Template talk:Vgrationale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Purpose for boxart

You should add a Purpose specifically oriented for boxart. Maybe something like "The image is being used for no purpose other than to identify the subject of the article" (copied from Image:CivIVboxshot.jpg). Also, if you could provide some example rationales for images that aren't low-res, that would be great. SharkD 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The default value for the purpose parameter (when purpose is not specified) is "To identify and illustrate the software in its own article or a related article". That should be sufficient. Also, the parameter "hires=yes" causes the template to say the image is high-resolution. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it lacks a rationale for using a high-res image in place of a low-res one. Wouldn't it be prudent to include one? SharkD (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Vgrationale doesn't seek to answer all the questions about why a person could or should use any one particular image over any other - it just seeks to simplify the process of entering a fair-use rationale for VG images. Since it has to be used with {{subst}}, you can always go back and modify the resulting text afterwards. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Non-free use rationale}} says, "Images must generally be of low resolution. The rule of thumb for raster images is no more than 300 pixels in width or height, which ensures that the image's resolution is less than 0.1 megapixels. If you are using an image of higher resolution, please explain why. If the image is 0.1 megapixels or less, just put 'Yes'." It would be useful to have some pre-made rationales (e.g., explanations) to justify the use of high resolution images. SharkD (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I see how we can really account for all the possible reasons why a high-res image is preferable over a low-res one, in any event. Box art should be of a reasonable size, so if it's not, it should be reduced. Therefore, I don't think it's the job of Vgrationale to try to explain why someone is uploading an inappropriate image. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the template only says "No: Image is high-resolution", which is not a rationale (e.g., justification) as suggested by {{Non-free use rationale}} (WP:RAT doesn't stipulate this requirement). It's misleading; users will be led to believe they've provided a rationale when they have only made a statement of fact. At the very least, the text should be replaced with something like, "Insert a rationale for using a high resolution image, here." SharkD (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The resolution of an image is not a rationale in and of itself - it is just a factual statement. The actual rationale for an image is stated in its purpose and description fields - the main FUR template only asks if the image is lo-res or not, so Vgrationale just answers that question. The resolution of an image doesn't justify its existence or use, though - any interpretation of the appropriateness of an image's resolution is beyond the scope of this template. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre rationale

I've had images removed from Turn-based strategy, citing an invalid fair use rationale for that article. Could you clarify the rationale in this regard? Thanks. SharkD 16:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Use this rationale only for specific articles on individual games, not for overview or summary articles. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "this" rationale? SharkD (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems the entire purpose of the "genre" rationale is for images used in genre articles. Anyway, since I posted the first remark the issue has been discussed at Wikiproject Video games, and they said it was OK. SharkD (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If a specific game's screenshot is being used to illustrate an example of a genre, then you could use {{vgrationale}} to provide the fair-use rationale for the use of that image in the genre article. The proper "purpose" flag would be "example" - {{subst:vgrationale|(Article Title)|(name=Game Title)|system=(system)|purpose=example|subst=subst:}}. Hope that helps. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that purpose=genre isn't in fact the appropriate flag? It seems that that is what it is intended for. SharkD (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, you're right. And I wrote that documentation, too. Silly me. :) purpose=genre = example of software in the genre. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious as to why it's OK to use images in articles about genres. SharkD (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Metal Gear Solid is a great example of a stealth game, and Pac-Man is a great example of a video game in general. Using an image of a video game in a particular genre to illustrate that genre seems perfectly fine to me, just so long as the fair-use rationale is provided for doing so. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had images removed because a user thought it was improper. Carcharoth stated it was improper in the first response in this thread. I would like to know why not not. Something a little more substantial than "it seems perfectly fine to me." E.g., if such a rationale is satisfactory, then why is a rationale template needed? Users can simply state "it seems perfectly fine to me" in the image description page and avoid all the hassle. If I get into an edit dispute with someone over this, I'd like to do a little more than simply post a bunch of links to people saying "it seems perfectly fine to me". SharkD (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the issue of fair-use rationales in the first place. Fair-use rationales have to be provided for each use of an image in the article namespace. If a particular image is being used in three different articles, it has to have three separate FURs, or else the image may be removed from the articles that it doesn't specify its rationale for. So let me see if we're on the same page: I interpreted your question as "is it appropriate to place a video-game image on a genre page?" And I said that in some cases, I think it is appropriate - again, citing Metal Gear Solid as a great example of a stealth game. My response of "it seems fine to me" was in answer to your question of whether those images could be used there. HOWEVER: My response was not an example of a fair-use rationale, and in fact we're talking about two separate issues here - the fair-use rationale would need to be something along the lines of "this image is being used to illustrate an example of this genre", NOT "it seemed fine to me".

Again, let me reiterate that this template is here to make the process of adding fair-use rationales to images easier, specifically for the video games project. When properly subst'd, though, it's no different than just writing up a complete FUR by yourself using the accepted template, and you're still responsible for knowing what the correct use of a FUR is. I hope that helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. My initial comment here seems to have been wrong. I wasn't aware that the "purpose" parameter had different options like that. I thought this was a rationale template only for images for use on articles about a specific game. The "purpose=genre" type does seem to have a limited use. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hires=no

The template could use a rationale for the third case, where an area of the image is cropped (retaining the original's resolution) instead of the entire image being resized/resampled. SharkD (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How about if I added a "portion" parameter, which would affect the Portion field in the main template? The options could be:

• portion=full: "The image is presented in its entirety"
• portion=partial: "This represents a portion of the original image"
• portion=closeup: "This is a magnified portion of the original image"

Would that help? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. SharkD (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)