Template talk:Wikipedia-screenshot

This needs a license category really. Is GFDL sufficient? In theory a screenshot might have a non free image in I suppose. Or should the screenshots be tagged seperately as being GFDL? Justinc 12:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reference

Is this template, and any associated screenshots, considered self-referencial? --Geopgeop 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User interface

If the user interface design is supposed to be under GPL, should this not be written under the edit box for its editors? Or the license should be corrected. I have always assumed that editing Monobook.css and Monobook.js is under GFDL. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Demoting" this template

I have made a somewhat "radical" suggestion to "demote" this template to be usable only in conjunction with an additional license template since these images often contain unfree or non-GFDL licensed material. Please join the discussion at the section on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --Sherool (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimers

Should we not remove the disclaimers? No need to add disclaimers on new files. --MGA73 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images in screenshots

Shouldn't this template mention as a caveat that aspects of the screenshot (mainly images) might be covered under other licenses, not the one mentioned in the template? I've seen lots of screenshots that include images that are not then under the same license as just the Wikipedia text... – czar 19:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]