Template talk:Screencap

Protecting Templates

:~( -Derik 22:15, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

It had been beaten with the ugly stick, left in the ugly swamp to rot for a few years and then entered into the "Miss Ugly Message Box Template 2009", where it was of such exceeding ugliness that the judges' intestines ripped themselves from their torso and strangled the poor buggers to death, lest they be exposed to the sheer ugliness any more.

And even over and above that, it was hard to read and bore no resemblance to any other template on the wiki. Copyright templates should be clear enough to read from the other side of the room.

[And sandboxing on a live template is HORRENDOUS form.] - SanityOrMadness 22:30, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, yes that is all true... Still! -Derik 23:09, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

If I were to suggest a standard style for copyright templates, I might suggest a box akin to those on the Main Page, but with the colored strip being vertically oriented and on the left side. Said strip would only contain a single character in white text: "©" --Rosicrucian^Talk 22:38, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Are you suggesting redoing ALL the templates on the wiki in such a form? Right now, the © templates are broadly in line with {{messagebox}} and its' kin.

*notes in horror that {{messagebox}} isn't locked*

You do realise that someone (and you know who I mean) would be able to deface thousands of pages by editing it? And that they'd stand a good chance of crashing the wiki just by editing it? - SanityOrMadness 22:49, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

*Whistles.* --Rosicrucian^Talk 22:52, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Also {{!}} and {{Offsetep}}.

And I would fully-protect, not semi-protect. There's no reason for these templates to be edited willy-nilly, given the sheer number of pages they're used on - SanityOrMadness 22:59, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

There are non-sysop editors who I still count as very useful template builders.--Rosicrucian^Talk 23:03, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Such as myself.

(If you were wondering what whatsisname's antics aren't keyword-blocked... this is why. We'd much rather deal with easily-reverted toomfoolery than have that person frustrated and hunting around for other things to break.) -Derik 23:09, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Build in a sandbox, and get a sysop to move it when it's finalised and agreed though. Anything which could break the wiki shouldn't be freely editable, since malicious intent isn't required for things to go wrong. - SanityOrMadness 23:13, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

That's fine for standard templates, but complicated recursive templates don't just 'move' like that.

...wait, was that directed at me? I broke the wiki once.

Maybe twice. -Derik 23:24, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Hrm. Is there any way we can create a custom group of "Template Editors" and set the protect privileges to that? (I forget how that all works in wiki terms precisely.) Because I can see Sanity's point. --Jeysie 01:45, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

There is a way, apparently: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgNamespaceProtection --Jeysie 06:33, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Since we got derailed.

"Are you suggesting redoing ALL the templates on the wiki in such a form? Right now, the © templates are broadly in line with {{messagebox}} and its' kin."

I am at the least suggesting something visually distinct which will point out that all the copyright tags are indeed copyright tags.--Rosicrucian^Talk 23:19, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

This? -Derik 23:42, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Hmm. I can dig it. I dunno if the copyright symbol needs to repeat, though.--Rosicrucian^Talk 23:44, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

	Image Templates
<charinsert>{{hastak}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{comicinterior}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{comiccover}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{screencap}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{MarvelUScover}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{HMcover}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{MarvelG2cover}}</charinsert>

To include a file in a page, use a link in the form [[File:File.jpg]], [[File:File.png|alt text]] or [[Media:File.ogg]] for directly linking to the file.

	Image Templates
<charinsert>{{hastak}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{comicinterior}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{comiccover}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{screencap}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{MarvelUScover}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{HMcover}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{MarvelG2cover}}</charinsert>

To include a file in a page, use a link in the form [[File:File.jpg]], [[File:File.png|alt text]] or [[Media:File.ogg]] for directly linking to the file.

	Image Templates
<charinsert>{{hastak}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{comicinterior}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{comiccover}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{screencap}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{MarvelUScover}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{HMcover}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{MarvelG2cover}}</charinsert>

To include a file in a page, use a link in the form [[File:File.jpg]], [[File:File.png|alt text]] or [[Media:File.ogg]] for directly linking to the file.

-Derik 00:33, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Verra nice. Calls attention to it, but is otherwise not too godawful.--Rosicrucian^Talk 00:37, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

You were right about only one ©. Too overpowering otherwise. -Derik 01:06, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Whadyathink of that bird-dog? -Derik 01:18, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Even better. I might add an extra space after the colon so it's more visible, but otherwise fab.--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:19, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

And now, pretty much perfect.--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:31, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

That's great! I prefer the blue one, red would seem to be some kind of warning signal. --TX55^TALK 04:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Side note: If we are in fact going to edit the upload page itself, I would add the second paragraph here to that and have this be just the copyright notice. Otherwise, I think it looks spiffilicious. --Jeysie 01:37, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

The nag paragraph there was recently expanded by SanMad. It used to just say to provide the source and owner. In either case, it disappears when source and owner are properly attributed. I jiggered it to do that awhile back.--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:39, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Ah, OK. I'd just noticed it here and there on the wiki, and it looks... odd when you're coming across it during normal browsing. (I fix them sometimes, but most of the time I have no real clue where the images are from.) --Jeysie 01:45, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

I wish you could preview upload pages for code like this. Unfortunately the software doesn't seem geared for it. (Which kinda makes sense-- you're uploading a file at the same time... you only do that once, unlike page previews. It still irks ms.) -Derik 03:06, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Not sure if this will work with our version of MediaWiki, but it might be worth investigating (and BTW those copyright notice boxes you have there are excellent!) --abates 03:17, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Color-coding

For the time being, I've implemented Derik's sandbox, with the color coding being a visual way of showing you used the nice, specific version of the copyright template rather than a generic. All the generics are grey, all the series-specific ones are colored.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:11, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Been offline most of the day, and when I have been online, the wiki's been down (it's going up and down right now staying down up again for now, but I'm leaving the timestamp I wrote the post on it/not editing, so I'm going to keep this short). Problems:

1. Too little whitespace at the top between "copyright info" and the actual text. It looks wrong.
2. I would prefer not to use red or red-based colours for stuff done "right"
3. I would also prefer to have a (very light, but) non-white/grey colour for the actual background, like the blue from before.
4. I have a real problem using the AllSpark tattooes on templates about "fair use" - in what way is that required? It sets completely the wrong example.

- SanityOrMadness 23:25 UTC, 12 May 2009

Er, it's reusing a layout element our skin has in the sidebar, as well as being a prominent part of our main page. The source of it isn't even something swiped from official media. It's a fan-created pattern to mimic the cube. The colors used are easily changed. The idea here is to create a "family" of tags that are immediately recognizable as copyright info, and which share a standard form across the board. That's why Derik and I have also been fiddling with the official source tag to match, since it serves the same purpose.--Rosicrucian^Talk 20:45, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

The spacing will change-- I'm re-coding the template as something more genericised. (Which, incidentally will break this one's styles-- the template will still display... it just won't be all pretty.)

Could you elaborate on the nature of your objection to the allspark bar? Do you not like the pattern? Do you feel that it places undue emphasis on what is a non-vital element? Do you not like the "(c)" used for "fair use" ...?

(Good point about the colors) -Derik 21:04, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Primarily, I feel that - given that one of the tenets of "fair use" appears to be "use only what you must to make the point you're making" - using a "non-vital" copyrighted element or close derivative thereof IN the "we're claiming that we need to use this" template is a bit of a contradiction, shall we day.

[That's not the only one - I'm no fan of the pattern itself, since it's far too busy, and don't have it anywhere in my site skin; and I *do* think it takes attention away from the actual text of the template - but it's the biggie.] - SanityOrMadness 10:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

That a fair criticism. -Derik 11:40, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

I saw it more as giving all of our meta elements an overall unifying theme visually. In fact, once I saw the Allspark strip idea, I'm thinking it might be interesting to adapt it to all of our message boxes (though I'd put the pattern in the header or border rather than just a side strip).

Maybe we could make the strip/border thinner, but I liked the idea overall. I don't see why meta stuff has to look absolutely plain if the decoration doesn't get in the way of reading the information.

It also makes the meta boxes more noticable, and thus more likely for people to read them, which was the whole point of this exercise in the first place - that a plain box wasn't visually distinctive enough to say, "Hey, folks, this is a copyright!" --Jeysie 13:38, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

But - and here's the rub - is there no way to do that which doesn't involve a Hasbro IP? As far as I can see, there is absolutely no way we could justify the AllSpark strips as "fair use" (i.e., that we could successfully claim that there was no free-as-in-speech alternative, when of course there are. Leaving them "absolutely plain" isn't even the only way of achieving that, although it would be the simplest.)

I've been a bit uncomfortable with the amount of Hasbro stuff used for decoration rather than content for a while, and most other TF sites that I can see don't push it so far. And to use it on the frelling fair use tags feels like sticking two fingers (or the middle finger, if you prefer) up at Hasbro. Making it thinner doesn't make that better, and using it on everything makes it worse. - SanityOrMadness 19:00, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Off the top of my head, Seibertron uses the glyphs from ROTF in its new design, as well as a silhouette lineup of Autobots based on some official bit of art (that I can't remember what specifically offhand).

Plus... it's a pattern. I could understand if we were using some official image, or the whole Allspark image, or something, but it's not. Might as well complain about all fanart and fanfic, since those things are based off official designs and media, too. Using a pattern based off the Allspark is pretty much fanart. (Using the screencaps themselves would merit complaining about, but we're not.)

That being said... if you can suggest something that's completely original, yet still visually invokes Transformers... I'd just find it handy if the meta boxes matched up with the overall look of the site, and I personally don't see anything wrong with the Allspark pattern either visually or legally.

Well, any more illegal than all fanart or fanfic, both of which Hasbro has no issue with. Meanwhile, since screencaps and scans are explicitly taking actual official images and using them as-is on our wiki, those fall more strongly under needing to mark them as "fair use". Because then you get away from the realm of "derivative works" and into outright plagarism/stealing. (Is also why we don't just copy and paste tech spec bios into our intros - that would be plagarism.) --Jeysie 19:59, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

So, this is sitting here as a mess...

Anything going to happen? We seem to have stopped even talking about it. - SanityOrMadness 14:19, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Derik ought to have that base template done soon, in which case we can not only update all copyright templates simultaneously, but move debate over to that template's talkpage.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:57, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Wait, sorry, are you saying there's going to be at least THREE levels of transclusion every time a template like {{TFAcap}} is called? - SanityOrMadness 15:00, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

That seemed to be what Derik was leaning towards. A standard copyright template that all others draw off of. That actually shouldn't really be a problem.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

See, I was under the impression that there was (speaking relatively) a lot of server strain involved in meta-templates, that two levels was okay if not necessarily advisable, but three was pushing it. And we're on a server with the stability of jelly on a pogo stick as it is. - SanityOrMadness 16:57, 19 May 2009 (EDT)