Template talk:WPCD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

[edit] Why the ambiguous wording?

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)