Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Screenshot-other"

Revision as of 00:47, 9 May 2015

Antagonistic

This template is antagonistic in multiple ways:

• Doesn't suggest fair use is possible, which is false.
• Doesn't indicate fair use is being claimed, which, if the work is copyrighted, must be the case.
• Suggests the image is at risk of deletion, which may not be true.

I suggest changes to this template, or replacement with a broader category of more appropriate licenses. --Quasar (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

These problems probably comes from its Wikipedia origins. The Doom Wiki being so much smaller and tighter, the boilerplate essentially saying "who knows if it really should have been uploaded?" has much less relevancy here. --Gez (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree the wording could be clearer; it could even suggest some reasoning to use (unlike Wikipedia, the number of plausible situations is limited).  I disagree that it denies the first two things, it just doesn't explicitly invoke them.  On IRC you asserted that other templates are in the same boat.  Over the weekend I should have some time, finally, to revisit this stuff if people still want to.    Ryan W (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple others with similar issues that may also be worth visiting, but this is the main offender. The problem I'm running into is that this is the closest existing category for pictures of fan games. When people select this template for them, not only are they not categorized effectively either by content or by license, but they're then given the impression they might be doing something wrong even if they aren't and know they aren't (screenshots will be fair use 99% of the time when used to illustrate the article about the fan game in question - they could even be under an open license, if the game itself happens to be). --Quasar (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Finally returning here, phew.  You did this in the meantime, which looks fine to me.  So to clean up the remainder:

• Make a similar wording change to Template:Screenshot-other.
• Rename Template:Screenshot-other → Template:Screenshot-noncomm since that's always been its actual wording, and seemingly 95% of its use.
• Change "game" to "game or related software", or whatever, in Template:Screenshot-other and Template:Screenshot-comm so they're more widely applicable.
• Tweak license selector descriptions to match, if necessary.
• For the remaining 5%, replace with one of the generic copyright category tags (I will download all the packages and check for free licenses, if they're still accessible).

Does that make sense?  Am I still getting your point?    Ryan W (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not feel renaming the template to be necessary or a good use of time; the other points are square on. --Quasar (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

All done for now.  As discussed on IRC, tagging the fair use files with "has in fact been reviewed and found non-free" may be splitting hairs, and would need further template refinements in any case.    Ryan W (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)