:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons, the works of "corporations under public law" fall under § 5.1. If your logic is applied, then every piece of visual media ever produced by any German government from 1918 to today must be removed from Wikipedia unless explicit proof is provided that that specific image was drawn or described on a law that was passed or an order that was issued.

Based on what I have linked to from Drucksache 7/550 and the StGB, OWiG, and UrhG, I do not believe this is a correct interpretation of the law.

Given the wide-reaching implications of this issue, I would strongly suggest that the Wikipedia team seek legal counsel from a licensed law firm in Germany, specializing in copyright law, in order to put the matter to rest. I will look into this in the future, if possible, but I don't currently have the resources to do so.

This issue needs to be elevated in priority as there are thousands of files on Commons containing official insignias, coats of arms, etc. of various government institutions and subsidiaries in Germany over the course of the last 100+ years while lacking citation to any "acts, statutory instruments, official decree and official notices, as well as decisions and official head notes of decisions."

In the meantime, I will attempt to find this specific symbol on a government-created document in the archives in case your interpretation of § 5.1 is correct.

Thank you for your time. Onyx Moose US (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]