This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
Could you please refrain from placing this template in articles dedicated to games you neither originally developed nor first published? I mean Disciples II, Earth 2150 and so on. You are a great creator of wonderful games, but being a republisher does not give you the moral right to stick your ads on every republished game's article, it is similar to placing a gigantic "Penguin Books' Line of Products" in A Farewell to Arms article! And maybe you could clarify the whole issue be introducing "Republisher" row into your template? 212.199.22.5505:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting this. There are some things that I didn't propose either but it's good to stick by the compromise. Jorahm (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was, though, despite not being the title of the dispute resolution:
Shooterwalker: "if we're going to include [the lawsuit article on {{Star Control}}], it would be WP:NPOV to add it to Template:Stardock too, and eventually their new series template when that happens."
Voidvector: "I am agreeable to adding the lawsuit link to Template:Stardock, since it provides navigational aid."
Shooterwalker: "We will still include a mention of the lawsuit at Paul Reiche III, Fred Ford (programmer), and Template:Stardock. I'm open minded about how it's presented on the Stardock template to keep it orderly and avoid any similar confusion there."
Jorahm: "I can agree to this and let me try to sum it up. [...] Add Intellectual property to Template:Stardock bedside Star Control: Origins."
Voidvector: "As for how to include the lawsuit link in Template:Stardock, I would suggest adding a row called "Related articles" and add the the lawsuit link, as well as adding the link for the only other article in Category:Stardock that's currently not linked, which is their CEO's bio page."
All three parties agreed that it was to be included. Obviously there were some question about where to put it and what to say, but Voidvector's suggestion in reply to Jorahm was not contested.
It's not clear to me that it's necessary to include it on the template (linked on many unrelated games and applications), as well as on the page about the company (where it has a whole paragraph) and the game (where it has a huge section that could probably be trimmed down) – but it was a matter of significant coverage over the course of several years, and this change was part of the resolution of an editorial dispute. There's also plenty of room; and it's of B-class quality, as good as Stardock itself (and significantly better than Star Control: Origins). On that basis, I'm restoring it to the template. GreenReaper (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that a link to the IP split was added as a multi-user consensus-compromise to settle the IP dispute. This isn’t something that should be changed by one editor. Thanks. Jorahm (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Making a minor edit to approve the current version. While not my ideal preference, there was a compromise to link to the lawsuit, and this is fairly standard for video game lawsuits / templates. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]