Wikipedia talk:Software screenshots/Archive 1

Comment below moved from Village pump:


 * This is a good idea. I have one problem however.  I think that a screenshot should be the whole screen.  It looks weird to see the windows skin screenshot of firefox without the windows bar (I can tell its windows still).  Plus, it doesnt give the user a feel of what the shot looks like.  Also, screenshots should be 1024x768 and taken on a system running an open source operating system if the product is an open source product. Also, I think its silly to show wikipedia on the screenshot.  The screenshot should be of the product description page, as it includes the firefox logo. I decided to upload a new firefox image to replace the old one: [[media:Firefoxtest.png]]. Perl


 * I'm not sure I agree with you about the open source issue - where a program runs most often on one system, but is also available for others, surely it's better to show the more usual one, as anything else implies bias. In cases where it's more or less evenly used on different systems, its harder to satisfy NPOV, but Windows is more commonly used in itself, and cutting the window-frames off avoids the issue. I don't see any reason to favour an open source operating system over a closed one any more than we'd favour GNOME over KDE.
 * As for resolution, I worry that a screenshot taken at 1024x768 will lose too much detail when scaled down to thumbnail size, as the majority of interface features will simply become too small to see. But that depends very much on what dimensions are used for the uploaded image and for the thumbnail.
 * Oh, and I think the reasoning behind showing Wikipedia is that it allows comparison with similar screenshots of other browsers - if the aim of the shot is to show what the program is like, it is more useful for comparable programs to be doing comparable tasks. - IMSoP 17:07, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, that makes sense, but NPOV means showing all sides of an issue even if the majority is in aggreement over the issue. NPOV would require all operating systems to be shown.  (Also, there seems to be confusion over the difference between an operating system and a window manager.)  I think that 800x600 is weird because most people use 1024x768.  Mabye its easier to see, but whatever.  You can include a windows screenshot if you want, but I bet most people won't be able to discern which window manager the current screenshot comes from. I understand and appreciate your idea that the screenshot should be of the main page for comparison, but every time the main page changes, we will have to change the screenshot for every browser article so we can compare different versions.  I think it is better to show different pages so people don't assume that they are seeing the same main page for comparison of seperate browswers, when the two shots are of different versions of the main page.  Using the product page is much better, IMHO. Perl 17:15, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I wasn't confusing window managers (or desktop environments, or whatever GNOME calls itself) with operating systems; I was merely giving an example of something where we wouldn't take a stance, in response to your suggestion that we should deliberately favour open source. Nor was I saying you'd be able to tell - it was simply an analogy, or hypothetical equivalent.
 * As for the main page changing, that's an interesting point - although I don't think the actual layout of the main page changes all that often, only the fine details of what is linked to. Also, do all browsers have an equivalent of the "product page"? - IMSoP 17:27, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * When I said there was confusion between os's and wm's I wasn't talking about you confusing them. I meant that people confuse them frequently. The main page is about to be changed : Main Page/Test, and we will probably be experimenting with the margins of tables etc for a while afterwards. Perl 17:46, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * All browsers either have a 'product page' or are not worthy of being in this encyclopedia, according to many users who believe that something must be well-known in order to be included -- if it doesn't have a webpage, it's obviously not "worthy". Nonetheless, I agree with Perl -- if possible, open source software should be depicted on an open source OS. Opera is one of the only browsers I've seen that works better on Windows, and that's only because Linux doesn't come with Times New Roman, and defaults to Sans Serif, so Opera depicts many pages (including Wikipedia) with ugly and tiny fonts. Otherwise (especially with the Mozilla browsers), they're better on Linux. cryptfiend64 22:13, May 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Any OS will be fine, as long as it is using the default theme/skin. Perhap we should show the default homepage? If no default, then show http://www.example.org, or product page as some suggested. Anyway, the screenshot should be as small as possible (as long as all/most UI elements are visible). Taking 1024&times;768 is not good when viewed as thumbnail. My recommendation is 640&times;480. And please use PNG over JPEG/GIF. --Minghong 09:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

from Mozilla Firefox: Despite prior discussions it was never mentioend that using Wikipedia Main Page for screenshot clerly conflicts with the Avoid_self-references policy. ed g2s •  talk  13:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it does not, what is meant by the avoid self-references reccomendations is that people should not write something like, some web pages, such as the one you're reading etc. However if you're going to take a screenshot with a random webpage you might just as well pick wikipedia. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:46, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Ævar. Andre ( talk ) 19:34, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * The screenshot shouldn't be of a random page, but the product page. This usually includes the product logo as well. A self-reference could be of the form "such as this encyclopaedia", so any reference to Wikipedia itself should be avoided. Also choosing Wikipedia as a "good" page to take a screenshot of is arguably not NPOV. A screenshot of the product page is NPOV and works in any context. The Wikipedia front page is also full of current affairs and so is not timeless. A product page is effectively part of that product (or at least that build), and is relevant information with respect to the article. ed g2s  •  talk  21:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the original poster: Wikipedia screensots in pages other than Wikipedia is self-reference. The way I see self-reference, a page should stand alone: there should be no sign it is a Wikipedia article rather than an Encyclopedia Britannica article. I see no difference between browser screenshots use Wikipedia as an example and using "Wikipedia" as an example of a word beginning with "W" in the W article. —Ben FrantzDale 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu Spam
I think that Ubuntizing Open Source Software screenshots is completely irrelevant to most articles. You can see in BASIC, Cygwin, AbiWord, Dialog box, ClamWin, Xara Xtreme, even MATLAB! (among many others) how Ubuntu fanboys/marketers have subtle inserted links to the Ubuntu article. You can see my previous edits for non-screenshot links, but still totally irrelevant. Wikipedia is not for promotion of any distro. Please, help to avoid this kind of content in this free encyclopedia. --190.67.62.234 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Complete article list --190.67.62.234 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know Ubuntu is only used because it is either the most popular distro, or because it is simply the distro the user taking the screenshot is running... What do you propose? Not linking to the Ubuntu article? Using Fedora screenshots? It's impossible to have "neutral screenshots", someone will always complain... "GNOME vs KDE" or "Ubuntu vs Fedora" of "Windows vs Linux".... Please explain your idea... SF007 (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against Ubuntu screenshots. The problem is the distro is irrelevant, maybe even the OS. I have found (I do not have a link right now), some good screenshots have been replaced with an Ubuntu one. It would not be a problem if it were a few articles, or more diversity of distros. But it seems it is someone's agenda to promote Ubuntu here. If it were to propose a template, I would like it to be «[Software name] screenshot». --190.67.62.234 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the screenshot were first made in Windows (thus typically containing visuals and elements of proprietary software), then it's reasonable to replace it with a free screenshot, whether it's been made in Ubuntu or any other free operating system.


 * If a screenshot image showing a program running in KDE has been replaced with exactly the same program running in Ubuntu (i.e. someone uploaded a "new version" of the same image, as in File:SeaMonkey-pl.png), then the old image should be restored either by reverting and reuploading the replacement as new, or reuploading the old image and marking it as a derivative.


 * All in all, it's IMHO not good practice to create a new screenshot and upload it as a new version of an existing image instead of uploading it as a new image in the first place.
 * -Mardus (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rework
After a brief discussion at Village pump (proposals), I've begun reworking the article according to what I had envisioned there. -Mardus (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am becoming slightly concerned that some the project article might be becoming more similar to Non-free content, whereas this project article was supposed to be more about screenshots. -Mardus (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed guideline (Infobox screenshot - operating system)
Following a recent discussion that has opened up regarding the Firefox screenshot, I'd like to propose an extension of the current guidelines regarding software screenshots. Below is my initial suggestion regarding such a possibility. The purpose of such a new section would be to provide clarification of what Operating System a screenshot of a program should be shown in. Specifically, this guideline would refer to software screenshots in the infobox. I personally believe that the OS should not be important to the screenshot, but I've gone into a little more detail in my proposal:


 * Proposed guideline (Infobox screenshot - operating system): Screenshots should depict the software in a way that is representative of the majority of operating systems. In most cases, the first upload of the screenshot should suffice, unless the software is [the software should not be] depicted in a way that is contrary to the most common aesthetic. Examples of misrepresented software include screenshots of software running in themes or layouts other than the default, such as the Windows Store App variant of cross-platform software. Should the software have different default themes on different operating systems, the theme that is used on the majority of operating systems should be used. If the software is produced by a company who also produce a compatible operating system, then the software should be shown within that operating system. Changing the depicted operating system is not a viable reason for uploading a replacement screenshot, unless the initial screenshot does not follow the above guidelines.

That's my initial proposal, and I welcome feedback, suggestions, and additions. I really think that this would help limit future arguments on the matter at hand. I'll invite the people from the Firefox discussion along, and put a message on the WP:SOFTWARE project as well. Thanks in advance! drewmunn (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I find the proposal confusing and vague. What does "first upload of the screenshot" mean?  Does it just mean whatever screenshot some editor happened to upload first?  If so, there's no guarantee that such a screenshot is going to meet the guideline, so why are you assuming off the bat that it's going to suffice? I think it's good that you've chosen to use an example, but it would be nice if you could pick one that's more familiar to readers, or add some additional ones. Most people (including myself) don't use Windows 8 or Windows Store App (whatever that is) and therefore have no idea what this is supposed to illustrate.  Finally, the proposal suddenly starts talking about applications and I don't know why.  The way it's worded it sounds like any and all applications made by the operating system publisher should be included in the screenshot.  I doubt this is what's intended. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * * tail between legs*, should use software, not application, sorry. I slip in between the two, and I shouldn't. Also, I agree that the bit about first upload should change. I put it there as a way of saying "if there's a suitable screenshot there already, leave that." It is somewhat confusing though. I shall trash it, and reword that sentence. Windows Store Apps was just what came to mind first, because of their striking difference to the rest of the world. For example, this is how Internet Explorer is displayed in desktop mode, and this is how it looks in App mode. Could you possibly think of an example that would be of a similar context (my brain is fried)? I also put it there to future-proof it a bit, because more developers may bring out App versions, and people will jump at the chance to upload the App screenshot, when every other OS shows it differently. As you said, you don't know what Windows Store Apps are, so it will be somewhat confusing for everyone like you (i.e. most of the world) when a screenshot looks completely different to the application they know. drewmunn (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This suggestion creates more problem than solving them. For the most part, it is redundant, since the current guideline on images delivers the same message (without mentioning words like "operating systems", "themes", etc.) But apart from that, its wording adds unnecessary restrictions likely to spark controversy. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lisa, would you mind voicing your opinions on what the current guidelines would state as far as changing the Firefox image? The argument is whether to change a Linux screenshot of Firefox to a Windows one. I am personally of the opinion that the Linux is just fine and change is unnecessary, but there's nothing solid that I can find that says "Leave it be". The conversation over there has gotten quite detailed regarding the choice of Operating System, and some people are of the opinion that screenshots should be taken using the most popular OS. Even is my suggestion gets cannibalised, I'd like to at least see something put into the existing guidelines about unnecessarily swapping screenshots because of OS. Thanks in advance, and thanks for your feedback. drewmunn (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. The collective of Wikipedia literature on image use can be found in Images. The part that you might be interested in is Image use policy and Manual of Style/Images, or more specifically PERTINENCE. Note that when it comes to free images, Wikipedia explicitly allow a lot of freedom of action for the editors and leaves most of the restrictions to community consensus which usually does not go beyond single-article borders.


 * Apart from that, I'd stay away from any discussion that unnecessarily tries to nitpick. There is no blocking copyright issues with a Firefox screenshots because regardless of the operating system, they are all free. Even the OS-specific tidbits that appear in the ordinary free software do not appear in Firefox. (Those tidbits also do not cause any blocking copyright issue as they usually do not pass through the threshold of originality.)


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Using non-free screenshots (that use visuals and elements of proprietary software) creates more problems, because they can't universally be used in any sister projects other than the English-language Wikipedia, and they can't be used commercially. That is why free screenshots are favoured over non-free screenshots. Also agree with user Psychonaut that this also creates confusion and vagueness. -Mardus (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. One small note here: Non-free is not the case with Firefox. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A screenshot is essentially non-free, if it contains a large amount of visuals and elements of proprietary software, non-free logos and non free websites or non-free contents thereof (where only text is free). That is why, for example, window decorations of Microsoft Windows are often cropped from screenshots in Wikimedia Commons that otherwise show free software. -Mardus (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * No clear definition of “the most common aesthetic” is provided — only examples allowing interpretation unrestrictedly in one direction only. That would encourage those who think a screenshot made on Windows, or indistinguishable from one made on Windows, is preferable.
 * The examples mention default themes (and at least some Windows default themes are clearly problematic for a free screenshot) and “the theme that is used on the majority of operating systems should be used” (Which theme is that? But maybe that’s about something specific to the program [like a synonym of “layout”], not the desktop environment or window manager?).
 * drewmunn didn’t think of freedom at all, thinking of all screenshots as being equally subject to the limitations of the non-free content policies (1, 2).
 * --AVRS (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks all for your feedback. I'll go through my thoughts bit by bit in regards to the comments above. Firstly, thanks Lisa for your clarification. Your part abou Firefox is basically the reason I felt inclined to come here originally; I don't think it's necessary to argue over the OS of a perfectly acceptable picture. Firefox is special because of its licence, compared to most other screenshots we have here anyway. However, I was also looking to cover warring over things like iTunes, and the Adobe Creative Suite, where people are all to happy to update the image to one that, for all intents and purposes, is exactly the same, just a different OS. As I said earlier, I see this increasingly as an issue when people begin replacing the screenshots with ones of very OS-specific images, such as the Windows Store App variants. How would Mardus and AVRS feel about a clause stating free is better? I know the content of the shot, especially for web browsers, is questionably non-free on occasion. AVRS, I do think of content policy, my argument on the Firefox page was against having a large number of screenshots used to illustrate one point. I do not dispute on an individual level, but when you are utilising too many non-free (unless you plan to show every variant of Linux, and not Windows or OS X) images, then there is no protection under Fair Use.


 * Also, I agree I am somewhat vague regarding the most common aesthetic. What that is meant to demonstrate is that the screenshot should show the software in its most common form; not a variant limited to a single OS when there are 3 others that show a different setup. I also agree that I've used theme to mean two separate things. First usage was "default theme", meaning the OS theme (shall clarify), and the second meaning "software specific theme", or maybe "skin" would have been better. I refer to software like Google Chrome, where users can choose a different overall theme, or members of the Adobe Creative Suite, where users can adjust the darkness of the theme. Rather than a synonym of layout, it also covers stylistic elements that users can customise, or are automatically different depending on OS. My first references, to an "OS theme", are meant to cover things like the window bar tinting, text sizes, etc.


 * Basically, this is my feeble attempt at future-proofing our current screenshot guidelines. I understand from Lisa that most of it's covered elsewhere, but having scanned (admittedly) through the information put forward, I couldn't find anything that specifically says "In the case of screenshots, use the most common looking version" or anything similar, which is what I was attempting to construct. As I said earlier, I'm keen on something getting in, but if everyone opposes, I'll leave as is. I just think that quite a lot of discussion is going into the Firefox issue, and I can see more erupting regarding similar issues (probably already has; I just don't frequent every page), especially when Windows Store App variants become more popular. As I showed in an earlier comment regarding IE, the App looks significantly different, and I know that discussions will begin as to which variant to include in other articles, so I just feel something to work from would be good. At this state, Pertinence could be played by either side of the argument, claiming the App variant demonstrates the App version, while the other variant demonstrates the more common variant. Anyway, I'm off to have breakfast, so as you were, and thank you for the feedback. I'll draft something hopefully a little more coherent and see if it makes any more sense to anyone else as to the point I'm trying to make. (Even I am getting confused as to the wording of my initial proposal). drewmunn (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * >AVRS, I do think of content policy, my argument on the Firefox page was against having a large number of screenshots used to illustrate one point. I do not dispute on an individual level, but when you are utilising too many non-free (unless you plan to show every variant of Linux, and not Windows or OS X) images, then there is no protection under Fair Use.
 * My proposal was a compromise with those who want to show Windows or OS X screenshots. Rejecting it because a Windows or OS X screenshot is non-free and redunant to a free screenshot means rejecting that non-free screenshot, not rejecting the free screenshot. And you said “I don't think we should care if it's a free or non-free image,” which should then apply only to the cases where you can prefer a non-free screenshot, which means it is not redunant (you wouldn’t delete a low-quality public domain photo from Commons because there is a high-quality one under GFDL?), and thus should not be a fair use overuse problem. --AVRS (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I used the phrase "I don't think we should care..." to illustrate the fact that I don't think we should show more prejudice to either a free or non-free image, we should just find one that fits as best as possible the purpose. If that's a non-free, then it's non-free. If it's free, all the better. However, I don't think the fact that it's free should compromise the overall quality of the depiction. The only opinion I had to make there is that I think a collage/mosaic of multiple would be considered counter-guidelines. The image currently there, in my opinion, is perfectly suitable. I only wished to ensure nothing happened to the article that would bring it, any editors, or the community as a whole, into an unnecessarily complex situation. We can discuss this more on the Firefox page if you wish; I'd like to keep this discussion less about any individual case if possible so if anything were come of my proposal, it will be suitable for a wider purpose than one web browser. I have spent quite some time thinking about this prior to the existence of the Firefox discussion, so this isn't just off the back of a single dispute. drewmunn (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the discussion, I think what we need to do is have something concise, but still open to judgement calls. I was thinking something to the effect of this:


 * The screenshot used to represent a program should reflect its most common form: it should be shown in an initial state using its default settings. In the case of multi-platform programs that have a visibly similar interface between platforms (such as LibreOffice or GIMP for example), it is preferred that the screenshot be taken under a free software operating system (such as a Linux distribution) to prevent the use of potentially non-free content (there are exceptions, though). In the case of programs that carry visibly different appearances across platforms (such as Firefox), the decision on which operating system to use can depend on consensus, but which version is the most prominent and recognizable should also be factored.


 * Regardless of platform, screenshots should usually focus on the program itself, especially if running on a non-free operating system. On Windows or OS X, the operating system depicted should also use its default theme; some Windows themes (such as Windows 8's "Metro" theme and "Windows Classic", but not the Aero Glass theme used by Windows Vista and 7) are considered too basic for copyright protection or a de minimis scenario. If the software must be depicted with a non-free image, the operating system that it uses doesn't matter, since you will be claiming fair use on the entire image.


 * On free operating systems, such as Linux, this situation becomes more complex since some distributions use custom themes that vary. In these cases, if the software is associated with a certain distribution (such as Ubuntu and the Ubuntu Software Centre), it should be shown on that operating system using its default appearance. If not, it should be shown using a distribution-neutral themesuch as Clearlooks and Adwaita for GTK+ 2.x and 3.x respectively, and Oxygen on KDE for example. This helps prevent bias towards certain distributions.


 * Basically, it says "Use the most common form and the most common operating system for the program; but prioritize on free operating systems if they are similar enough to not matter." ViperSnake151   Talk  00:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems that a rule dictating which operating system to use sometimes may conflict with the WP:NFCC policy. If an image is non-free, but it can be replaced by a free image, then per policy, you should choose the free variant. That said, a screenshot of a non-free software isn't always protected by copyright; the image is sometimes too simple for that, and in that case, the image is free to use for any purpose. For example, File:Discontinuation notice displayed on Google Reader.png is an image which is too simple to be protected by copyright. I don't know exactly how complex a software screenshot has to be to be protected by copyright, but Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. might contain something useful. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For screenshots of free software, that doesn't matter; I support the consensus that Windows Classic and Windows 8's themes are too simple for copyright (Windows 7 is a different story, my opinion is that it is too complex to be free), meaning that we should only worry about any third-party claims to the software itself. AFAIK, you cannot have a "free" screenshot of non-free software (unless it is just a generic dialog like you cited) since they the developers still have copyright claims on other interface elements (such as icons/graphics). We could say that "if the software must be depicted with a non-free image, the operating system that it uses doesn't matter, since you will be claiming fair use on the entire image." ViperSnake151   Talk  16:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Having read your ideas, I agree with them in principle. If a screenshot is already non-free, then I don't think we should prefer free OS/themes over more common ones. This is all basically just an attempt at putting common sense in writing; if an isn't in contravention of any guidelines, don't change it. drewmunn talk  20:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Though, the manual of style does say, regarding lead images, that it has to be a "natural and appropriate visual representations" that a user would expect to see. ViperSnake151   Talk  01:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Pre-release software
This has stagnated at NFC, but I'd quite like to move towards some form of inclusion. As such, what do people think of this as a proposed addition: You can see more on the development of that idea at the original discussion, along with a secondary form for use in the "we do not include" list. Support/opposition/improvements are all welcome, so fire away! drewmunn talk 17:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Screenshots of pre-release software should only be included if the build depicted has been released to the general public by the software developer, or the image itself has been published by the developer, publisher, or in a reliable source.
 * I'm okay with this if the reasoning is qualified ("Screenshots of "leaked" builds obtained through other means may not be verifiable as authentic, plus there are concerns that certain images of pre-release software may violate the requirement for previous publication in the Non-free content criteria." ViperSnake151   Talk  18:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Aero
Regarding the copyright status of Windows Aero theme, the following files were brought to my attention as including the theme and being incorrectly licensed: Just a heads up, I'm sure more exist, and they're most likely spread out across the Commons as well, which'll cause issues. Can we tag them for speedy deletion under copyright violation, or do we have to go through due process regarding rationales? drewmunn talk 13:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:AdobeAcrobat9win.png
 * File:Firefox 19 on Windows.png
 * The first image is non-free to begin with, so why even bother. Also, you can't speedy delete derivative works anymore; they have to go through the normal process. ViperSnake151   Talk  14:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I thought there was something stopping a speedy delete, just couldn't remember what. drewmunn talk 14:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Aero glass effect does not cross the threshold of originality, so no need to worry at all. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When this was discussed before, I'm sure the results were (as noted on the page) that it did pass the threshold. drewmunn talk 19:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether Aero Glass is simple enough to be below the threshold of originality is a very controversial subject on both here and Commons. ViperSnake151   Talk  19:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. The problem is the lack of authorship. Various graphic tutorials and photoshop software (including Photoshop itself) include instructions about how to create glass effect which chiefly involves a using form of gradient. So, this is pretty much public domain. The buttons, however, do not have authorship problem. They definitely pass originality test and would have been copyright-protected, has it not been for de minimis policy and rejection of sweat of the brow doctrine in U.S. and Wikimedia Commons. As a side joke, I am happy that Metro-style apps do not have the problem of chrome copyright! Haha! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor does Windows 8's new desktop theme. But yeah, I'll officially count that as no consensus. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. "Deletion discussions have gone either ways"? Do you specifically remember a deletion discussion that resulted in delete? In fact, I think an example both is required. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)