Template talk:TardisDataCore

This template was considered for deletion on 2012 December 13. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Doctor Who Template‑class

	Doctor Who portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

TfD nomination of Template:FreeContentMeta[edit]

Template:FreeContentMeta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jpatokal (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colour change[edit]

Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, the green color was selected to distinguish the non-sister project templates from those that link to projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't particularly care what color is used, provided that it stands out from the shade of grey used for the sister project templates. Your new attempt is a step in the right direction (compared to your previous attempt), but I still don't think that the distinction is obvious enough unless the two boxes are viewed side-by-side.

Incidentally, while I appreciate the desire to promote free-content wikis in general, I'm not entirely sold on the idea of allowing these boxes to exist for non-sister projects. Alternatives have been proposed. —David Levy 18:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, I've switched to a different color that's subdued but less similar to the color used in the sister project templates:

—David Levy 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few people at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis liked this:

It has the advantage of clearly spelling out that the content is free, instead of a vague "greyish purple = free". If we are sticking with this obnoxious banner ad, here is my suggestion for what color to paint the bikeshed:

--Phirazo 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly prefer the above example, which promotes free content without confusing or misleading readers. —David Levy 03:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Phirazo's suggestion. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a work in progress of the actual template here: User:Phirazo/FreeContentMeta. Please feel free to comment. --Phirazo 01:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest; I don't like it. I prefer the box. — Edokter • Talk • 18:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. —David Levy 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now an ordinairy link, with the "C" icon looking odd in combination with the bullet. It also requires the use of an extra parameter for formatting purposes (as adding quotes as seen in "Partners in Crime"), which would have to be done with all article using this template to preserve proper title formatiing. — Edokter • Talk • 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The change is no longer visible; Phil Sandifer reverted the change, as apparently the new format is still under discussion at Template talk:FreeContentMeta. — Edokter • Talk • 21:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image size[edit]

I have restored the image size, twice. 25px leaves just leaves a blurry dot. 50px is the standard size used in these templates. And no, it doesn't leave a lot of unused space... I even use small fonts. — Edokter • Talk • 19:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. My screen resolution is 1400x1050 (higher than most people's), and the police box image is perfectly recognizable at 25px.

2. Here's screen capture of how the template appears on my screen with the image at 50px and 25px. —David Levy 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how does it look at 35px (standard for small side boxes)? — Edokter • Talk • 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an improvement, but there still is a great deal of empty space at the bottom unless the link wraps to another line. I've updated the screen capture. —David Levy 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a particular small font you're using... We can't make it look good for every user, so it's best to make it look good for most users, who use the standard font-size, resulting in a three-line rendering. — Edokter • Talk • 22:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the "normal" (default) text size in Firefox. —David Levy 22:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I see. Common.css has the font-size set at 90% (which is a bad value consistany-wise; 88% or 95% should be used, which do render the same between browsers). Still, I prefer bit of empty space over an inelligable image. And most pages having this template have a long enough link to cause it to wrap. — Edokter • Talk • 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked several of the pages with long titles. On my end, all of the links either didn't wrap or only partially wrapped (which looked even worse).

Given that a complete wrap seems to be a solution of sorts, I've added an actual line break to the template. —David Levy 22:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:David Levy[edit]

Please stop edit warring with this template. First, the link is internal as Wikia is a sister site; it is run by the WikeMedia Foundation, so there is no misleading involved. Why would the wikiasite: prefix exsist otherwise. Second, a revert should always be marked as a minor edit; please refrain from acusing my af "abusing" it. — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please read our Wikia article. Wikia is not a sister site, nor is it run by the Wikimedia Foundation (a non-profit organization). It's an independent, for-profit venture operated by Wikia, Incorporated (a separate company co-founded by Jimmy Wales).

Like various interwiki links to non-Wikimedia wikis, the "wikiasite" prefix exists in the MediaWiki software (used by many sites with no connection to Wikimedia or Wikia) as a matter of technical convenience, not as a policy-based decision by the Wikimedia Foundation.

2. No, the reversion of an intentional, good-faith edit usually shouldn't be labeled "minor." (I haven't the foggiest idea of what led you to believe that. It certainly wasn't anything on the page to which you linked.) I've already referred you to Help:Minor edit, on which it's explained that "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

No offense, but I'm taken aback by the fact that an administrator could be under the above misconceptions. —David Levy 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edokter is mistaken about the sister site thing, but I must clear up something else for you, David. These templates are all supposed to use the interwiki link format, but were temporarily switched to full links when something had broken on Wikia's servers. We just forgot to change them back. There's no real meaning behind it, nor is there any policy that says you must do one or the other. It's a purely technical thing. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - the interwiki map exists to be used, and one of its purposes is to allow us to use non-nofollow links to link to other free content resources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you're aware, Phil, the use of sister project-style boxes (albeit with a different background color) is not without controversy. As I've stated in the past, I believe that your point about promoting other free-content websites is a good one, so I'm on the fence. But when readers see links without icons in the encyclopedia proper (as opposed to talk pages, etc.), they believe that they're to Wikimedia pages. —David Levy 06:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should train them otherwise, then, as the interwiki map exists for a reason. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical concerns shouldn't outweigh our readers' ability to distinguish between sister projects and non-sister projects (which don't necessarily uphold comparable editorial standards). —David Levy 22:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the above, and it has no bearing on my edits. I also removed the "plainlinks" class from some of these templates, as there is no valid reason to exclude the external link icon.

This was discussed somewhere a while back (long before these templates were created). As was noted at the time, the existence of an interwiki prefix (and this applies to the "wikiasite" prefix as well) does not mean that such sites have any special status that sets them apart from other sites; it's merely a means of making it more convenient for people to link to them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Wikipedia uses external link icons when linking to external sites. That we possess the technical capability to avoid doing this is irrelevant. We can easily do this with any link (via the aforementioned "plainlinks" class), but that doesn't mean that we should.

On the English Wikipedia, it's widely understood that external links (those to non-Wikimedia projects) bear the icon and that those lacking the icon are internal (links to Wikimedia projects). In this case, these templates have been somewhat controversial. This is due to the concern that the linked sites might be mistaken for sister projects, so making the links appear internal is ill-advised. —David Levy 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want an icon to show that it's an EL, even if it's in the EL section of the page? Fine, but what about just adding the EL icon manually, instead of changing the link? Does anything change if that icon is there or not? No. Do I care if it's there or not? No. The m:interwiki map isn't just there for kicks, and it's actually meant to be used, and for good reason. If it makes you feel better then I'll add the EL icon manually to the templates. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. I don't care about the technical method used to display the links; I merely want to make it as clear as possible that these aren't Wikimedia sites. —David Levy 06:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shweet. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark vs Copyright[edit]

An image of the TARDIS cannot be used on this page, as the TARDIS is a copyright of the BBC. Seriously. Copyrighted and trademarked images cannot be used outside of the main article space, so I have removed the image. Cites are from the TARDIS article:

"Case details for Trade Mark 2104259". UK Patent Office. Retrieved 2007-01-17.
Knight, Mike. "IN THE MATTER OF Application No. 2104259 by The British Broadcasting Corporation to register a series of three marks in Classes 9, 16, 25 and 41 AND IN THE MATTER OF Opposition thereto under No. 48452 by The Metropolitan Police Authority" (PDF). UK Patent Office. Retrieved 2007-01-17.
"BBC wins police Tardis case". BBC News. 2002-10-23. Retrieved 2007-01-17. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

--Phirazo 05:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably US law would be the relevant one here - does anyone know the status of that one, given that it was created by a foreign government? (I'd support removal until that's clarified) Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image being used is of a blue call box model that someone built: commons:Image:TARDIS.jpg. So the copyright for the image is not an issue. Trademarks are not covered by WP:NFC. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That "someone" is the BBC - the original picture was "taken at BBC Wales reception", and a picture of 3D object is still a derivative work. Besides, there is a greater ethical obligation to respect the intellectual property of the BBC, which is well within the spirit of WP:NFC, if not the exact letter. The icon is purely decorative, and serves no real encyclopedic purpose, and the point of WP:NFCC#9 is exclude images protected by IP law that are merely decorative. This is admittedly a more murky issue than the icons for Murder, She Wrote and Andromeda (TV series) (which are screenshots), but I think erring to the side of caution is wise. --Phirazo 18:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC does not hold copyright to the TARDIS, but it does hold a trademark, which is unrelated to copyright. The BBC also cannot possibly hold copyright, as they did not design the police box. As Ned has stated, trademark is not covered by WP:NFC. — Edokter • Talk • 21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is still the intellectual property of the BBC, and being used to identify something that is not affliliated with the BBC. The ethical thing to do is not have an icon. If you need an actual copyright, that particular TARDIS was created by the BBC and is sitting in their office. The picture is a derivative work of a copyrighted prop. Taking a GFDL picture of a copyrighted object does not magically make the copyrighted object GFDL. The picture is trademarked and copyrighted, and does not belong in Template: space. --Phirazo 19:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a fair point - even if the Police Box image is not copyright, the specific prop in question is. Using Image:Earls_Court_Police_Box.jpg would probably be preferable, given that it is unquestionably fair use. I've changed it accordingly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still confuse trademark with copyright. There is no copyright on the ~~TARDIS~~ Police box. So that point is moot. Trademark only serves to identify an entity selling a product or service. Trademark infringement is the act of trying to use the trademark in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the trademark covers. Wikipedia doesn't produce radio or TV programmes or toys, and certainly does not use this image to advertise as such. In short, Wikipeida has no trading interests in the TARDIS trademakrk and therefor it is not possible to infringe on it. — Edokter • Talk • 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However the prop that is actually being photographed can be under copyright, which is the problem here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is Image:Googleplex Welcome Sign.jpg, but that does not seem to be a problem. Anyway, I'm asking advice over at WP:AN. — Edokter • Talk • 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, trademark, not copyright. — Edokter • Talk • 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a probable copyright violation under US law. I've explained why at the AN discussion. At any rate, unless I've badly misinterpreted the law (which I don't think I have), it's likely that this image is going to have to come off the Commons. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

This conversation has drifted to 4 other forums in the last 4 days

The fourth is the most recently updated, and explains Fasach Nua's edit (and Edoktor's reversion) today.

Apparently this phenomenon is called a forest fire.

I am not forum shopping, but I have carelessly allowed the conversation to drift across various pages. I wonder if we can agree to progress the discussion right here? Will it be helpful to move the relevant threads here to save people having to click about to read them?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved[edit]

Today's changes seem more in the spirit of external linking to unofficial sites of user-contributed text, like {{imdb}}. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

Due to consensus at http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:117468, the name of the wiki is now the Tardis Data Core. I have therefore been bold and changed the text of this template, as well as moved the name to {{TardisDataCore}}. Obviously, this leaves a number of instances of {{TardisIndexFile}} still in place. I dunno if WP:DW cares about that, really, but if so, a bot could clean that up in a snap. I don't have a Wikipedia-registered bot, else I'd take care of it for you in a matter of minutes. CzechOut ☎ | ✍