Template talk:Intellectual property activism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon


This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Media (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

drop "reform"?

Following up on Talk:Creative_Commons#Intellectual_property_reform_activism.3F I suggest "reform" be dropped from the navbox title of this template. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems an eminiently sensible change and would fit in with the category naming convention we already have so I have gone ahead and changed it. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger?

User:Waldir has proposed a merger, but without adding any rationale. I have to say the two templates proposed to be merged are quite big and while their subjects overlap, they are sufficiently distinct to be separated. Ian (87.205.134.235 (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

How are they distinct? I would say that "Intellectual property activism" is a subset of the "Openness", so it makes sense to reduce the duplication. I suggest we keep both, formatting them so that this template could stand alone and but also be used inside {{Openness}}, like {{Exoplanet search projects}} and {{Exoplanet}}. --Waldir talk 12:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Intellectual_property_activism. That discussion will be closed in a week's time from now. I have posted there in order to bring this merge proposal to a closure. I have added there my personal opinion in opposition of the merge. Debresser (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

Some users have suggested (e.g. in this merger TfD) that this template be cleaned up, but no one as yet has stated the specifics. So let's have a discussion. What should be kept here, what should be removed. 178.37.150.228 (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • As a first step, the principal thing necessary is to add the subject headings from "Openness" that are not already present here:
the general: Libre knowledge knowledge commons, Information commons,
The specific: Free standards, Open standards, Open data, Patentleft, Free software definition,Definition of Free Cultural Works Open music, Free music , Gifted art, Open design, Open Source Architecture, Open-source robotics
the group under open access: Open access, Open publishing, Open education, Open educational resources , Open source curriculum , OpenCourseWare, Open textbook
the group under movements: Libre Society, Public Knowledge, Science Commons, Open Knowledge Network, Information wants to be free
possible the groups under Business: Open Communication Open business Open catalogue,
possibly the group under politics, Open society, Open-source governance, Open government,Radical transparency, Collaborative e-democracy, e-participation,

How to arrange them is secondary. whether we should divide this is secondary --we might have a separate one corresponding to the category Category:Open methodologies And whether some of these article duplicate each other is another question. I note my approach may be a little different than that of some of the people working in categories--I think that some degree of overlapping categories are inevitable, and the main purpose in categorization is to be useful to the reader.

The other thing we need is to at least list the related categories on the bottom. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with DGG's proposal. --Waldir talk 19:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)







Creative Commons License