Template talk:Copyvio plot

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to "Template:Copyvio plot", redirect left at old name as requested Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plot2 → ? — This template would benefit from a more descriptive title. {{Plot concern}} is the best I can come up with, but I welcome better suggestions, hence the move request. PC78 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title isn't very descriptive, but is this a concern of people trying to find and use the template or of people seeing the template on a page and wondering what it's for? I ask because I place this template fairly regularly and would still like to be able to use plot2 as a redirect to wherever this template ends up, so it wouldn't really help people seeing it on a talk page (unless a bot goes through to pick up after me, of course). VernoWhitney (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a general concern. The name of a template should give at least a rough indication of what it is, and "Plot2" isn't very helpful or intuitive; it isn't particuarly useful even as a redirect, though I don't object to keeping it as such. PC78 (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not the best name in the world. :) I named it for convenience in application merely. I would have preferred {{Plot}}, but, alas, it was taken. I have no objection to moving it to a more descriptive name, but the redirect is essential to me, unless somebody can come up with a very brief and memorable descriptive title. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does it matter? We have an enormous number of templates using similarly brief not too descriptive names, and they seem to work. Many perhaps most users of them I guess are regular users of them, so brevity is valued more than descriptive power, to cut down keystrokes. So there are advantages to the current widely-used but probably undocumented convention of template names being just a hint of the usage plus a number. No vote as yet. Andrewa (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a scale of 1 to 10? Clearly this isn't a matter of supreme importance, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it. Brevity for the sake of saving a few keystrokes is a rather dubious advantage. A more descriptive title would actually be easier to remember. "Plot2" says nothing about the template or its usage, and unless you're either familiar with the templates or refer to the documentation, the distinction with {{Plot}} is not at all obvious. Current trend is moving towards templates with proper names that use proper English, so this move request is merely an extension of that. PC78 (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of this current trend? Links to other discussions, for example? Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from WP:TMP: "template names are easy to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization (also see the naming conventions for articles)"; there was some discussion on the talk page last year related to this. I know Rich Farmbrough has been doing a lot of work with regards to template renaming, you can see numerous examples of this in the move logs [1]. PC78 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's not "proper English" I would have thought "Copyvio plot" would be reasonably good - and now I look at my move log and think of the station moves I have to complete... Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

{{Copyvio plot}} works for me. PC78 (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're left a working redirect, any name that seems properly descriptive is fine by me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plot template

I've undone this edit as it is policy to remove content that violates copyright. It says at the bottom of every edit screen, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." This is consistent with Wikipedia:Copyright violations, which indicates that copied content "should be removed". While certainly not a bad idea to encourage people to put copied content into their own words, I think this template does that already. Any changes to language should not discourage them from following and enforcing policy by removing copy-pasted material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio symbol

I've reverted this change pending discussion and consensus. I think the existing copyright symbol is much clearer and easier to read against the background. The thicker ring surrounding the new symbol unnecessarily muddies the image, as does the shadowing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original symbol

New symbol

Hi. I understand that you do not prefer the new symbol; but honestly, I don't understand your rationale. The thickness seems to be the same. (See included sample.) Adobe Photoshop says 6px is the width of the ring in both cases while the letter C in the original symbol is 2px thicker. As for the shadow and the emboss effect, I find it a visual improvement. Let's see what others say about it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Happy to get other opinions. Perhaps there are differences in browser display, as in your samples the black seems much more readable than the red, just as it did against the beige background. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It is a human visual system issue, not web browser's. To put it short: Personal perspective. Some people are more sensitive to high contrast whereas the attention of some is more easily attracted by the red color.

So, I'm not going to be picky. I'll call a 3O in case someone finds more to it and if it didn't happen, we'll postpone it indefinitely until something important gets changed.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this listed at 3O. I can't give a real 3O because I know and have worked with both of you, but I do have a split-the-baby suggestion: MRG, how would you feel if the shading was removed in the new symbol so it's two-tone only, just bright red and bright white without the shading inside the circle and the dropshadow? That's what makes it look a bit mirky against the background, I think, but on the other hand I like the red a little bit more than the black. If I had to make an either-or choice, I'd choose the existing black and white one, but I'd like a red and white one even more if it didn't have the shadow. I've left it listed at 3O in case someone else wants to weigh in. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the shading might be a good compromise for me. I'm most concerned about clarity, and I suspect that you're right that this would improve it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moonriddengirl

I see TransporterMan is here with yet another compromise. But I say this is one of the situations in which a compromise is most unfit. Like I said, we called 3O (which I did) to see if there is anything both of us missed (which apparently is not) and you get to keep your cute black copyright sign. That is as far as my involvement goes. If you, TransporterMan or a third party wants to seriously pursue this matter, that's a different matter entirely. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion here: I prefer the simpler, non-shadowed design of the original, but the red color of the new version, because red is an alert signal. The black color can be mistaken as a signal to indicate that the talk page is copyrighted, which is not the point of the template. Sandstein 09:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sandstein. That's a compromise I can implement even if Codename Lisa's only interest is in "hers" or "not hers". :) We've already got red without shading at File:Red copyright.svg. I'll put it in place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am contesting this new alternative via revert. If I were to rate them, the black one was almost excellent, the Commons Emblem one was excellent and this plain red one is awful. I don't have a maddening love for the red color. In fact, all along I was trying to convey (without giving the impression of an autocratic or condescending tone) that the only case with which I disagree is this particular red icon. How you interpreted it as "her or not hers" and decided that there is a consensus for this red icon, I do not know.

And if you wish to know, the reason for which I do not touch the Commons Emblem is because of its licensing terms. You may create a derivative work out of it if you wish. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original symbol

Alternative symbol

I don't have a strong opinion on red over black, but we have two people who supported a red icon above, although they agree that the shadowing is not ideal for this usage. If I misinterpreted your "That is as far as my involvement goes", I apologize. In terms of this red icon, I suppose we can see where consensus falls for it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 11:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Red is a color that should be used with care. Sold red is not everyone's favorite color. (In fact, my web design trainings tell me that it is almost no one's favorite color.) If you take note, GNOME project, KDE project and Microsoft have all replaced sold red with two or three shades of ruby red in their error dialog boxes. A couple of years ago, a similar movement took place in Wikipedia: All instance of File:Red copyright.svg (see [2]) in copyright templates were replaced with File:NotCommons-emblem-copyrighted.svg (see [3]). Now, I support this change. The former was awful; the latter is nice. My criteria is: A visually appealing icon with a formal tone and a shade of dark to midrange ruby red. The original black icon meets the first two criteria. Commons Emblem version, IMHO, meets all three. The deprecated red icon meets only the second criterion but is also a visual pain.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yo! Heads up! A version that meets all five criteria coming up. And by the way, Moonriddengirl, this file is now one of the top 100 file on Wikipedia only because it replaced the old Red copyright.svg. The consent of two or three people is not enough to bring back the deprecated version. And Codename Lisa, the licensing terms are GNU General Public License. That means pretty much you have every freedom. If you needed more permission, just call me and I'll fix it in a snap. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. :) Which version is deprecated? And it works for me, but I'll give Codename Lisa a chance to reply since I would have expected the last one would have been fine with her, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Works for me too.

But I am also confused a bit: Were the five criteria? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]