Template talk:Stardock

Anybody else think thats a lot of red links for a link box? Anand 15:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the redlinks last June - other places they're good, but not so much on an template. GreenReaper 07:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To Brad Wardell

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? 212.199.22.55 05:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't assume Brad does everything related to Stardock. The template was added by N. Harmonik, who is not (as far as I know) an officer or employee of Stardock. GreenReaper 07:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have never added this template to anything at all. Brad/Draginol 18, May 2008 (UTC).

Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche

Per resolution of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 202#Template:Star Control, it was agreed upon by 3 editors that we are going to list Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche in this template. In addition to the DRN, listing lawsuits in company templates is actually quite common. (e.g. Template:Microsoft Template:Apple_Inc.) However, two editors who were not part of that DRN (one of whom is a brand new account) have reverted my edit ([1] [2]). Since neither am I a DRN enforcer nor was I the person proposed this change, I am going to simply document this fact here. --Voidvector (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

It was not agreed to have it as part of the Stardock template. Stardock is not Star Control. --EggsHam (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

It's also curious to me that removing this link was the first and so far only meaningful edit of KamakazeeKate. GreenReaper (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

• 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)