On 2/5/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Second, it is not necessarily descriptive at all.
Descriptive and
misplaced tags are the sort of inaccurate things you are talking
about. They make claims about the copyright status that may or may not
be true. The sorts of tags I am talking about, when written well, are
much more ambiguous. They discuss it in terms of conditions -- if
condition Y is met, then X is probably fair use.
When mistagged, they do not necessarily give incorrect information.
They point out whether or not the current image is likely to be fair
use or not. Sometimes it is not. Now the way to fix this, in my
opinion, is to change the tag to say, "This image SHOULD be X type of
media." Now, if it is wrong, it is wrong, but it is clear when it is
wrong and nobody gets in a snit.
In the interest of trying to reach consensus, I'll boil everything
down to this. "''This work is a [[copyright]]ed promotional photo
with a '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|known source]]'''" was
changed to
"This work is a [[copyright]]ed promotional photograph of a person
that is '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|known]]''' to have come from
a
media kit or similar source."
That wasn't a comment about copyright or fair use or anything of that
sort. It was a comment on *what the image was*. If people want to
add extraneous text to image tags about what may or may not qualify as
fair use under copyright law, let them waste their time. But in this
instance a sentence describing the image itself was changed in a
significant way.
Anyway, I've made an attempt to clear up the problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Promophoto&diff=3845…
Let me know if this sufficiently addresses both your objection and
mine.
Anthony