Template talk:Pc22

Image Link

What was the reason to disable the image link for this and related templates? I don't know if that's a good thing, but it seems to turn off the hover text too, leaving the user with no good explanation what that monitor is meant to symbolize. --Alfwyn (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2014 (GMT)

I removed the link because a link to the picture was pointless. However, I didn't realize that it removed the mouseover text. I've reverted it for this and the PS3/Xbox icons. —Proton^[talk] 00:28, 16 January 2014 (GMT)

- would that be any better? -- Kiz ^{(email - talk)} 06:38, 16 January 2014 (GMT)

That seems ideal to me! There's absolutely no utility in having a link to file page for those tiny icons so I favor anything that does away with it. -- Hargrimm^(T) 06:44, 16 January 2014 (GMT)

Changed them to that, probably not the best way to do it but it works... -- Kiz ^{(email - talk)} 07:27, 16 January 2014 (GMT)

Well, it is the wiki way that you can click on an image to get to the file page. One thing it does, is giving you the copyright info. The question is, why is there a need to turn off the link to the image file, what is gained by it? --Alfwyn (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2014 (GMT)

I can't see a particular reason to remove the link, but if people (for whatever reason) wanted it I thought it did no harm. -- Kiz ^{(email - talk)} 13:41, 16 January 2014 (GMT)

This user opines that inline images should generally contain links with the same conventions that text should contain links. If, for example, there was a compiled list of PC bugs or some such, it would be appropriate that this icon be a link to that list. For images outside the main body of text, there's better reason to have the image link to itself, but for image indicators and whatnot, clicking should link, if at all, to more information on what the indicator means. If copyright information is needed terribly for such indicators, then one can weave through the template code to get to it in that rare case. —Proton^[talk] 20:51, 16 January 2014 (GMT)

Weaving through template code is no good way to get at licensing information. Wikipedia for example tells us not to use the link parameter for non-public domain images (File:Xbox360.png for example isn't). Normally I wouldn't think it's a big deal, but it's the disabling of a useful default mechanic without any real gain that bothers me. --Alfwyn (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2014 (GMT)

I just don't see any gain from keeping the image page links intact. The only possible reason to do so is for copyright info, but the (tiny) percentage of people who would even care about that would also know enough to realize that the logos are used under Fair Use. Otherwise, all the average user will get from clicking is a big blurry image of the icon. (Plus, the copyright info on the logo file pages is mostly incorrect. I find it highly, highly doubtful that Microsoft has released the official Xbox logo under Creative Commons. Is there a source for that?) If anything, I would rather all the template logos link to a common page that briefly explains what the icons mean and why they are used. Then, that page could be footnoted with the copyright status of the logos if you wish. -- Hargrimm^(T) 22:06, 16 January 2014 (GMT)