On 7/22/07, Bryan Derksen
Actually, those conditions seem pretty reasonable
and in tune with
existing policy to me. But it allows album covers, book covers, all
manner of screenshot, exactly the sorts of things that have recently
become subjects of contention. So I'm not sure where the conflict lies here.
Getting the 2-3 sentances to be about the media in question. Most
articles on albums do not talk about the album covers. Dito
bookcovers. Screenshots may be slightly better but still people tend
to include them without talking about them (for example the comment on
[[Image:Ebay-homepage.png]] appears to be 3 words).
I think you may be interpreting things a little overly literally. The
article is about eBay and the screenshot depicts what eBay "looks like"
to the user. There's no need for the article to literally say "in the
screenshot to the right, note the balanced use of color and perfectly
straight lines used on the eBay homepage" in order to actually be
discussing the subject of the image. The article on [[Jean-Luc Picard]]
has a screen capture depicting the character but the article doesn't at
any point have a section of text saying "in the screenshot at right,
note how Captain Picard is bald and has a hawkish nose. The gleam of his
scalp offsets the gleam of intelligence in his eye." The whole article
is about the guy and that's a picture showing what he looks like.
(As an aside, I picked this example at random on the assumption that
there'd be a screenshot there and when I actually visited the article to
double-check that I found that the image tagged for deletion both for
lacking a source and for lacking a fair use rationale. In both cases,
the missing information is REALLY FREAKIN' OBVIOUS. Once again a case
where it was just as easy to slap deletion tags on as it was to provide
the information that would solve the problem, and yet the deletion tags
were used. This is not optimal to say the least.)