Template talk:Non-free Microsoft screenshot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Microsoft (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Bot re-tagging[edit]

Should we have a bot retag the various Windows categories of screenshots with this template?Smallman12q (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No. We shouldn't. Each image needs to be checked by a human against all conditions given by Microsoft corporation to see if they merit this template. Bots cannot do that. Fleet Command (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Template:Non-free software screenshot[edit]

We used to have for almost every different kind of image a template. See here for an examples of all the red links. Finally in 2007 these excess templates have been deleted. Why create another template especially for Microsoft? For Wikipedia and our non-free content criteria it doesn't matter that Microsoft has allowed screenshots or not. They all fall under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. {{Non-free software screenshot}} is sufficient. Garion96 (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What happened to other template hardly seems to concern this template. They seem to have been alternative variations of describing that the content in question was protected by copyright laws. This template, however, is made in late 2009 and early 2010. It is meant to alert the user that this image can be used in a far broader context outside Wikipedia. It is made with the consensus and the approval of Administrator ESkog, Administrator Stifle and (if you count WP:SILENCE) Soumyasch.
Aside from the fact that this template informs users of the image of their broader usage rights outside Wikipedia, this template also fulfills (or aids to fulfill) the attribution necessities of Microsoft corporation. Note that this is copyright law that we are talking about. None can violate copyright one the ground that there is no Wikipedia policy about obeying copyright laws!
In any case, even if we assume that this template is not useful (which is a wrong assumption), this template is violating no Wikipedia policy. Therefore, would you please kindly disregards your personal preference and refrain from deleting this template?
Fleet Command (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I redirected it once. You reverted that and now here is the discussion. So please stop the hyperbole. Regarding your points, the other templates do concern this template. Especially since a simular template was already deleted. Template:Windows-software-screenshot. The attribution is a point, but that should be (and is) already a requirement when using the other, more general, templates. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria point 10a. So no, I still don't see any use for this template. Garion96 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No hyperbole is intended or used, my dear sir. If you doubt my word on about this template being based on consensus, I can dig out talk page archives and give you a link to those discussions.
As for Template:Windows-software-screenshot, it was a fair-use template, a repetition of current Template:Non-free software screenshot. This one however, is not. Pictures tagged with this one are authorized-use, not fair-use. This is important because misrepresentation of licensing information is against the law and I intend to mitigate this issue. This template is the first step.
In any case, I don't see you presenting a good reason for deleting this template except for your personal willingness to delete something.
Fleet Command (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this appropriate to use on..[edit]

A screenshot of IE8 on the IE8 article, showing a screenshot of Internet Explorer failing the acid 3 test? I would think not based on the documentation, however I would like another opinion. Thanks. Please use talkback if possible or place on my talkpage. Petiatil »Talk 20:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bogus authority[edit]

The wording indicates that use other than with Microsoft's blessing MAY NOT be done. This is B.S., other Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria may well apply. About to edit accordingly.--Elvey (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cropping NOT allowed, resizing is[edit]

According to this, cropping is not allowed but resizing is. I am changing this template accordingly. — PhilHibbs | talk 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Web sites[edit]

Does this template only apply to software which you install on your computer or also to Microsoft websites? Websites such as search engines are software in some way. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Disturbing, misleading "plainlinks"[edit]

These three links directly to Microsoft's policy page are misleadingly NOT arrowlinks:

Requirements for Allowed Uses
General Microsoft Trademark Guidelines

Instead, they are rendered as simple bold blue text subheadings, masking the fact that they are links which are not Wikipedia or WMF links. Lest anyone forget,

  1. Subheadings are deprecated as links to anything: wikilinks or external links, except for internal discussions where the use of subheading links is documented, or otherwise usual and expected as common practice.
  2. Arrowless links to off-Wikipedia or off-WMF sites are deprecated as misleading and are rarely used by anyone, anywhere. Wikipedia is not HTML, and is not teh Internet.
  3. Subheading arrowless links out of Wikipedia/WMF go against the principle of least surprise.

Worse, all attempts to use style tags to force arrows onto these links failed. WTF? What is the point in misleading editors as to the literal actual source of a company's legally stated policy, which we are using as the foundation of a template? Please stop it, and somebody fix this, with literal, arrow-style links. I've boldly called out the links, in lieu of proper arrows. Please remove the callouts when link arrows are rendered. --Lexein (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}} is built around {{imbox}}, which applies class="plainlinks" to its <table>. I see two possible fixes: (i) rewrite to not use {{imbox}}; (ii) amend {{imbox}} so that if it's passed a certain parameter, the plainlinks class is not applied. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I see that underline has been applied - this is a slight improvement, but can arrows be added back with a style override? --Lexein (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. We need to re-write both ambox and imbox, at least in the template code. I will get to it when I have time. But no promises for the for the next 24-hours. Anybody else is more than welcome to try. Or you can request and admin to add a switch (say |plainlinks=no) to both Ambox and Imbox. For the time being, underlines are good temporary fixes. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's now no immediate need to rewrite widely used boxes. I've worked around the issue for this template by including the usual link image External.svg, with link= embedded. The functionality is now the same. Given my track record getting minor changes made to templates (Template talk:Infobox person "Spouse(s):" debacle), I can uncomplainingly live with this workaround for the rest of my natural life. --Lexein (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Gee, the {{imbox}} template has been edited to add |plainlinks = no. That's nice. All I had to put up with is being called "stupid" in the edit summary for the MS template change. Anyways, glad to see we're all getting along so well. --Lexein (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
No, the hacks were called stupid. You were just impatient and unwilling to even try getting {{imbox}} edited to properly fix the issue. Anomie 15:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No need for FURs![edit]

Why does this demand users include a FUR (Fair Use Rationale)? If the images are used in accord with M$'s license, no FUR is needed. A FUR is only needed for use that is NOT in accord with M$' license terms. Objections to fixing this gaffe? --Elvey(tc) 04:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Category changes needed to make this work? --Elvey(tc) 04:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Elvey
I can see the typo in the template: It does indeed says "fair". But in reality, according to WP:NFCC, you need a "use rationale". I'll fix the typo.
And please keep profanities out of the discussions, will you? Especially, those that display juvenile jealousy towards certain individuals or companies.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. I see the need for the FUR now. What profanity did I use above? 'Gaffe' is not profanity. Neither is M$, but whaddya know, it's not a redlink! --Elvey(tc) 15:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be UR, actually! ;) Hehe!
"Gaffe" is not profanity; it is an ordinary word.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


As for your revert from PRL: What part of "Consensus linked to is that PRL (protocol relative links) are best." do you not understand?

I refer to the consensus indicated here, that the previous editor referred you to. --Elvey(tc) 15:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Elvey
Can I attract your attention to the little grey box hovering to the right side of the discussion to which you have linked? It reads:

There is a clear consensus to "Use HTTPS links for HTTPS only sites, protocol relative links for sites that support both HTTP and HTTPS, and HTTP links for sites that don't support HTTPS at all".

I opened http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/Permissions/default.aspx last night and I can clearly see its protocol changing to https. Its certificate is signed "Symantec Class 3 EV SSL CA - G3", serial number "3D:F7:0C:5D:99:03:F8:D8:86:8B:9B:8C:CF:20:DF:69". That counts as an "HTTPS only [sic] site", doesn't it? Therefore, the portion of the quotation that I highlighted in boldface above applies.
Am I missing something?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I picked another one to check before I made my edit and it didn't redirect. I happened to pick http://microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/trademarks/usage/default.aspx.
Oh, and when *I* visit http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/Permissions/default.aspx now and I do NOT see it changing to https. If I go to https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/Permissions/default.aspx, it's https. Confirmed the same behavior when I use wget - port 80 only or 443 only. The M$ site supports both HTTP and HTTPS. Agreed?
Yes, UR.  ;-} --Elvey(tc) 20:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I do not agree; I am at best confused.
How can one link act like a redirect to HTTPS for one person (hence HTTPS-only) and over HTTP for another? Is is possible that it does redirect to HTTPS and your address bar does not get updated? I use Firefox, by the way. Or is there a factor we don't know just yet?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
NO. Because
1) As I said: "If I go to https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/Permissions/default.aspx, it's https." And
2) As I said, "Confirmed the same behavior when I use wget - port 80 only or 443 only." TWICE - see below.
FCOL. Either I'm fabricating evidence or the M$ site supports both HTTP and HTTPS. --Elvey(tc) 23:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I said "I am confused" not "you are lying". I knew a discussion that starts with an embedded profanity (M$) leads nowhere good. In this case, it lead to FCOL. So, goodbye.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
FCOL wow, more profanity nonsense. That word does not mean what you think it means. If my comments were profane, so were yours. I'm tempted to actually use some. Instead I'll just point out that it's frustrating and DISRESPECTFUL when folks are too lazy to verify (or too bad at reading to absorb) what one writes the first time, creating a need for one to repeat oneself. Due to your false accusations, I bid you good riddance. This conversation went on WAY too long. For the record, neither of us has accused the other of lying.--Elvey(tc) 20:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

EVIDENCE ; I checked AGAIN.[edit]

$ wget https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/Permissions/default.aspx

--2015-07-27 16:13:46-- https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/Permissions/default.aspx

Resolving www.microsoft.com..., 2600:1406:34:287::2768, 2600:1406:34:280::2768

Connecting to www.microsoft.com||:443... connected.

HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK

Length: 1020 [text/html]

Saving to: 'default.aspx'

default.aspx 100%[============================================================>] 1020 --.-KB/s in 0s

2015-07-27 16:13:47 (21.1 MB/s) - 'default.aspx' saved [1020/1020]

$ wget http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/Permissions/default.aspx

--2015-07-27 16:13:53-- http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/Permissions/default.aspx

Resolving www.microsoft.com..., 2600:1406:34:287::2768, 2600:1406:34:280::2768

Connecting to www.microsoft.com||:80... connected.

HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK

Length: 1020 [text/html]

Saving to: 'default.aspx.1'

default.aspx.1 100%[============================================================>] 1020 --.-KB/s in 0s

2015-07-27 16:13:53 (38.9 MB/s) - 'default.aspx.1' saved [1020/1020]

$ crc32 default*

6c1d9980 default.aspx

6c1d9980 default.aspx.1

--Elvey(tc) 23:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)