Talk:The Computer Programme

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

Computing

	This article 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Image copyright problem with Image:Kraftwerk - Computer World excerpt.ogg

The image Image:Kraftwerk - Computer World excerpt.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested EL

When the website http://bbcmicro.com/ gets some content, I think it should be added. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover image

User:Whpq has tagged File:The Computer Book (BBC 1982).jpg for speedy deletion, with the rationale Non-free image being used for identification in a section. Image is not the subject of significant sourced critical commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8.

I have disputed this deletion rationale, with the following counter-notice on the file page:

[The assertion] that NFC used for identification in a section needs to be the subject significant sourced critical commentary of the image ... is not a requirement set out in the WP:NFCC, nor WP:NFCI #1, nor indeed anywhere on the WP:NFC page.
Examples where such cover images are used where there is not sourced critical commentary of the image are widespread across Wikipedia, including eg the cover image of the Target novelisation of pretty much every classic Doctor Who serial -- suggesting that what the nominator suggests is not the established rule.
I am therefore restoring the image to the article, as satisfying WP:NFCI #1, and will open a thread at Talk:The Computer Programme as to why inclusion of the image should be considered to add something significant to reader's understanding of the topic of the article.

In relation to NFCC #8, it's worth looking at why we have WP:NFCI #1 at all. The overwhelming view, at least according to the 2012 RfC on it is that WP:NFCI #1 is an embodiment of NFCC #8 -- we show cover images because showing how an item was presented is in itself a valuable addition to reader understanding about the topic.

(One might also add that it very helpfully assists reader identification and re-identification of the item under discussion; helps readers to recall what they may already know about the item; also that cover art is typically only quite a limited taking of the whole product, proportionally; and that to make the subject more readily identifiable was the very purpose for which it was produced. -- All of which is also why it's an essentially uncontroversial legal use).

That reasoning doesn't go away if we're talking about related media (or alternate album covers), if the article recognises those releases have significance in their own right, and therefore devotes editorial content to them: the cover is valuable because the release was significant, and this is how it was presented. So eg this discussion at WT:NFC, and eg the wording at Template:Infobox_album#Template:Extra_album_cover, which has been upheld for almost 15 years now: An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion. Also, an alternative cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion. Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc., should not be included.

It's also perhaps worth noting, looking at the WT:NFC archives, that whenever proposals have been made at WT:NFC to add a requirement for sourced critical commentary of the image for second or alternate covers, they have never been adopted.

In the case of The Computer Book, we consider it important enough in it own right that we devote a section and five references to it. We also note that it topped the UK non-fiction book lists for weeks when it appeared in 1982. In my judgment that makes it significant enough as an artefact in its own right, that it is of value for readers to know what it looked like, per WP:NFCI #1; and that seeing the image may also trigger useful recollections of it.

I think the image also adds usefully to the article in that the image shows what the book and tv producers presumably considered to be what potential buyers of the book would recognise as a particularly representative scene from the TV series -- showing Chris Serle in front of a BBC micro holding forth about how the machine might be used to hold eg a database of slides. That depiction of key elements, and overall representativeness, also represents something helpful to our readers, and adds to their understanding of the TV show.

But the fundamental case for inclusion here is that the book represents tie-in media that is of significance in its own right as part of the topic of the article, and for that reason the logic behind NFCI #1 therefore applies. Jheald (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]