Template talk:Copycontrol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Copy control
- discussion from User talk:La hapalo, for some reason:
Autocategorising pages with the template is usefull. But why do they all appear under * instead of the right alphabet? Is this wanted behaviour?
- Templates are not normally categorised, but the pages including a
- template can be categorised separately, as you can read at...
- Help:Template#A_category_tag_in_a_template.3B_caching_problem
- So I'll remove the category from the template and add it to the
- pages. The other questions are still open. --Easyas12c 18:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should a template be created for Category:Musical performers with copy control releases too? It could look same as the album template, but have different text.
We should discus the default place for the template. So yours or mine? The album pages should look consistent.
- I moved templates you had set to the album pages to mach layout of
- the ones set by me. I don't want to claim that I'm right and everyone
- should follow, but now they are consistent while this is discussed
- further. --Easyas12c 19:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My way the user can see, if he wants to continue reading. Your way it's more of a sidenote. I don't know which one is better. There can be even better place for the template then ours... Maybe we should have a vote at the album project?
--Easyas12c 08:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just saw that this template was added to an album article I watch. I must say, I don't like the template in the middle of the article. It breaks up the continuity of the page. Maybe it would be better to have it at the bottom of the article? Lachatdelarue (talk) 00:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- When I placed it "in the middle" first time the reasons were:
- It is after the introduction, but before details
- It can be seen immediately thus the reader has option to skip the article, if she is not interrested in the album after she finds out it's copy controlled.
- There is usually a lot of icons and boxes located on the bottom
- This should be discussed well. I don't know which location is best, but it should be same on all pages. I found it hard to find people interested in discussing this, so I'm happy to have feedback. --Easyas12c 00:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- I can't imagine that someone wouldn't want to read the rest of an album article just because the album is copy controlled. I'm sitting here trying to think of a better place to put it, or a way to make the template less intrusive-looking/sounding, and coming up with nothing... Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Specific type of copy protection?
Is this template supposed to be specifically used for the Copy control copy prevention system, or is in supposed to be used generically? A number of albums that have this template are not from EMI, which is the main company that actually labels discs in this manner, and therefore they use alternate systems such as MediaMax CD-3. —Mulad (talk) June 30, 2005 00:06 (UTC)
- We could have a general template and category and then subtemplates and subcategories for specific copy preventions. Same way as stub templates. Artists categories the same way I suppose. (currently Category:Musical performers with copy control releases) Do we want to create artist templates? --Easyas12c 30 June 2005 07:32 (UTC)
-
- I personally don't see any use for the "performers with copy control releases" category, but whatever. What would be a good generic category for the discs? Category:Copy-protected albums could work, but then all DVD-Audio releases will have to be in there or as part of a subcategory. Category:Copy-protected audio CDs might be good. —Mulad (talk) 05:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- How about something like Category:Copy-protected media and then sub categories for different copyprotected medias. --Easyas12c 07:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Image:Copy control logo.png
I removed this from the template, as its usage contravenes policy. Johnleemk | Talk 19:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- The template was reverted to a revision non-compliant with criterion nine of fair use policy. I have reverted it again. Johnleemk | Talk 13:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is silly
I can't see how proliferation of this template can possibly be in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it directly implies WP disapproves of such albums in some way. I realise it's factual information and is worth mentioning in articles, but this template (even in its current form) is too much. --Dtcdthingy 01:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- It does not read This album has been released with the evil Copy Control protection system in some regions. If you think it is bad, it is your own choice. I'd personally like more talking about copy control as the storage media for the content. So instead of saying they released their new album as compact disk and 33 ⅓ LP vinyl" you'd say they released their new album as copy control and 33 ⅓ LP vinyl". How ever some disagree with me because copy control just means that the disc is unstandard and broken, but might still play with some compact disk players. So there really is no written copy control standard. One copy control disk may break compact disk standard in a different way than another. Any way there would be the problem of nonaware masses turning the copy control mentions to compact disks or adding compact disks beside them. It would then be really hard to figure out, if the album has truly been released as a regular cd too. So this template is the best solution wikipedians have came up so far. --Easyas12c 10:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Even I, a supporter of the Copy Control system, cannot see any bias whatsoever in this template. --Mb1000 23:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
