Template talk:Wikipedia CD selection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why GFDL?[edit]

Why must we include GFDL images only in WPCD articles? What purpose does that serve? What is wrong with including free but non-GFDL images? Dysprosia 11:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, public domain etc. is ok but other licences like the "vanity" creative commons licences (requiring not just attribution but also publicity) are hard to interprete for a CD where no link-back is possible, and having a separate licence statement for each image is a pain in the backside. In practice non-public domain and non-GFDL images will have to get deleted before being put on a CD which leaves some articles a bit image short. All being GFDL certainly makes use of a CD a zillion times easier --BozMo talk 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Alternate licensing is not a problem. If we use the same licensing pages on Wikipedia for "sensible" licenses (so, not the "vanity" licenses that you describe), this would solve the problem -- or if this poses space concerns, alternatively the use of categories to provide proper licensing information will quite easily solve the licensing problem. It seems like restricting images used to pure GFDL would be a drastic way of solving a potentially easy problem to solve. Dysprosia 10:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you expand what you are proposing? Am interested but cannot see how. thanx--BozMo talk 13:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The most space-conscious method is to include all images from chosen CD articles that are under acceptable licenses (so, not the "vanity" licenses that you describe). Now, license tags include category tags, so to solve the license-listing, one can note that "All materials are under the GFDL, unless listed on the licensing page", and on that license page, go through each non-GFDL image category tag and obtain a listing, and provide the license text accordingly. For example, one would provide the listing of all "cc-by" images on the CD, plus the text of the "cc-by" license, then the "cc-by-sa" images, etc. etc., for each license that is used on the chosen article. This maximizes completeness and easily takes care of licensing requirements as well. Dysprosia 05:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Is the intention to deprecate public domain images in favour of GDFL ones? If not, the is there any reason not to change the template to read "if possible, stick to public domain or GFDL-compatible images". Greenshed 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Your version is better and more accurate feel free to change it --BozMo talk 22:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the ambiguous wording?[edit]

Isn't this template too ambiguous to actually be useful? Why not replace it with more specific templates, either stating "this template is a candidate for inclusion" or "this template is included", not a wishy-washy "it could be either..." statement. Is this template really even important anymore, now that we've got other templates to use for articles that actually are either candidates for the CD, or already on the CD list? And what possible value could this template have on pages like Talk:Australia, where there's already another CD template that gives more specific and relevant information? Could someone clue me in? -Silence 05:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I am afraid if you look at the CD project page you'll see at least 8 CD projects... there is even a Geography CD proposed which I guess will also flag the Australia page when they get around to it. The WPCD one a child-safe one for schools for example and is already being produced, available for download, 6500 copies downloaded and is in use in at least hundreds of schools. It will get updated in Q4 2006. The Version 1.0 project team is including "adult" articles and my money is that it will be at least a year before it is available (it has been going for 18 months longer than the WPCD one). I am working on a fix to tell if the article is a candidate or not. Certainly the category is important template is more arguable. --BozMo talk 08:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
My main problem with the template, I suppose, is its usage on pages like Talk:New York City, where it is completely redundant to another CD template. If the reason it's necessary is the category, then reproduce the category on {{0.5 nom}} and {{V0.5}} if it isn't already; if the reason it's necessary is the information it relays, then reproduce, in brief, the information! But having two or three whole templates (especially bulky talk-header ones) saying the same thing is just inefficient. -Silence 08:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is only on a talk page but I agree it looks crowded. If it upsets you and there is already a CD box, feel free to replace it with just the category instead. As I say, the WPCD ones were generally first but all sorts of people put them up now so. 0.5 and WPCD may well merge at some point anyway --BozMo talk 16:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Extra space[edit]

The use of this template causes an extra space to be added below it (e.g. Talk:Denmark). I think it would only require deleting the paragraph break before the noinclude tag to fix this issue. Could someone please fix this? Thanks. --MZMcBride 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I think that does it. Thanks, BanyanTree 04:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to WP1.0 template?[edit]

On one page I watch, an editor changed WPCD to WP1.0|WPCD=yes [1] Is this standard practice? Kingdon 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. New one on me but as the template keeps the cats its also fine by me. New time round the two will converge anyway. --BozMo talk 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The 2 templates are not (any longer) converged. {{WP1.0}} refers to the 2006 CD Selection, while {{WPCD}} refers to the 2007 Schools CD. Could someone rationalize this please? I am not clear if they are different versions of the same CD, or different projects. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ok. They are two different versions of the same CD but the templates on wiki are messy. I will try to sort them in a few days when this version is out... someone else tried to be helpful but caused some mess... --BozMo talk 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

GFDL-only unsatisfactory[edit]

I really think it is extremely unsatisfactory to take a GFDL-only approach. The whole of Wikipedia's illustration policies are designed around the maximal exploitation of all images under free licenses. To arbitrarily exclude a huge number of our free images seems rather self-defeating. If this presents slight technical issues, then so be it.--Pharos 04:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I agree. I will change it to "non fair use". The new set up includes licence pages for other licences now (pain in the backside that it was). The template predates the development of "Wikipedia's illustration policies" to the extent that they exist. --BozMo talk 06:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your work on this.--Pharos 04:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole image thing seems a bit odd, so I've removed it. Why would our use of images be different on these pages? If non-free images are in an article justifiably, so be it. The people creating the CD can filter them out. That's why we have so many fancy image tags. --- RockMFR 02:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

CD icon[edit]

Would not one of these icons be better? The scanned CD looks kind of ugly... — SheeEttin {T/C} 15:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The "2007" in the template is dated[edit]

The 2008/9 Wikipedia Selection for schools has been out since October 15, but the template still says "2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions". I propose that this be changed to say simply "Wikipedia Selection for schools". That way, we won't need to update the template once a year. Eubulides (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --BozMo talk 06:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Presumably the link should go to [[SchoolsWP:Portal:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} at Schools Wikipedia]] rather than the 2007 press announcement now although a 2008 announcement should be out next week. --BozMo talk 11:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So concretely I am proposing the below. I will go and get a second opinion. {{WPBannerMeta |PROJECT = CD Selection |PROJECT_LINK = Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection |BANNER_NAME = Template:WPCD |small={{{small|}}} |nested={{{nested|}}} |category={{{category|μ}}} |listas={{{listas|}}} |IMAGE_LEFT = CD-ROM.png |IMAGE_LEFT_SMALL = 30px |IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE = 50px |QUALITY_SCALE = |class={{{class|}}} |IMPORTANCE_SCALE = |importance={{{importance|}}} |ASSESSMENT_CAT = |ASSESSMENT_LINK = |MAIN_TEXT = '''{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}''' is included in the '''''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection|2007 Wikipedia for Schools]]''''', see [[SchoolsWP:Portal:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} at Schools Wikipedia]]. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't correct the most recent piece of vandalism whilst leaving others, and make an extra effort to include free images, because [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|non-free images]] cannot be used on the DVDs. |MAIN_CAT = Wikipedia CD Selection {{#switch:{{{area|}}} |africa=- Africa |africanaminals=- African animals |animals=- Animals |ancient=- Ancient world |people=- People |plants=- Plants |portal=- Portals |usa=- United States |airspace=- Aviation and space exploration |quakes=- earthquakes }} }}<noinclude> {{pp-template|small=yes}} {{documentation}} </noinclude> of something like that

Just got a second opinion on the mild COI [2] so now its time for being bold. I'll do it --BozMo talk 14:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor change[edit]

Could the BANNER_NAME parameter be changed from

|BANNER_NAME          = Template:WPCD

to

|BANNER_NAME          = {{{BANNER_NAME|Template:WPCD}}}<!-- used by other templates -->

so that all the other templates can pass that value through. Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

done. --BozMo talk 14:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

the "selection at schools" link is broken[edit]

{{editprotected}} the external link in the template is broken - please fix - you may want shorten it to just, http://schools-wikipedia.org Tom B (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It works at Talk:C++, it doesn't work on the template page (nor should it is my guess).--Commander Keane (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
righto yes thanks it does work when it's on an article talkpage as it goes to the article's corresponding page on WPCD but it shouldn't work on the template i don't think Tom B (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you still want a change? If so, post at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) with the exact change required, I am afraid it is probably past my ability.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)