Talk:SerenityOS

Bogus edits to the infobox screenshot

@Rlink2, you have repeatedly changed the screenshot of the project to one that is not representative of the project's default look, includes visual elements of the host operating system and advertises a tool the project does not use in the description text. I would kindly ask you to refrain from doing that and keep the other screenshots which are perfectly fine. NetworkException (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@NetworkException

I didn't find anything wrong with my image (apart from my losing 2048 game and the fact that the header of the emulator program is present), but if more than one person says it's bad, it probably needs to be replaced. When someone reverted the old image with one that I thought violated our copyvio rules, I figured an original image are better than none, so I took a screenshot for myself. It appears my life in Wikipedia photography has gotten to a rough start, I guess....

I do not mind your image being used, as long as it meets proper copyright guidelines. If you are the copyright holder, then it is OK and I won't replace it again.

representative of the project's default look Well, your new image looks more in line with what I see in the github.

includes visual elements of the host operating system Yeah, that shouldn't have been there. I was trying to figure out how to crop it. I couldn't in the screenshotter program I was using.

advertises a tool the project does not use in the description text. How am I supposed to know what they do or don't use? I don't follow the project, I read about the Ladybird browser passing the Acid3 tests and I found it interesting.

Thank you for reaching out. Rlink2 (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer @Rlink2.

I have to say after all the different images that are floating around its a bit unclear which one is being talked about.

I'm the copyright holder of the image that is currently displayed in the project readme (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SerenityOS_System_Screenshot,_2021-08-18.png). While files in the git repository are generally licensed under the BSD-2-Clause license, I explicitly stated that the file may also be used under the terms of CC-BY-4.0 (which matches the metadata on the uploaded file).

I saw that you have uploaded two images, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serenity_OS,_March_2022.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SerenityOS_image.png.

Another user @TreuKS has uploaded the version that is visible on the page right now: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SerenityOS_2022-10-22.png.

From my perspective the image shown on GitHub would be most appropriate as it represents how the community wishes their project to be seen from the outside (otherwise there would have been an effort to change it). Visually there would only be minor differences to a year ago if a user were to recreate the window arrangement.

I don't mind another image being used however. I would suggest the following criteria for such an image:

- The image shows the operating system in the default resolution of 1,024 x 768 pixels with no window decorations or other elements from a host os

- The default theme is used

- Various applications are shown on screen. Ideally this includes highlights like the browser

- No ports (third party software) is shown

- The wallpaper has not been altered NetworkException (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@NetworkException

While files in the git repository are generally licensed under the BSD-2-Clause license, I explicitly stated that the file may also be used under the terms of CC-BY-4.0 (which matches the metadata on the uploaded file). Good to know.

From my perspective the image shown on GitHub would be most appropriate as it represents how the community wishes their project to be seen from the outside (otherwise there would have been an effort to change it) Well, since you own the image uploaded, it is ok. I have no intention of making anything or anyone look "bad" on Wikipedia.

I don't mind another image being used however. I would suggest the following criteria for such an image: Like I said before, I will not be replacing your image, but if someone else feels like there is an issue, this is good advice for them.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serenity_OS,_March_2022.png was uploaded around the time of the Ladybird news. The goal was to show 3 websites using the newfangled LibWeb engine. I planned on replacing it with a better picture eventually, but had no time.

Recently @TreuKS uploaded a new image, which I believed didn't meet WP:COPYVIO. From the revert, I got the message that the March picture was not good. so instead of just replacing it with the old image, I created a new image (the 2048 one) which I had thought looked better that my old one. When someone replaced that one, I reverted again, since I didn't see their rationale in the edit summary. After that you left me a message and another IP reverted my revert. The 1st image (libweb) has been up for about 5 months, and the 2nd image (2048) has been up for about some hours over the past 2-3 days (because someone reverted shortly after). Rlink2 (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2 I see, this is quite coherent now. Is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SerenityOS_2022-10-22.png not meeting the copyright requirements still an issue? NetworkException (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@NetworkException

Well if all the information there is correct (meaning it is self taken), then it meets the copyright requirements.

I think that I might have been mistaken in my judgement, and that the picture uploaded met the requirements the whole time. If so, apologies on my part. I will try to do better next time. Rlink2 (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2 I can say with relatively high confidence that @TreuKS took that screenshot, they wanted to update the image and were intending to use my image at first but were unsure about ownership. I told them that I have no problem with them uploading it. They decided to take a screenshot themselves however and uploaded that.

Sorry for the harsh words in the beginning, from the outside this looked somewhat malicious. I hope that clears up everything and thank you again for your time and good intentions NetworkException (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@NetworkException

Everything looks good, thank you for taking the time to reach out. The Wikimedia community in general would be better off if everyone simply reached out when there was an issue.

If you have any additional questions about the article, you can edit it yourself or ask them here.

(I saw the project's creator's tweet regarding the article. Of course y'all are free to do what you feel, but I would appreciate it if another tweet could be posted clearing things up ). Rlink2 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@TreuKS 172.243.7.93 (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rlink2, sorry for the huge misunderstanding on my part, and thanks for being transparent. Sorry if my actions seemed malicious, I'm a wikipedia noob and I didn't know what to do :^)

Glad this is now resolved though TreuKS (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"Jakt" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jakt has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24 § Jakt until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)