Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 4

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 4

Is an imaged appropiate

Where would I ask if an image like this is appropriate? My questions include, is it WP:OR, do the images included need to be properly attributed and a few other issues that you can see by looking at it. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 4

RFC related to image use

Please see Talk:Dalek#RfC:_Free-use_image_for_infobox_picture.3F. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

PD image question

Does anyone know the answer to this? Do images claimed as PD on Wikipedia have to be PD in the U.S., or is it enough that they be PD in their country of origin? I'm not talking about the Commons, which is discussed here. I'm asking only about Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Found the answer, thanks to Jappalang, which is yes, they have to be PD in the U.S., per WP:IUP#Public domain. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Suggestion of a new way for media donations

Suggestion (special wiki media donation project): a new highly efficient way for world public to donate images and video to wikipedia/wikimedia/commons etc.

• There should a link on every wiki family project page saying "DONATE AN IMAGE OR VIDEO". Anyone should be able to click on it and make/upload a media donation easily, SPECIALLY SELF CREATED WORK with the profusion of relatively cheap personal devices available now in the NEW AGE.
• In the donation form there should be all related disclosures and and Licenses that the donater can choose regarding donating a particular work.
• There should be place where Donater has to fill all related information related to media being donated like location, subject, time, basic info about self, etc. and details if from other source.
• People should be able to send copyrighted/unusable images to make suggestion of what we are missing and which we can put out on a list of required media, this list may be easily available to public view and/or ciculated.
• There should be an email address to where images/video/media can be emailed, clearly stating that the donater has read the various disclosures and licenses (on our website or our news release requesting media donations) and he is donating under which license. Once a media donation email is received to a special mail account: 1) once an email media donation is received from the donater and automatic (from wikipedia/media/commons etc.) email should go out to their address from our no-reply email address reminding them to read, in mail, provided disclousers and provide appropriate license and info for use again. Donater should be asked to email back the reply keeping the same address line explaining preference will be given to media donations which have been replied to, hence making them more usable earlier. 2) It should be available in an online archive for mining by users looking for images for articles they are working on and the public at large.
• Replied email donations with disclosures read and licences provided and direct media donations by clicking on link should be at all times available to our users and world public at large and journalists etc. There should be a warning to them to make sure BY THEMSELVES that they check (what could be our mostly unsupervised database) out if the donation has been made properly and if donater has read disclosures and provided consent and chosen the license properly. Users should be provided a basic guideline on how to make sure if the image/media is good.
• Proper donations should ask for keywords that should activate various tags for easy mining of donated database.
• The whole online media donation/uploading process should be VERY SIMPLIFIED with users asked to click/select choices with one click only from various choices after reading all. Short Disclosers should be page wise only, advancable by clicking NEXT so that all get read. Licenses should be chosen by a simple click from a choice. Media Info should be requested by filling blank by blank advancable software, including location, subject, time, DATE, donator info etc.
• This Media donation project should be centralized in commons with centralized email for donations. Project should be accessible from all wiki family projects from all their pages at all times by clicking.
• There should be a special option/Tags setting alerts for media donations regarding HAPPENING EVENTS and that should make news where world journalists/News companies can find Important or Immediate topics to pursue and other agencies like Aid agencies etc. to find places and subjects to assist. A media related to citizen reporting a historical national monument in bad shape should have the potential to trigger positive action to conserve. Potentially database mining should be able to facilitate new discoveries and affirmative action in right direction and build a tremendous world resource to record history/historical period datewise over the decades.
• Anyone mining the database should be able to setup warnings with a simple click about offending/sexually explicit/illegal images and special users with experience and extra powers should be able to either remove the image or make it invisible where in doubt.
• Should an option be provided where users of this donated media like journalists/new companies can provide citation like: Donated media from wikicommons server by ..(name of original donator).
• Donators should be able to choose their nonconflicting wiki User name, and make it a Tag, so that by clicking on name tag all images donated by the users can lineup in a online gallery for public and for donator to promote himself in other/outside professional media fields, if he chooses to provide link to this online portfolio.
• There should be a clear warning that there is no monetary compensation by wikicommons for media donation of any kind, it is a DONATION.
• Wikicommons software should be able to mine technical info of media if possible and provide the same online for researchers, sometimes it may include type of camera used, aperture, date, time of day and in the near future models, the GPS position/coordinates of where the media was made. If needed donator should be asked to give consent to publish this info.
• Public/Users should be requested to make media for donation with no recognizable faces/adertising/brand names as that may trigger having to take permission from people etc. shown in media made or fuzzing their faces/advertising/brand names etc.

Please forward to concerned persons/department for brainstorming and fine tuning.

I got the above idea while creating the article on Karvi shrub which only flowers once in eight years before dying.

Thanks

mrigthrishna (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Posted on wikimedia commons at [1]

Posted on - Talk:Proposals for new projects; From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki - at: [2]

Posted on - Wikipedia talk:Creation and usage of media files - at: [3]

Posted on wikimedia commons at Commons:Usability issues and ideas: [4]

mrigthrishna (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Building a "media donation culture" and a "world media archive" from donated media - help enlisted from volunteers to "visually document the world" for an ongoing visual world historical record.

This is in continuation of my last post, posted at the following locations: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Building a "media donation culture" and a "world media archive" from donated media - help enlisted from volunteers to "visually document the world" for an ongoing visual world historical record.

• We need to strive for creating a "media donation culture" where donating pictures and documentary videos, shot on people's personal devices is thought of as a worthwhile activity / community service and a scholarly voluntary work which goes a long way in visually documenting the world we live in, in present times. An ongoing visual historical record available free for present researchers/authors to supplement their work with and for future generations to come, to look back upon. Gradually we should hope this will catch on as modern popular culture/fad, will also empower citizens and assist them in making citizen reports. Hopefully a time will come when if someone is taking a vacation then he will remember and friends will remind them not to forget making some documentary pictures/video for donating about the places they will visit during vacation. All this can be done easily now as there is a profusion of cheaper and cheaper personal devices available now incorporating embedded Still & Video camera technology.

• This is about Campaigning and Requesting for "100 percent Media Donation" for "documenting the world" in a "copyright free world archive" to serve in the future as a world historical visual documentation. This could be an "uploading + emailing project" by itself and donated pictures/video/media can be freely usable in all wikis and similar projects or commercial publications/productions etc.. Commercial entities could be encouraged to develop an informal "best practice" where they "donate funds" to upkeep this world archive, especially if they use anything from here and if they can afford it now or in future.

• There should be a link ("Donate an Image or Video") to upload and donate media on every wiki family project page including on every page of various wikipedias in different languages and it should be centralized in one place like wiki commons in a world media archive. As and when possible over the decades viewers should be able to see/read this archive in their own language through translation software etc.

• All media donations to be uploaded/stored in "high resolution" to be more usable to future generations. Most searches in the archive should only display a decent low resolution image where the user should have the option to call for higher/highest resolution version.

• There should be a centralized Email address for media donation, and where ever it is publicized it should give all disclosures that this is in regards to 100 percent media donation.

• The above media donation link and email address should be well publicized in newspapers, magazines, and press releases and media requests; with all related disclosures that media sent will be treated as 100 percent donation and the act of uploading/emailing means that donator has read all disclosures which are provided and well publicized here and elsewhere.

• It should be preferred that media donation should be made by "original media creators" by themselves mainly as someone under normal circumstances can not donate someone else's property.

• It should be made very clear in simple straight forward language at the very beginning before uploading donated files that one is making a 100 percent media donation, "100 percent Media Donation" means there will be no copyright, no royalties, no monetary compensation or any compensation in any kind paid in return for the media donation by the wiki family or any secondary users and the world public to the original media donator/creator. One's donation can be used, reused, modified, broken up and made into anything else by anybody in the world and that too without having to give any sort of credit to the original media donator. There will be no legal requirement to give credit; and all these rules to apply world over. Though some sort of voluntary "best practice" should be encouraged to emerge where secondary users of the donated media, i.e. the world public including journalists, newspapers, magazines, books, businesses, government institutions the world over, who use donated media to supplement their work, could be encouraged to develop a popular culture of crediting the media to wiki's media donation campaign/world archive and have a reference/courtesy credit to the original donator. Voluntary citation could sound like: Wiki common's media donation server, original media donated by.... Commercial businesses/institutions who use donated media could be educated by a regular campaign that if affordable monetary donations can be made to wiki for help in maintaining wiki's media archives. This donation can be made in any country and wiki could set up a local body in major countries so that tax break forms can be given in regards to monetary donations.

Now the question remains what absolutely free but worthwhile perceived benefit could a media donator receive in regards to donated media. Can a $5 per piece ad hoc acknowledgement tax break form be sent automatically to the media donators in regards to media donations, at the time I guess not. A popular culture should be created where the biggest perceived benefit that the donator should receive is the satisfaction of having participated in historically documenting the world in a particular time. The only other major satisfaction that they could receive is that they are able to click on a tag by their name/username and their lifelong contributions are lined up in an online gallery of the donated media. This gallery they can show proudly to everyone and in many cases receive some other benefits from elsewhere or use it as a scholarly portfolio while pursuing arts and related professions. Some sort of awards be given out to media donators who have done exceptional work.

• Professionals might want to earn money from their media but after money is made they can donate what they didn't use or plan to use, that which they think is not as good etc.. Instead of deleting images/video footage they can donate.

• The whole idea is to attract the help of amateurs around the world who can now create media with the extremely cheap good quality profusion of computerized personal devices incorporating cameras/video etc. Who already earn a living doing some other work and who are not dependent on income through media making. Amateurs are casually making media and enjoying the process and the results but most of the results are enjoyed for immediate gratification only. Anywhere upto 95 percent or even more, of the media casually created usually gets deleted as it is of no perceived use to the creator in the long run over the remaining decades of their life. Any media creation takes lot of work and expenses but Casual media creation is perceived as no work and the process is enjoyed by casual media creators, it is perceived as totally free in the mind of the creator hence unfortunately majority of the casually created media is deleted, "This is the targeted media that we must campaign to save, the one that is being deleted". All over the world the common man/world public should be educated from now on that they can donate this media before deleting it from their personal devices and they could be educated how to create usable documentary media for donation. Additionally there should be links to special "Tutorials" on how to create "usable" media for donation which can be used by secondary users (researchers, authors etc.) in various ways including research on what was captured and illustrating articles etc.. Usable media should avoid brand names, advertising and recognizable faces, specially of friends and family etc.. as then it may trigger having to take permission from people shown in the media for it to be usable now. Educational courses and institutions teaching Media creating; and personal device manufactures who incorporate media making functionality in their devices could one day carry these tutorials and educate public the world over that media can be donated to remain forever in a world archive. Like we see Warnings!!! in Cigarette Packs: If you smoke cigarettes you could get cancer; similar principal may one day be used by personal device manufacturers educating the buying public in the device manual and brochures that the media you create with this device can be donated to assist in documenting the world in present times so that it remains in a world archive for present and the future generations as a worthwhile historical media artifact documenting a particular location at a particular date and time from a particular angle etc. or documenting any other subject or human or animal behavior etc. All major networking sites around the world in local languages should carry links to these tutorials and media donation links in time with the development of media donation world culture.

• A lot of seemingly repetitive media will be created around famous subjects/locations but this should not be discouraged as no 2 media/pictures are exactly the same, they are created in different time, days, weeks, decades etc. and from different angles and magnifications, subject focus etc. this continuous record will be invaluable to researchers in time centuries later and could also be packed off with future unmanned space explorers to educate aliens who may receive these capsules in the chance that they exist.

It looks like in the near future GPS will be embedded in all personal devices. And if GPS data along with date & time is mined from media donations then in the future special software could be developed that would make it possible to play-out/ lay-out the donated media in various requested sequences. For example Taj Mahal is a famous tourist site; maybe pictures are created here every second of the day. Lets say over a century later a researcher having mined GPS data available to him from pictures donated of Taj-Mahal, could request the computer software to lay out a sequence where pictures are laid out in a movie type flow encircling the Taj from 150 meters (using pictures taken at every foot in the circle identifiable by the GPS coordinates imbedded in the donated media), starting from the year 2000 and the circle completes 100 years later in the year 2100. In this requested computer output sequence, mined information from donated pictures of the Taj including time and date along with GPS coordinates available in that (as it is evident that most personal devices will soon have inbuilt GPS) would assist the computer in arranging the sequence in such a manner that the camera would travel from the front of the Taj, all the way around clockwise and come back to the front from the other side. The future computer software would make minor adjustments in magnifications for the Taj to appear the same size in all the pictures. If over time the historical site deteriorates, researchers can see how it took place over time requesting daily or weekly pictures to play-out in a movie, from a particular angel and particular distance etc.. Many more applications like this may be available with future software. In the example above about the Taj mahal, it could be seen every year, month, week, day, time of day etc. and from many different angles/magnifications etc. with the assistance of GPS coordinates. All this will be possible if data is mined from the donated media and properly electronically catalogued along with the image. And if donators are requested to fill in various detailed tags about each image that they donate through the designated upload link where they will also see various disclosures that they are indeed donating the media 100 percent and foregoing all their rights. "Emailed" donated images/media could be sent an auto-email-reply with a form to fill in creating all the various Tags that could apply to the donated picture/media and the auto-reply should contain the disclosure that the donator is indeed making 100 percent media donation and foregoing all rights.

• Should inappropriate media be censored and deleted completely by administrators? Well, I think not. The media donated with brand names visible, copyrighted material, too many friends and family visible, sexually explicit material should be temporally removed from public's view and should not be available to search in the present times. This material could be sent/dumped in an unsearchable database where it could lie for a few centuries and for a few generations to pass and after that when no one remembers who these people were the material could again be provided to public as a historical record from a previous time assisting researchers in human/historical studies and studies in human behaviors etc.. It may be noted here that even uploading unusable media requires effort and this effort may prove useful to researchers centuries later. The copyrighted material will be usable again then as copyright would have expired long time ago and in most cases the original work may have also been destroyed without a trace as most originals like books, paintings, newspapers etc. are made up of biodegradable material which perishes if it is not stored in museum like conditions.

• There should be various TAGs that should be chosen and created in respect to each donated media so that they may assist the public at a later time to pull images/media from the archive. Various appropriate Tags should be created by original media donator who should be first provided with list of short Tags he could choose from that were created by others and were eventually standardized, additionally when he starts typing, to reduce effort, other types of tags may be suggested from the ones that were created by other users elsewhere. Some standard tags could be name/user name of donator, Subject/Location, magnification/seen from what distance, angle, Date, Time, context, normal view or description of "special event captured" (Like rioter throwing stones on police, people fighting, people shopping, building on fire, reading, praying, neglect, human rights violation etc.), atmosphere tags like, sunlit, sunshine, sunset, sunrise, raining, overcast/cloudy etc.. If news-making event is captured then NEWS-making Tag should be chosen and donator should be requested for little extra notes/comments why he thinks the media has captured news worthy event and be asked to describe the event in greater detail. The news-making tags could be patrolled by actual news companies etc. and could provide them/journalists/authors potential leads as to what stories that they can pursue now or at a later date in the pipeline; additionally news making tag could provide government agencies the opportunity to take positive corrective actions and for aid agencies to find people/projects to assist. Original donators should create tags and then on a later stage when the archive is being viewed by researchers and secondary users they should be also in a position to quickly add/create some more appropriate additional tags to assist future searchers. For example someone casually shoots a picture of an unknown butterfly sitting on an unknown flower, a zoologist/botanist viewing the picture in future could add butterfly name and flower name and scientific names etc. and create tags or/and notes/comments to go with the image. Some sort of "voluntary acknowledgement tags" could be created for secondary users who actually use the image in a wiki or outside publication, they can leave a tag/info/comment if they used the particular archived image and where, could leave a citation like detail of their article/publication, where the donated media was used by them. There should be tags to rate the donated image or video so that researching public can rate donated media on quality scale and could also leave additional educational comments in case they know more about the subject captured in the media which future researchers could follow up.

Computer software should supplement the above created/chosen tags with mined embedded technical information that is available embedded in today's electronic media files, like camera used, aperture used, lens used, date and time of day; and very soon most personal media creating devises will have embedded GPS coordinates about where the media was made. All the above will help in Citizen reporting & Citizen documenting of the world in a particular, soon to be, historical time i.e. Citizen documenting of history, especially visual world history as it happens. There could be a Tutorial on how to make and use tags effectively, also showing how to view translated tags/event-description in a particular language. As an article is written or improved on a wiki or elsewhere, tags can help authors search for appropriate media/images/video etc. that can be used to supplement their work.

A Tag-search could give an output of a list of appropriate media that could by it-self be used as an online gallery; or best chosen images could be lined up in a gallery. Donators should be able to line up their lifelong media donations by clicking on the tag of their name, there should be a link here (and elsewhere too) to a "tutorial" on how to make their donated media more useful as searchable historical documents where donators could be taught how to go back in and improve each media piece already donated by them and already listed in the world archive; basically most possible improvements should relate around creating extra and much more effective tags for fairing better in searches and writing researched notes with references in the comment space under their listed archived media about what was captured in a particular picture/video donated by them, where, when and in what context etc.. (Once a media piece is donated and listed in the world archive, it should be possible to go in there and create more tags to supplements those already created for the piece, rate the piece on a quality scale, write comments about the piece in spaces provided. There should be tutorials to show how to do all this better)

• As this is about building what will undoubtedly be a world archive, the scope is world wide and immense and lot of funding will be required to build and maintain such a resource. Lot of worldwide large scale funding drives will have to be organized targeting large donors annually. United Nations could be a good platform to request help from as this project is about the world as a whole. If someone provides funding from another country then we should set up a local office in that country so that tax-break forms can be issued to the donator so that they can get an income tax-break/incentive against donated funds which is valid in their particular country.

• Huge Archive hence Limited & More Accurate Searches to Save Energy: As overtime a huge archive will come into existence it will take lot of electronic energy to make a search in the entire archive so some of the material could be deemed to be almost duplicate by volunteers and boxed together; and time periods could be boxed together etc. and when some one wants to search the archives first these boxes should show up and only if researchers want to search a particular box then only that box can be searched. In this way searches can be made more particular and electronic energy saved by making smaller/limited searches. Additionally media should be tagged properly and accurately along with research notes/comments on what was captured so that it can be located easily when needed. If required lot of un-usable or copyrighted or duplicate media could be boxed off in unsearchable boxes for the time being and could be made to surface again years, decades, centuries later when it is deemed to be usable again as copyright would have expired, persons shown are not living etc..

• Digital Archival Storage Economy: It is hoped that this huge digital archive of high resolution images and video (as donators will be requested to upload in high resolution) will need smaller and smaller digital storage space as technology advances with time and most storage when not being searched will need no or little electrical energy; and very soon most electricity will be produced with cleaner technology hence building and searching this archive will be a relatively smaller drain on energy/world resources and wont be as harmful to the environment.

• Archival Strategy: Strategically it might become necessary to have 2 or 3 copies of this world archive with only one that is connected for searches. All copies of the world archive should be located in the Free-World which is free from dictatorships and meddling by medieval religious institutions and regimes. Physical locations of all the copies of the world archives should be located in secret underground tunnels/caves away from earthquake zones where they will remain safe from bombings during future wars or/and purposely targeted sabotage. Obviously in the future when man does colonize other planets then copies could be located there in addition to the archives they will build about themselves.

Please forward this to concerned persons/departments for brain storming and fine tuning.

atulsnischal (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Also posted here in continuation of my previous post: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

atulsnischal (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Donating means giving the WM foundation the license of any media uploaded, contrary to our current upload system which allows the uploader to select the license they want.-- Dæd?lus ^Contribs 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

External Image

What is the procedure for links to external images like can be found here. Are they allowed? BigDunc 08:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Redirect file name misnomers

Question. While working the backlog of Category:Incomplete file renaming requests and subsequent Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming, there are instances where, after the file has been renamed within all usages across the Wikipedia project spaces that we are left with a previous ambiguous misnomer used only as a redirect. My question is: Do we request deletion of these ambiguous redirects or leave what will be thousands of redirects that appear to serve no credible search relevance. The one issue I can think of would be whether an image is currently being used on a website other than Wikipedia or Meta using that file name. Any thoughts or relevant links to previous instances such as this are appreciated. Thanks in advance. Calmer Waters 19:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Question on using Australian army-based images?

I found some images of the Australian army regarding the Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group. Do I post them as fair use if allowed or public domain so that they can be placed in Wikipedia commons?

It's [15] just in case someone wants to look.

A speedy reply is appreciated to those who can answer this question. Ominae (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Problems in embedding Images

Hi,

Puzzled by a weird problem. Hope someone here can help me. I am in the middle of expanding an article on Organization of the Luftwaffe. I have embedded two images with the standard format of right aligned. However I lost my Caption on both of them. For other images in that article, I don't seem to have the problem and have my captions just fine. The images with problem are in Sections,

• Levels of Luftwaffe organization
• Strategic Level

Can someone shed any light why this may happen, or how to fix it ? TIA '  Perseus 71 ^talk 17:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to add thumb. Cenarium (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That did it! '  Perseus 71 ^talk 18:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Consideration of image download size

Would it make sense to include an advisory section regarding the download memory size of images? I think it may behoove the primary editors of an image-rich article to consider the impact of multiple large image files on the download time. Slow downloads can be annoying, particularly if the reader has a low bandwidth connection.

Examples:

• Animated GIF format files should be avoided where possible, especially when a static image would serve just as well. This is because the entire animated image file needs to be downloaded, whereas static images can be sent as thumbnails. A single animated gif file can be larger (in some cases much larger) than all the thumbnail images on a page combined.
• A JPEG or other compressed image format can be much smaller than a comparable GIF format file. When there is no apparent difference in quality, the compressed image is preferable.
• Some photographic images in the Commons have been stored using PNG format. However, they could achieve better compression and comparable image quality by using the JPEG format. (The thumbnail files for PNG photographs are also less efficiently compressed than JPEG files.) The PNG format is best used for storing graphics that contain text, line art, or other images with sharp transitions.
• Rather than including an image gallery on an article, which could add significantly to the download size, consider creating a gallery on the Wikipedia Commons instead.

Editors may want to review the actual download size of images (in contrast to the full image size) by right clicking over the image and selecting "Properties". Thoughts?--RJH (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As there was no feedback, I went ahead and added a section on this topic.--RJH (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Problem with pic

The picture File:Heroesjourney.jpg is listed as being in the public domain "because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." This is completely untrue. The information is derived from the research of Mythologist Joseph Campbell. I have a book by him that has a similar diagram explaining the hero's journey that makes up the "monomyth" as first described by Campbell. What is worse is that the editor who uploaded the pic got it from the 4chan online forum, which is by no means a reliable source for information since most people post anonymously. That is just like finding a random pic online and then claiming it to be in the public domain because no one knows where it came from. The pic needs to be taken down. I do not have a wikicommons account, so hopefully someone on here can do it in my stead. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Photographer credit

I searched the archives and found nothing relating to this (or no responses). I came across an article where a photograph has a caption; at the bottom of the caption in small print is the photographer's credit. Credit is given on the file's page, but I don't see why it should be on the article page itself. I would like to remove it, but I would like to cite one or more policies or guidelines regarding this. I can't find anything though. Any ideas? -Ker?uno?copia^?_galaxies 05:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the photo by a WP editor? Maurreen (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maurreen, here's the image on the right: Antony_Gormley#References. - Ker?uno?copia^?_galaxies 07:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Some image licenses allow free use of the image but want you to display the credit (such as NASA images). Is this the case here?--RJH (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, definitely not the case. The photographer is actually a WP editor. Also, according to WP:CREDITS, "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article [because] the appropriate credit is on the image description page." So, I'll go ahead and remove it, Thanks guys! - Ker?uno?copia^?_galaxies 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

src: quod.lib.umich.edu

New subsection on offensive images

As part of the ongoing effort to rationalize the Manual of Style sprawl, Gnevin nine days ago proposed a system to improve consistency across multiple WP guideline pages. The system is based on the concept of the "core": a summary of the main principles expressed in a page, of the sort that often constitutes a page's lead paragraph. In the proposed system, a distinct paragraph-long page is created for such a core and transcluded via template into those full-length WP pages that, all too often inconsistently, reference the core's master page. This innovative system may sound complex, but I find it very elegant and I believe it is worthy of serious consideration.

We have been trialing this system with WP:Profanity; a core Gnevin created from Profanity's lede graf (Wikipedia:Profanity/core); and Wikipedia:Words to watch (itself a proposed replacement for WP:Words to avoid), where that core is now transcluded.

It occurred to me that we were not truly testing the concept unless the core was transcluded into multiple pages. It struck me that this guideline page was an appropriate location for such a transclusion (note that Gnevin's smart design allows for word substitution, so the transcluded core can focus on "words" in Words to watch, on "images" here, and on both in the Profanity master page).

I would like to know what you think of the concept and, of course, of the text of the core itself and its inclusion here.--DCGeist (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

For starters, how does one determine what is a "typical Wikipedia reader"? Human values vary from person to person and from culture to culture, so I have no idea whether a particular word or image may be considered vulgar on average.--RJH (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

These questions should be raised at WP:Profanity Gnevin (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For background on the well-established phrase "typical Wikipedia reader", please see Wikipedia talk:Profanity#Community standards?--DCGeist (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but that discussion didn't help clarify how "typical" is to be applied. I can find no concrete definition of the term in this context and the wictionary description was equally vague. Raising the matter on WP:Profanity was useless.--RJH (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Modifying copyrighted images

From my understanding, given a copyrighted image it is illegal to Photoshop it (breach of copyright) and upload the modified version but one can trace or copy exactly the image either on paper or in Illustrator and that is fine to upload. Is that correct? --Squidonius (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect - what you describe would be a copy or a derivative work and still be in violation. Dankarl (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, an image that is loosely based on another is obviously fine, I take it? is there a page where I can read when a copy stops being a copy and becomes an image based on a copyrighted image? --Squidonius (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything that spells it out. for starters, search WP:copyright questions Dankarl (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

An image "based on a copyright image" (i.e. using significant features or amount of the original) is a "derivative" image and hence still a copyright violation: you have still "copied" some copyright elements, although maybe not all of the copyright elements. See Commons:Derivative. Ty 00:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And for many cases, once you have gone far enough that it is no longer covered under "derivative" - it is at that point no longer a suitable representation able to be used in Wikipedia anyway. It is best to start fresh. Active Banana (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting comments

I am reposting what I wrote at an RfC page regarding Talk:Pope Leo XIII,

Two editors have raised issue over an image of Pope Leo's XIII coat of arms, which I happen to have illustrated. The editors opposed to the image have subsequently removed all coats of arms illustrations from the article because they feel it is self-promotional to have any artist's work presented on the page. There have been three editors supportive of the image in question, however, this is no consensus by any means (especially after the quite lengthy discussion that ensued). If editors would please review the images and comment, it would be much appreciated.

There is actually room for a large image in the article and a smaller image in an infobox. If you would like to suggest one for the article and a second for the infobox, that is also an option.

The sources provided here and here as well as a discussion at the Heraldry WikiProject have shown all three images to be heraldically accurate. So now it is merely a matter of taste and opinion.

[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Xanderliptak is the user who only yesterday accused me of forum-shopping! With Xander you always have to read between the lines. Notice, for instance, how his link to Talk:Pope Leo XIII takes you to a sub-section headed "Arbitration: break", rather than to the top of the Arbitration section where you might read the substantive arguments that History2007 and I put forward against his practice of replacing perfectly good images with his own self-drawn "creations" without consensus. Note also the Erratum section where he is still, after thirteen days, trying to convince one of his critics that he is actually a supporter and just doesn't realise it yet. Scolaire (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - None of the images being considered are photographs or direct recreations of historical artwork. All of them are accurate representations of the heraldic formula. I find that the painted/drawn version, although beautiful, is somewhat more difficult to "read" than the two digital versions. The SVG, while perhaps a little clinical, is very easy to read and will be clear and usable at all web resolutions. In particular it works better at thumbnail size than any of the alternatives. I suggest using the SVG only for it's rich information content, and separately using a picture of a historical coat if one can be found. As an aside, I must say that the way this RFC is framed doesn't make it immediately clear what the actual question is. You might get more responses if you state the question clearly and comprehensively, in a neutral manner, on this page - including the images themselves. Thparkth (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not familiar with Wikipedia protocol and procedures, so I did not know where to post or what to post. Apparently it is an ordeal to move as well. Sorry. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Images and verifiability

Watchers of this page may be interested in an RfC I posted at WT:V. Dlabtot (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

When is a description of an image original research?

The original research noticeboard has a discussion at WP:NORN#Prostitution in Pakistan on the applicability of the original research policy to the caption of an image. We're not sure what policies apply to illustrations so if you know tell us! There is a possible BLP problem but the poster wants to discuss whether other policies are applicable for some reason so the discussion is ignoring BLP for the moment. Dmcq (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Pertinence and encyclopedic nature

WP:IMAGES#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature currently says:

Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic. Their origin must be properly referenced. In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator, (e.g., in the case of reproduction of ancient artwork or artifacts) it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source, such as an URL, but the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given. Images that are not properly identified, (e.g., images with descriptions such as "a cuneiform tablet", "a medieval manuscript", etc.) are unencyclopedic and hence, not useful for Wikipedia.

Everything after the first sentence is basically wrong:

• The origin of an image does not need to be properly referenced (NB that this is different from properly documenting the copyright status). Reliable sources are not required. If you take a picture in your neighborhood, you will not be required to produce a reliable source to prove that you took the picture in your neighborhood.
• It is sometimes entirely sufficient to indicate the image's immediate source. If you find free-use images of cupcakes on Flickr, nobody really cares if you can provide details about wh, what, when, or where the picture was taken. We're all smart enough to figure out that an image of a cupcake is a cupcake.
• Images that are not "properly identified" can be encyclopedic and useful for Wikipedia. An image of an otherwise-unidentified cuneiform tablet or medieval manuscript can certainly be used, with simple, descriptive captions like "A cuneiform tablet" or "A medieval manuscript" (i.e., exactly the sort of simple caption used in a lot of infoboxes).

This text has been around for a while, so I didn't want to boldly change it, but it basically needs to be scrapped and re-done. I suspect that it was written by someone who primarily had WP:GLAM-related images in mind, and didn't think about how it relates to the majority of our images. IMO, the main points should be:

• Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic. (Meaning: Don't put a symbolic picture of a butterfly in Contentment.)
• Images must be encyclopedic, by which we largely mean "educational" in this context.
  • Information about the image's contents is good. Detailed information is better.
  • Relevant reliable sources, if any, are lovely, but not actually necessary. (Meaning: If you're taking a snapshot of the playground in your neighborhood, it is not necessary to bring a journalist with you to certify that you took the picture is in your neighborhood.)
• Wikipedia is not your webhost, and if the community really can't imagine an encyclopedic use for your image, then see also WP:Images for deletion.

Does anyone have any other points that should be addressed, or suggestions for pretty language? And should this go here, or at WP:IUP (or split between them)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Some articles really need pictures, so less demanding requirements is a good idea. In regards to a relevant reliable source, generally photos (unless photoshopped) are a correct representation (the caption may be wrong), but in the case of SVGs, the author has to use information and make the image, either from an another image (copying the concepts in it) or from a piece of text, which can be wrong. So it may pay to differentiate. --Squidonius (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. We should probably differentiate between, e.g., technical drawings and snapshots. I'm going to start by taking out what I think is actively wrong, and perhaps we'll work up an improvement later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Update

I finally got back to this. Please improve if you can, or squawk here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Butterflies illustrating contentment

I strongly agree with WhatamIdoing that images of butterflies should not be used to illustrate the concept of contentment. But how is that different from "Intangible concepts can be illustrated; for example, a cat with its claws out portrays aggression, while a roadside beggar juxtaposed with a Mercedes-Benz shows social inequality", as Image choice and placement currently reads? Many of the images illustrating mental health issues resort to all sorts of images. To me, putting a Van Gogh painting to illustrate Bipolar Disorder is not encyclopedic. Thoughts please. Span (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A cat that is being aggressive (claws out, ears back, attacking something) is a good illustration of aggression. Showing an obviously poor person next to an obviously wealthy one is also a good illustration of financial inequality: you're showing the two ends of the scale.

On the other hand, I think that Van Gogh's Starry Night at Bipolar disorder is not such a good choice. His self-portrait might be acceptable (i.e., an image of an actual person who might have had bipolar), but Starry Night is usually given as an example of the visual aura preceding classic migraine headaches. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

were do i go?

I am not sure were i should mention this but we have an editor that just wont stop uploading screen shot images which obviously are not his/her work. User talk:Coolrockstar999 wont even talk to anyone just keeps doing what he wishes. Moxy (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

flip/mirror?

This seems like the best place to ask, but please forgive me if it's not. Do we have any templates or code that will simply allow for the mirroring or horizontal flipping of an image? -- pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

place image over text?

Is there any syntax to place a transparent image over text? Leave something on my talk page. Thanks, The^FSAviator o T 02:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help me with an image?

I can't get the caption to show up in the image of Mayor Brian P. Stack in the government section of this article. Making it thumbnail size makes it WAY too big, but in making it just 150px, the caption doesn't appear. Can anyone help with that caption? Nightscream (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Image needed "thumb" to make it a thumbnail, otherwise it is a frameless image with no caption. For full options see Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. -84user (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened to this picture?

File:Aerial view of Bristol Mountain Ski Resort.jpg It looks like a negative Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Original upload was saved in CMYK colour mode - changed to RGB and uploaded. Thparkth (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What if the person on flickr changes the license?

What if an image was already put on wikipeia when the license was acceptable but then the license was changed? Would it be able to be proved one way or the other? Daniel Christensen (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC) This hasn't happened I was just wondering. I would assume license changes could only properly go one way; towards more leniency, but not back. Daniel Christensen (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't put the genie back in to the bottle. Once someone has obtained an image under a "free" license, they are entitled to keep using and redistributing the image under that license, even if the original author stops offering it on those terms. Generally the only time free licences terminate is if the licensee breaches the terms.

Take the Creative Commons Share Alike license as an example. It contains this text:

Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.

(Where "unless terminated as stated above" refers to "This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License." There is no provision for the licensor to revoke the license).

So, assuming that they actually did release the image under a free license, we're perfectly entitled to use those images even if they change their mind. The only question is, can we prove that they actually did so? That's why Commons has a bot which verifies the license status of flickr images thus providing a permanent record.

Thparkth (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting older versions

I uploaded this image months ago; however, it did not seem to be uploading correctly so I ended up with four different versions of the image. Is it possible to delete the three older versions of the image (because one shows the car's license plate number)? --Reelcheeper (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There are basically two ways you can go here. Any administrator can delete the versions of the image that show the license plate number. I'm not an administrator so I can't do it for you, but there are probably some watching this talk page so they might see your request, or alternatively you can request this at Wikipedia:Revision_deletion/Noticeboard. Even after those versions are deleted they will still be visible to administrators. If that's not private enough, you can request complete removal at Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight instead. Honestly I don't know which one is appropriate in this case, but I suspect if you requested deletion in either place, the friendly admins and oversighters would be happy to advise further. Thparkth (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the one that shows the license plate number. As Thparkth says, you may want to request oversight to remove it completely. Is there reason to delete the other two versions? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Object removal

I extensively edited File:Bi Sparrenburg pano.jpg as an experiment to remove undesirable content from an image using Texture synthesis. The results work quite well; but leaves me some questions about Wiki policy on object removal. In File:Bi Sparrenburg pano retouched.jpg I've removed tourists, rubbish, cars, a lamp post, drainage pipes, cables, and new windows; and also recoloured the image. My question is what, if any, of the objects removed would be acceptable to remove from this scene and stay within Wikipedia guidelines, and would removal of these objects improve the scene enough to warrant overwriting the original? Nigholith (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the image needs to be flagged as retouched, as you did in your filename. I would not overwrite for any major retouching or restoration. Suggest you put it up on commons and set up cross wikilinks in the "other versions" section of the description. The fact that the original was a Featured Image, even if it was some time ago, should furthre prompt caution. Dankarl (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files is a proposed guideline being worked on over at Commons, that is related to this question and it might have useful insight for editors at the English Wikipedia. -84user (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I may do that. What I meant to ask was, is this type of retouching a worthwhile and positive contribution to Wikipedia and Wikimedia? Or would removal of such objects in other pieces be undesirable? Nigholith (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly it is possible for such actions to be undesirable: One would not like to get anywhere near the level of Censorship of images in the Soviet Union. If it serves to focus the viewers attention on the most relevant parts of the image (e.g., darkening an irrelevant and cluttered background), or even just making it prettier, then I think that would normally be just fine.

I would prefer to keep the re-touched and original images separate, though, so that anyone who has a need for the original can easily find it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Image naming question

I have come across quite a lot (about 300 so far and growing rapidly) of images with meaningless or ambiguous names that need to be clarified such as File:060923-O-0000X-003.jpg. I attempted to move a couple to better titles (in this case USS Freedom after Christening) but I don't have permission. I assume this is an admin permission so where can I submit these so that an Amdin or someone with the necessary rights can move them. --Kumioko (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

For public domain or appropriately licensed images that are hosted on Wikipedia, one useful approach is to move them to Wikimedia Commons. This makes the image more widely usable and provides an opportunity to provide an informative file name; the drawback is that as far as I know you have to update the articles using the image with the new link manually (anybody know if there is a generally accessible better way?). If you do this please take care to include all of the original sourcing and descriptive information on the Commons page. If it seems clunky, redundant or incomprehensible you can include the original form as a note after rewriting the main description. Dankarl (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer your original question, per WP:Moving a page, "In non-controversial cases you can request a file to be moved by adding the template {{rename media}} to the description page of the file."Dankarl (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to if there is a generally accessible better way? you can use image redirects to avoid changing the links inside each article. I have no idea if it is acceptable but it certainly saves editing articles. For example, after moving File:060923-O-0000X-003.jpg to File:Informative name.jpg, one would replace the contents of File:060923-O-0000X-003.jpg. with "#REDIRECT [[File:Informative name.jpg]]". I saw the redirect suggestion mentioned in 2009 and again a few days ago, but I forget by who. -84user (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Its too bad that this is an administrator only function because I have about 400 now that need a better name and the Rename media category already has a 150 article back log. --Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Image Use

Inasmuch as this wikiproject directly relates to image use on wikipedia, people at it may perhaps have interest in the RfC relating to the use of images that is taking place at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Infobox_Images_for_Ethnic_Groups .--Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of images that were used for a long time

Images (and templates) that were used for a long time in Wikipedia form part of its historical record, and are needed to ensure that old versions of pages are comprehensible. Should superseeded images that have a long history of use thus be marked historical, rather than deleted? I made an edit here to try and address this, but am leaving a note here in case it needs to be discussed. Carcharoth (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have seen old revisions of articles and archived talk pages made somewhat incomprehensible when a template was deleted or re-purposed. This creates internal Wikipedia:Link rot. I never thought about images, but the same applies there too. We should keep them somehow. -84user (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

SVG nominal size

I appreciate the hard work that goes into creating SVG images for Wikipedia and the commons. I use firefox, which can view SVG images, but can't zoom them well. As a result, if the nominal size is too large or too small, the image isn't as effective as it could be. Example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Weltkarte_der_Netzspannungen_und_Netzfrequenzen.svg

I would like it if some guidelines were in place for nominal size so that casual users of Wikipedia can get the most out of these images without installing Inkscape.

Thanks. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.221.208 (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Photograph of mural

Hello.

For the first time in my 5-year history on Wikipedia, I will be adding real images to WP. I've uploaded 28 files, but they're all either copyrighted logos and TV opener screenshots, a type sample, and this old ArbCom logo proposal.

There will be three images. Two are architectural shots of schools, but the third is a picture of the mural on the side of the auditorium at Red Mountain High School, one of two images I have for that article. The name signed on the mural was "Saul Marquez", and it's only been there about a year.

I'm not sure how to proceed with this picture of a mural on brick from a license perspective (for instance, whether it can be uploaded to Commons).

Please reply to my talk page about this question. Thank you. Raymie (t o c) 04:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of image from Flickr

Can someone look at the licensing for this image, and let us know if it is compatible for use within Wikipedia? As discussed here, one editor thinks it must be included with an external link to a blog that owns the license. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking more carefully at the image guidelines, I think the problem is not that it requires attribution (the guidelines say "Creative Commons licensed images with Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike as their license may be used on Wikipedia") but that it says you may not use the work for commercial purposes (the guidelines say "Images with any license restricting commercial use or the creation of derivative works may not be used on Wikipedia"). Larrimore (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Life cycle

About this: Is copyvio now the only reason that images should be taken to FFD? That's how I read this recent change. I'm unconvinced that this is appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Arizona schools built in the past 10 years

I made this find, and it has images that would sorely enrich the Arizona high school article set, plus some school district articles:

http://www.azsfb.gov/sfb/photo%20gallery/Photo%20Gallery.pdf (from the Arizona School Facilities Board)

Would it be acceptable to crop the images from this PDF file, upload them as fair use, and credit the architect or district that sent it in? Are school districts' photos government works at all or public domain, or are they copyrighted by the district?

I couldn't use all the images. Some are unacceptably low quality, some don't show the front in a good way, and some are out of date showing construction phases. But others (for instance, the first page, Desert Edge High School) would be LOVELY to add. Raymie (t o c) 04:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Way Too Complicated

This page is way too complicated. How do I search Wikipedia's database of approved images? It's hard to find here.

How do I tell if an online image is copyrighted/licensed and in what matter. No this page doesn't help you find that information easily either.

Ridiculous.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To search for images in the English-language Wikipedia search File:searchterm. To search for images in Wikimedia Commons first go there (there's a link on the mainpage; once you've gotten there once the easy way is to set a link on your user page). There you can search for terms in the file name or description or use the category system. One approach is to use a search to find some related images and then look at their categories, etc

All modern images are copyrighted. If an image is licensed under Creative Commons, it will usually say so. Try to find the original image source (not always obvious) if you think an image might have been licensed but was copied without proper attribution. Images published in the US before 1923 are generally in the public domain as are works of the US Federal Government. Images on federal websites produced by non-federal employees are not necessarily free; when in doubt, check. For images from outside the US, the usual copyright term is author's life + 70 years, but there are exceptions either way. See documentation on Commons.

Commons in general has much better discussion of copyright than WP.

For fair-use images, see WP:Non-free content and references there. WP's fair-use policies are very restrictive, a lot narrower than required by US law.

It's a complicated subject, but with an hour or two spent reading, you can learn enough to work effectivelyDankarl (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering how wikipedians can see all of the images that they have uploaded. I'd like to request deletion for the images that I don't need/want anymore. Thanks, -GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)}

Click My contributions at the top of your screen; this opens a search screen showing your user name; leave that box as-is and enter File in the namespace box next to it and search. This should bring up all your image uploads.Dankarl (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!--GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 18:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)}

We should stop baselessly calling things copyvios

While one may know that something is WP policy violation, other than making an educated guess, nobody in Wikipedia ever really knows that an image use is a copy vio. A copy vio is use without permission for that use. This is because Wikipedia is unwilling and unable to record all of the normal type permissions for use, such as permissions for specific uses, permissions restricted to not-for-profit uses etc. The only thing that it is willing or able to record is essentially unlimited permission for unlimited use (including for-profit) by others which is a rare and tiny fraction of permissions. So, in Wikipedia, completely lacking that information, other than taking a guess, nobody has any frigin' clue as to what other permissions have been granted and thus no basis for saying that something is a copy vio. North8000 (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Synthetic images presented as existing images?

In Harold the Dauntless and The Bridal of Triermain, Balder Dead, Tristram and Iseult, Sohrab and Rustum, The Battle of Marathon: A Poem, The Divine Enchantment, Cycle of the West, Lara, A Tale, The Wanderings of Oisin, Lays_of_Ancient_Rome#Horatius, Eros and Psyche (Robert Bridges), The Lost Princess, and others, User:Star Reborn has created alleged "covers" based on crops of famous paintings, with added text. These works are not presented as "fan art" or historically significant or relevant art, but as artwork used on actual publications, which is untrue. A scan of the user's history shows many similar examples of synthetic work presented as actual. A visitor to Wikipedia will be misled into thinking that there were actual publications with these images, titles and author attribution. Which images policy applies to this? --Lexein (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yunshui observed "... looks like WP:OI may apply, though: It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. " --Lexein (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not the image but what it is represented to be. I would handle this by flagging the image caption in the article as citation needed. If the response is made that the edition is privately published, I would challenge under verifiability (not available for verification) or NOR. If the contributor actually published such an edition, perhaps as an ebook, I would insist that the citation in the article note also the original artwork, and congratulate him/her for persistence and creativity. If not actually published, the Commons entry should say "proposed cover" or some such, the image should not be presented as cover art, and the illustration should not appear in the infobox. In some cases the images may be suitable with other locations and captions, if care is taken to avoid blatant anachronisms or if it is clear the image is symbolic (for instance Tristram and Iseult).Dankarl (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I have a problem with the Commons descriptions that say "art for"; the reader needs to think a minute but is not left seriously confused. The issue of the WP caption remains, but I think in most cases it could be handled by footnoting the image caption. Battle of Marathon has another, more appropriate image, and the image for Lays of Ancient Rome is anachronistic and too recognizable, but that is not a policy issue and can be decided on the article talkpage Dankarl (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. However:

1. If they were cover art of something, one of them surely would have said what they were covers of. I'm pretty darned sure they're covers of nothing. Neither Google Image search nor Tineye turns up anything.
2. In most of the above cases, no part of the synthetic images have anything to do with the article subject, and are just pure decoration. I thought purely decorative images (undiscussed non-illustrative images having no relevance to the article subject) are not allowed in WP articles. Or infoboxes. Couldn't find the policy about this.
3. (Commons has their own restrictions against "watermarks" or "superimposed text", but that's not a WP issue).
4. If the images are captioned truthfully, as a WP editor's fanciful imaginings of cover art, they would be pure decoration. I would think they have no place in the above WP articles, because we as editors don't make stuff up.
5. I'm very curious about actual policy about this sort of situation. I know what to do about WP:OR - but this is new territory.

--Lexein (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The key distinction is saying "for" rather than "of"

Insisting on historical accuracy for a Walter Scott poem is a stretch. Actually several are relevant, at least when treated as symbols (Baldor, Tristram) and sometimes literally (Lost Princess - author image). I have not checked them all.

Purely decorative images are not allowed but illustrations that are symbolically illustrative are allowed. The question of repurposing an image (Harold the Dauntless) is not to my knowledge addressed, but conventional publishers do so.

The Commons watermark restriction is intended to prevent end-run credit claims. Word art is allowed.

WP:OI applies and if the images are properly footnoted there is no question that they are misleading. If you simply don't like them being there, take them down and state your reason on the article talk page, but as nearly as I can see the only policy issue is proper identification and attribution.Dankarl (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want another read on this, I'd try village pump.Dankarl (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point about historical accuracy - I could see using some of the images minus on-image text, plus accurately representative captions, like "Period-similar infantry, from Painting by Artiste"^ref. This would be helpful to readers. (This is pure WP:OR, of course, addressed below. --Lexein (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

I never intended "I don't like it", sorry. In your second-to-last sentence, "WP:OI applies...", did you mean improperly footnoted? I'm beginning to wonder if these images, as used, are simply not addressed in existing policy, because of the multiple issues, and even meta-issues.--Lexein (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Lexein here; the images serve no purpose except as illustration - and can be viewed as a subjective interpretation anyway. They add, unfortunately, no real value other than looking nice. They are also not of an overly high quality. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I would suggest that coupling a late 19th century painting with an early 19th century poem without any verification whatsoever that anybody else has ever done so constitutes at best original research. I've removed this image accordingly. This is clearly intended to represent a cover; it says as much in the description. I see no encyclopedic purpose in creating faux editions. :/ Indeed, I think Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes applies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed them all per WP:NOR and WP:HOAX until there is either (a) evidence that they do represent professionally published covers, or (b) some consensus that our users can make up covers for inclusion in articles. I've mentioned this issue at VP in case (b) is forthcoming. I've also added a note clarifying what they are to the Commons descriptions so that others are aware of what they are using if they choose to make use of them. It is arguably not out of scope for Commons to create cover art (although I've mentioned it to them), but it is certainly out of scope to even inadvertently imply that they are something they're not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Ancillary "doh": I hadn't noticed the late- vs early- 19th century disparity, and even went so far as to improperly suggest "period-similar" imagery above - now stricken. --Lexein (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Use case: The image for Harold the Dauntless was used at Librivox. Article history, and the Balder Dead image was used here. Librivox is not mentioned in any of the poetry articles or image pages. Librivox links were provided in EL sections in most cases, but deleted as "spam" earlier this year, breaking that use link. Does Librivox count as "publication", since they don't seem to sell CDs, but merely provide the art for folks who want to burn their own? Sorry for not noticing this earlier. --Lexein (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, it's a Wikipedia mirror. (They've copied our text, and without attribution, I note. Unless "Godsend" is "Star Reborn." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The intro text does appear to be mirrored without attribution with minor editing by "Godsend", but the main purpose of the site isn't as a WP mirror. I'd say it doesn't count as a publication because it doesn't have a "legal personality." Also, the images on LibraVox all say "LibraVox" on them, where the images here do not. I suspect that the creation of the images here, and the use of them on LibraVox were all a plot. (Everything's a plot, ultimately.) --Lexein (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The image is also used as a cover by "books should be free" - audio books [16] (clearly similar to or associate with Libravox). Having said that open library has a better image here. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

Actually quite a few of these are at at Books Should Be Free. This appears to be a serious, perhaps amateur effort, and not on its face a hoax. Dankarl (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Ok, not a hoax. In this case, do these count as "covers"? I think not: no physical manifestation, not a product, no "legal personality", no independent RS for verification, no version available on a non-WP website with specific copyright and license info. In the general case, for alleged media covers, what's the overall Commons and WP image inclusion criteria threshold? It would help to clarify this somewhere in WP:Images or elsewhere. --Lexein (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Since it looks like Commons is going to delete them all, I'm not sure that it really matters whether we'd accept them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but for the general case, then (see q above). --Lexein (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, "hoax" is not the best word, since "hoax" implies intent. I wasn't thinking of that connotation myself, and I shouldn't have used that particular word. I don't doubt that the contributor may have meant well and he may have even assumed it would be obvious that these were not real covers, but to me the first issue here is the impact: even if it was not so intended, we are handing misinformation to readers who look at these cobbled together covers and think they are from some reliably published edition. My first and primary concern is the dissemination of false information, which I think we must never do. (I might even consider it our Prime Directive. :)) But even if the images had been labeled on Wikipedia something like "We made these covers that you can use if you print out these poems", which would have eliminated my sense of urgency as it wouldn't risk people "learning" something false from us, it's still true that Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Quoting from the guideline to which I should have linked in the first place, Wikipedia "does not exist to promote new things".

As far as Commons, they have their own policies and the images are under discussion already for deletion as out of scope. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I had forgotten not for things made up one day. Thanks. These images fortunately listed their bona fides as based on Commons images. But what about the hypothetical case where these images show up, sourced from BooksShouldBeFree, or OpenLibrary, or on an increasing number of independent audiobook sites (with no reference to Commons)? We won't know if they are made up, or really from published works. --Lexein (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a disturbing thought. I don't really know much about BooksShouldBeFree or OpenLibrary. I guess my opinion would be that we shouldn't be uploading cover art without knowing that they have been used on published works and which edition. But I don't know that we need to cover it in the guideline unless it becomes a major trend. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

en-wiki vs. commons

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question but I'm wondering what to do if:

Suppose I want to upload images to en-wiki but I do not want to upload them to Commons. In other words, these are images that I've created myself and I'm fine with them being used in a "PD-kind-of-way" on the en-Wikipedia, but I do not want them used on Commons on other projects. Is there a specific license that I should use? Is this possible or is it a all or nothing kind of thing? It seems like "free-use" would not apply in this case since the justification for that involves quite different things. Any help would be appreciated. Volunteer Marek  23:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never encountered someone putting his own images up as fair use, but I think that is the only way you can get them onto WP and be sure they are not ported to Commons. There are no WP-only licenses, it would be against policy.Dankarl (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I would think they are unlikely to be accepted unless they are photos of dead people (or destroyed things) of whom we have no free photo.

Indeed I don't see what's "kind of PD" if you don't want them used on other projects. Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

If we accept them as fair use, any other Wikipedia could use them as fair use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It might help if we knew what you were trying to achieve this way. For example, are you trying to keep people from downloading and reusing them on commercial websites? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MOS

I have proposed bring this into the MOS "stable" as part of reforms as to how images are covered. Please comment there. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of Captions

What is the community's feeling towards images being made useful by the use of a caption? This question arises from the use of a picture of the Eurostar train in the lede of the article Metrication in the United Kingdom. The picture has the caption - "Two systems of measure exist side by side in the United Kingdom: Eurostar's design speed is cited both as "300 km/h"^[1] and as "186 mph".^[2]" Although the picture by itself has no relation to the article, the caption illustrates the text and in my view the picture plus caption together are appropriate for use in the lede.

Are there any comments?

Should WP:IMAGES be modified to mention the use of captions?

Martinvl (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There are concerns over the picture's relevance, and the caption as an example of OR (it has been tailored back from Martinvl's original wish to make a more specific unsupported statement about media use of metric and imperial units). Martinvl suggests that the picture and the caption together can express the issue of dual usage of metric and imperial - the expression of an intangible idea. Other editors don't see this as superior to a picture of something more tangible, such as goods labelled with both measurements. The relevance of how the media expresses train speeds has not been shown in any reliable secondary sourcing, nor has Eurostar in connection with metrication, whereas the metric or imperial labelling of goods in shops has attracted national media coverage over several years.

In any case, I don't see that this is a matter for changing policy, but of editorial consensus. (In general, captions should not be used as a means of introducing or implying new content that is not in the main text.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of individual churches in denominational articles

A discussion has arisen at Talk:Strict Baptists over whether it is appropriate to include pictures of individual churches in an article about a denomination. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) article, for example, had a picture of a church that is not mentioned in that article. I realise that pictures are not included just to make articles prettier, but church architecture often reflects denominational beliefs, traditions and values, so it makes sense that pictures of church buildings are included. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If a particular architectural style or feature is part of the story about the denomination or its beliefs or what have you, then a photo of a typical representative building of that style might be appropriate. Of course, that would need support. But there is nothing to support the idea that the particular photo being discussed at Talk:Strict_Baptists#Photos at all represents a particular Strict Baptist architectural style or the like. Nor is there any reason to believe there is such a style (I strongly doubt there is). I suggest we keep the discussion at Talk:Strict_Baptists#Photos (and will paste a version of this comment there). Novaseminary (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I think it would be helpful to discuss the general issue here. I added a reference to Free Church of Scotland (since 1900) saying that the denomination is known as "the church without the steeple" - but I think the pictures in that article were justified regardless. StAnselm (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Before you go inserting photos of church buildings everywhere, would you at least state what standard you think we should use to determine if a photo of a particular church belongs? I am not categorically opposed and tried to outline a standard above. But it seems you think any photo is ok. What do you propose? Novaseminary (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to "go inserting photos of church buildings everywhere" because most denominational articles seem to have them. That's an argument for keeping them, as well as a reason for having a centralised discussion. Some of those I added myself - e.g. this edit earlier this year and this edit 18 months ago. But of course many other such articles have pictures of churches, and have had so for much longer. So you are arguing against a long-standing Wikipedia precedent. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+I'm not sure "most" have them. Regardless, you still have not even suggested a standard. It might be appropriate on some denominations' articles, but not others (and some particular buildings might not be appropriate on an article about a denominatoon for which a different more representative photo might be appropriate). So, discuss... How do you think this policy should be applied? Novaseminary (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Novaseminary is correct that an explicit claim that this particular building is representative of typical buildings for its type, owner, etc., would require support. The required level of support, just to be clear, is merely that some reliable source, somewhere in the world, must have published that claim; no source need actually be named in the article. (The rule is that we require such claims to be "verifiable", not "already verified".)

On the other hand, merely identifying Building X as being associated with Organization X really requires no such source. If you are writing about (for example) Church X, you can put in an image of any Church X building that you want. In fact, you can put in an image that looks like any Church X building, even if the building isn't (or isn't any longer) actually associated with Church X (e.g., the same architectural plans were used repeatedly, so the town has several identical-looking buildings).

It is perfectly typical and acceptable for any article about an organization or type of organization to include images like this. Since we can't include an image of every single building associated with this church organization, we use basic editorial judgment to pick one or more. There is no requirement that you include images only of WP:Notable Church X buildings. (In fact, because we merge non-notable groups to parent articles, it is often best to include some images of buildings that we don't have separate articles about.) There is also no requirement that you pick images of buildings that are representative. (Sometimes picking the weird one is best for the article.) If you freely choose to pick images that are reasonably representative, then there is no requirement that you produce sources to prove that your choice is representative. You're not only allowed, but actually expected, to WP:Use common sense here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not suggesting that the image need not meet the pertinence reaquirement of this policy, are you? "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic". This coupled with WP:UNDUE's requirement to "not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" tells me any photo of a building should not be chosen for an article about an organization or group of people simply because the building is where one of thousands of affliated congregations meet or met. We wouldn't include a photo of any building in London in the London article simply because it is in London and for no other reason. Novaseminary (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay in responding.

I'm telling you that any picture of any church building belonging to/being used by any branch of that denomination is unquestionably pertinent to the article about that denomination, and therefore fully meets the pertinence requirements of this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+I completely disagree. Some denominations have thousands of churches. Some have hundreds that meet in schools or movie theaters. How do we choose among them? I agree that sometimes a photo pf a church is appropriate. But if any (and all) are always appropriate, how do we prevent articles from becoming gallaries of thousands of buildings? There is no way the only criteria for including a photo of a building on a article about a denomination is whether the church is a part of the denomination.Novaseminary (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously no-one is saying that you include pictures of all the churches of a particular denomination. It pertinent in the way that having pictures of butterflies is appropriate in an article about butterflies. Interestingly, Butterfly has about 20 images but no gallery. So we prevent article becoming galleries by being sensible. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That means it is case-by-case to be discussed at the relevant article's talk (if necessary). Novaseminary (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So what's your point, Novaseminary? What are you disagreeing with? StAnselm (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly: Any picture of any of the thousands of church buildings meets this guideline's standard for being pertinent. However, we do not include every single picture that exists merely because it is pertinent, exactly like Butterfly only contains 28 images, despite the existence of thousands of pertinent images on Commons. You WP:Use common sense and your best editorial judgment to select which pictures to include. In this instance, that probably means picking one or two images of buildings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer StAnselm's non-sequential comment above, my only disagreement was with the implication that a photo should automatically be included merely because it is of a church that is part of a denomination. But as WhatamIdoing noted, even if an image is pertinent, that doesn't necessarily mean we include it. We still use editorial judgment and common sense. Novaseminary (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• In my view, for church articles, as with all articles, WP:NPOV requires that images reflect the variety inherent in the subject. We expect Arthropod, for example, to have images of crustaceans and arachnids, not just insects. Similarly, Eastern Orthodox Church very appropriately shows church buildings in Kazakhstan, Romania, Greece, Russia, Macedonia, Georgia, Serbia, and Australia. Image overcrowding is bad, but most church articles seem to have too few images. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), for example, could do with several more. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

GenderGap discussion

One of the Wikimedia e-mail lists was discussing PMID 11990973, a scientific journal article on the gender-based differences in perception of images. Everyone who watches this page is probably aware of the race and gender imbalance that our image collection has, e.g., at one point, Commons had about a thousand images of penises from young white men, and exactly one image from a black man. Similarly, we have a remarkable number of images of naked, young, white women (naked except for high heels, in most cases), but very few images of older women of any race.

This says a lot about our demographics. About 85% of our editors have been young, single, white, childless males, a demographic that overlaps very closely with the primary market for commercial pornography.

This is unfortunate from the perspective of limiting editor's choices, but because the research shows women are significantly more sensitive to what they perceive as harassment online than the same behavior in person (with the exception of direct requests for "company"), and other research shows similar concerns about the effects on Asian and African viewers, I believe that it may be contributing to our ongoing problems with recruiting and retaining a larger and more diverse editor base.

So I'm thinking that it would be worth mentioning two things:

1. The community's concern about extraneous elements that might seem harassing: e.g., the images at television should not be reflectoporn, and that women pictured in anatomy articles should not normally be dressed for a porn shoot; and
2. If the article is about a general subject (e.g., Running), editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted.

I think this is pretty much widely supported common sense, but should be presented as encouragement and education about how to evaluate an image's content, not as a prescriptive "do not ever use images that..." statement, because the fact is that we're limited in our options for some areas. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --JN466 04:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added this under ==Choosing images==. Perhaps the next person will boldly improve it.

Speaking of other recent changes, Masem's addition on lead images was discussed at WT:IUP. (This pointer exists largely in case some future editor goes looking for proof of the "explicit written permission documented in advance" for the change that both WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS say editors are not required to obtain before attempting good-faith improvements.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC - Composite or single image in lede at Bird

There is a discussion at Talk:Bird as to whether the image in the lede should be a single image of some kind of generic-looking bird - or a composite image of many representative bird species. The present image takes the latter approach to the extreme with 18 teeny-tiny images packed into one thumbnail. I'm pretty sure we don't need all 18 pictures - but what about a composite of four or six or maybe even nine bird images? I don't see any guidance here (eg in Images for the lead) - although some input from image/style experts would be much appreciated. SteveBaker (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple free images to create a free montage to support a broad topic is just fine - its common on major city articles, and I've seen it used on articles on human racial distinctions too. 4 to 8 images seem to be the most common. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Older vs. newer images of people in the lead

I've stumbled upon a Pete Sampras article and there is a thing I've noticed. There are three pictures of him in the article, two of them are of newer date (taken in 2007 and 2008), when he had already finished his professional career, and there is one picture from 1992, when he was one of the best tennis players in the world. The infobox contains the picture from 2008. Yet, I think it would be more appropriate to put the picture from the days when he was a professional player, since that's why he has a Wikipedia article, after all. For example, there's an article on Venetia Burney, the girl who named Pluto. She gave it the name when she was 11 years old. She lived for over 90 years. The article contains only one picture - the one of her as a twelve years old girl. And I believe that, even if we had a picture of her in her older age, this one would have been more appropriate to be in the infobox. My point is - we should have a policy - if a person is best known for something they have done at a certain age, the picture in the lead should be the one taken at the closest period of time. For example, sportspersons should have their lead pictures from the time they were on their peak, but super-centenarians should be depicted after they've turned 110 years old. That makes most sense to me, I don't know if there is a policy on that, but I believe there should be one.--Vitriden (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think you're generally right, but since all of them show him on a tennis court (as opposed to, say, lounging in a hammock), it doesn't seem like any of them are really bad choices. Have you considered WP:BOLDly improving the image choices in the article? You don't need a specific sentence in a guideline to give you permission to make improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't want to put emphasis on that one article, but on the policy itself. I think we should have a sentence in the guidelines that would help us determine which picture is the most appropriate for the lead when there are several available. And I think that should be the one to represent the person in question at the moment s/he was at his/her professional peak. That's all I am saying. Thanks for your respond, anyway, good luck...--Vitriden (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple considerations, such as image quality and composition. For a biography, a headshot is usually preferable in the lead. We might not have a headshot from the person's professional peak, so editors might choose one from a different point in time. There's also the question of how you decide what the professional peak is. An actor, for example, might object to anyone declaring that any previous year was his peak. While I think your idea is a good consideration, it's not really the kind of thing that is easily set down as something to always be done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have often felt the same way as Vitriden, but I feel that the remedy is simple editing work or decisions amongst the editors rather than trying to define the preferred result in a guideline. North8000 (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Couple of comments

"Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions, rather than deleting them--especially on pages which lack visuals."

The emphasis of "rather than deleting them" seems odd to me. This part seems to be written with an assumption that people are generally setting out with the intention of deleting images. Is there some missing "when images are of low quality" clause? But even so, the only way to improve the quality of an image is normally to delete it and replace it with something else. Usually images are not profitably editable. Finally, you can't delete images on "pages which lack visuals", so that part reads oddly too.

"Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'oeil sculpture of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate."

For me this adds no value, and hardly even makes sense. 86.179.7.170 (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You have some valid point on the first part. I changed "lack" to "have few". I think it's obvious that images have to be replaced since Wikipedia doesn't allow in-place image editing, so there's no point in adding more verbiage there. I disagree with you on the last issue. For instance: a statue of a person is a useful substitute for an non-existing actual photograph of the person. On the other hand, we want recognizable pictures. So, in the strange case where you could choose only between a statue of Obama or a photograph of Obama with lots of clown make-up, which rendered him hardly recognizable, we'd prefer the statue. Perhaps the example in the guideline could use a more pedestrian notion than trompe-l'oeil sculpture... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

We should probably talk about "removing" images rather that WP:Deleting them, and about "simply removing" them to clarify the difference between turning an article into an image-free page vs improving the article by replacing a poor image with a better one.

As for what we mean by a real cupcake decorated to look like something else, if you want to communicate the idea of "this is what a cupcake looks like", then cupcakes that look like sweet corn, hamburgers, sushi, mugs of hot chocolate, spaghetti and meatballs, popcorn, pie, and more sushi are just not very useful, even if they are common enough that we can easily find examples that are obviously and provably cupcakes in the technical sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You have my support but I won't be making anymore changes while the Muhammad arbitration is going on because one participant thinks it's not kosher for me to make them at this time. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Are the examples in the PERTINENCE section (supposed to be) purely hypothetical?

The one with Mercedes and poverty seemed so far off NPOV (with respect to the company's image) that I really doubt it was ever part of the article. [17] I don't know about the one with the cat and aggression. Can someone clarify if the example was based on the article (at some point in time) or not? And in general, are we striving to give examples actually found in Wikipedia articles? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In general, we are striving to give examples that are fairly easy to understand, regardless of whether they have actually been used (or proposed) at any given point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We have a problem

After seeing thousands of articles and editing hundreds of them I was pretty confident that relevant images go beneath the appropriate sub-header, unless there's a dire need to do otherwise. But apparently that's not apparent to everyone. I am surprised to find that as a problem here. Since the policies don't explicitly say so, it's entirely possible that this will continue and spill over across Wikipedia. Is it too much to ask that we make it an explicit standard, with provisions for exception, of course. Aditya^{(talk o contribs)} 16:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a policy, it's a guideline anyway. Editors are expected to exercise their good judgement, and I don't see how that's necessarily helped by detailing exactly how everything should be done. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I know. But, better judgement isn't something we all have. That's how Wikipedia has come to have so many guidelines. And, there are always people who understand only one direction - that of a direct explicit guideline. In this instance we had an angry Mastodon for apparently no reason at all. After spilling a bit over to more reverts across articles the situation has calmed down. But, the next person coming and wielding "it's not mandatory" as a weapon may not calm down so easily. Aditya^{(talk o contribs)} 12:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Archives missing

Can someone figure out why the archives for this page are three red links? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The page was moved but the archives weren't. Its fixed now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added 90 day auto-archiving as well to this page and indexing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Image use and the purpose of images

There is currently a discussion at Talk:James Stewart#Image overload on the amount of images used in the article and the purpose of images in articles. I am not one hundred percent sure this is the place to ask this, but this seems like as good a place as any. Am I incorrect in thinking the previous amount of images (29) was too much? I was also looking at Bette Davis and noticed that article currently has 22 images and many of them are as repetitive as the images that used to crowd James Stewart. Any input on this subject would be greatly appreciated and helpful, going forward.  Chickenmonkey  03:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

When talking free images, there's no maximum number of images, but we need to recognize that 1) WP is primary a text medium, and trying to illustrate every detail with images is just not effective, and 2) we allow links (at the bottom of articles) to Commons images to offload extra images with the ability to redirect the reader there. I think the version which I'm seeing with about 10 images is much more pleasing and easier to follow than with 29 images. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Your thoughts closely resemble mine.  Chickenmonkey  04:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Images in a list of people

There is discussion here, regarding the deletion of images from a list of people, that might interest readers of this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Images rendering for high-DPI / high device pixel ratio / "retina" display

Not sure if this is the right place to raise this question, as it is more like a technical rendering issue. Or I don't know if this had been addressed before.

Newer top-end mobile devices have been introducing high-DPI displays, e.g. with a device pixel ratio = 2. Each virtual pixel consists of 2×2 physical pixels, in this example. For these newer displays, if an image is to be displayed in 300 (virtual)px × 225px for example, the server should prepare a 600px × 450px photo for download, and in the HTML code the <img> tag should have width="300px" and height="225px", in order to provide best quality. Btw there are also phones with 1.5x device pixel ratio.

I see this is technically possible in Wikipedia for many thumbnail images, since many raster images have their original size more than quadruple of their thumbnail size, and many other images are simply vector. And it is left whether the rendering engine can determine the best image resolution, either by client side CSS or on server side.

I can think of some practical problems, though. Image download size and duration can get 4x and image cache size on server can get 5x. Any thought on this? - PeterCX&Talk 15:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 120#Images rendering for high-DPI / high device pixel ratio / "retina" display - PeterCX&Talk 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sandwiching

Should the guideline over sandwiching of text under Location, apply to other fixtures of articles such as quote boxes and audio files? It seems logical that it should, since the same problems apply, but it is not explicitly mentioned here, in what might be taken as an exclusive list. However, rather than state all the possible cases perhaps something like: "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and an infobox or similar" could be used.--SabreBD (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I will make this change soon if there are no objections.--SabreBD (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Timpani is a poor example

Timpani is a poor example for image placement (see Location section) for three reasons. The images do not always alternate left and right (though this is not a rule per se), there is sandwiching of text, image sizes are defined in some images (something that should be left to the user preferences to decide), and images are placed at the beginning of sections. There must be a more suitable example, one that actually follows the rules it is meant to portray. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the recent FAs would make a good example. We probably want a page that has a substantial number of images (and perhaps an infobox or two). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

SabreBD suggested the FA Bob Dylan above. That seems to have everything done correctly. What do you all think of that suggestion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that looks fine. Jack (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Jean Darlng

The image wont show up on my page for some reason Voggyer (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"File usage" list for images: Exclude portal emblem uses.

I recently checked the Internet map 1024.jpg image page and it turns out that every page that features the "Computer science" portal box is included in the "File Usage" list. I think it would be more accurate to immit such usages from that list and just mention that "This image is used as the emblem of the following portal: [Portal name]". Maybe this should be added to the "Wikipedia enhancements" todo list? :-) Nxavar (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you would exclude WP:Transcluded items generally, because it would be difficult to identify portal templates.

I believe that Bugzilla is the way to make such suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info WhatamIdoing! There is an enhancement request relevant to this problem in Bugzilla. Maybe it will be fixed in the future. Nxavar (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

thumbnail size

In general I love the idea of respecting user preferences in sizing thumbnails. However, there are many examples where this produces a result so small as to be non-informative. Explicitly specifying a size, and completely ignoring user preferences, doesn't strike me as a terrific workaround. An option for "large thumbnail", displaying at 1½-2× preferred size, would be nice. If there is a better forum to discuss this (e.g. technical suggestions) let me know. <=> ChristTrekker 17:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You can do this already, by specifying |thumb|upright=1.5| or |thumb|upright=2| --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks! <=> ChristTrekker 20:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Image placement: Reason?

"Do not place images on the left at the start of any section or subsection. Images on the left must be placed somewhere after the first paragraph." Why is this? I believe it should be explained, or discussed, or both. I have placed many images on the left at the start of a section. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I can say that the text seems to have been added during edit in October 2011 by User:WhatamIdoing, which suggests that there must be some good rationale. I cannot find a discussion of this point in the archive (which doesn't mean there isn't one). This guideline certainly does not seem to be honoured in Wikipedia and even the example of alternation we give at [18] includes an example of this. It certainly makes alternating of images very difficult on some articles. I will draw WhatamIdoing's attention to this thread.--SabreBD (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That was part of re-organizing some information between the main MOS page and this one. When I asked about the rationale (years ago), the story is that it's harder for the reader to find the first word in the section. Additionally, most such instances also fall afoul of the "don't sandwich text between images" rule.

The first-word problem can be eliminated by putting the image above the hed so the hed as well as the text justifies to the left, next to the image. Of course, I've had some other people say that "but if you do that, then a reader who wants to edit the image is confused when they click on the section edit link and it's not there". Can't we just put in a comment telling the reader who wants to edit the image that it's at the end of the previous section, then? Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't be done. It violates WP:ACCESS#Images and causes problems for users who depend on screen readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps in the future, instead of being lazy and making sacrifices like this, we will enable MediaWiki to tell what kind of device is being used for the output and enable different versions of the article based on said device. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Timpani example, by the way, has multiple WP:ACCESS violations. We should probably find a better example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree over the timpani article, which, incidentally, also has sandwiching of text. I guess that since we have a sandwiching guideline that it doesn't need this extra rule just for that, but if it really is hard to pick up the start of a paragraph then I can see why we would need this "rule". My main concern is that there are so many sections of one paragraph in Wikipedia articles that is may be impossible to alternate images and keep this guideline. If for no other reason alternation can be necessary in order to follow the eyes to text guideline. With potentially conflicting guidelines, it all gets very difficult to follow in practice.--SabreBD (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why we tell editors not to get too hung up on exact rules. This guideline says at the top, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Just do your best, and then don't worry about it. If there's some "perfect" solution for the images in an article that will work for every combination of text size and screen width, then someone else will eventually find it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well put.--SabreBD (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If this guideline is to have "occasional exceptions", then I would propose that it should not use the word "must". Perhaps this instead: "In order to make text more readable, images should normally not be placed on the left at the start of a section or subsection. If an image is to be put on the left, try to place it somewhere after the first paragraph." To be honest with you, I'm not convinced I agree with this whole idea at all -- but if we say "must", people will treat it as a hard-and-fast rule and will feel justified in edit-warring against anyone who insists on doing differently. ~~

Further to the discussion on the Timpani article. I notice that the currently Bob Dylan article uses left aligned images according to the guidelines. Is it a possible suggestion, or would something shorter be better?--SabreBD (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

May I add my own -1 on this one, too? I can understand why this rule might have seemed like a good idea to the average editor. But it's not. Anyone who's done any professional layout work knows you never say never on this one. Newspapers, magazines and other websites do this all the time.

How else are we supposed to properly illustrate an article with relevant free images if we have them, when we also have to deal with policy telling us to put the image as close as possible to the relevant text (especially in the case of fair-use images) and that we're not supposed to squeeze text between images, either? I suggest that at the very least the wording of the text there acknowledge those as exceptions. Further, I prefer to use alternating image placement as it's been proven to make the accompanying text more readable since it mirrors the back and forth motion of our eyes. In this scheme there's even less wiggle room to avoid such blinkered hard-and-fast rules, especially when confronted with a fellow editor who takes the MOS as nothing short of holy writ. I can understand why we would want to be careful not to let amateurs do this ... Lord knows I've seen enough articles with awkward, visually unappealing image layout that would never even get to film (so to speak) at a professionally-run publication. But that doesn't mean that we do so at the expense of a necessary aesthetic component to an article that can only enhance its readability. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree with GeorgeLouis, Sabre, and Daniel that this sentence added by a lone user without consensus is unworkable. There is not only 4:1 consensus here, but there is massive and overwhelming consensus in the greater community apparent from a quick review of Featured Articles. Literally most of all Featured Articles have at least one image starting a section on the left. It looks great. I am deleting the sentence until a replacement can be agreed on. I would further recommend, after more discussion, that we consider giving up most all of the right-justify bias in this article. It just does not reflect the greater community's idea of what makes our best quality articles. --Tom Hulse (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

local file vs. commons file

The syntax for including a file is the same regardless whether it's on local Wikipedia or from Commons. This can cause issues when there are files with same filename. Looks like local files have priority. Is there an override to this priority selection? Palosirkka (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't: what you need to do is have the local file moved to a new name; update the links to that from articles, etc.; and get the redirect deleted. This last operation will expose the Commons file. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. I tried to incorporate this to the article. Palosirkka (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can link the Commons file: commons:File:Example.png is not the same as File:Example.png. I don't know whether it's possible to have the linked file display automatically. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That works for linking to the file description page, but it doesn't work for pulling in the image itself. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. One of Wikipedia's delights is getting to learn something new every day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC on image categorisation

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Image_categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 13:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Photograph vs. painting

If I recall correctly, there was once a guideline that said a photograph is a better choice than a painting when it comes to choosing the lead image. Is there still such a guideline? Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember any such rule. I think it might depend on the subject matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Art of Ancient Egypt

The Egyptian art painting does show symmetry I added on this article and I like to keep it there, the center does show a good example of symmetry and I had alot of use to at least upload to the article near reflection symmetry, the only edit, thank you.--GoShow (...............) 13:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Whitespace

I'm not sure if it's already discussed somewhere in the "Manual of Style", but someone might want to discuss that large amounts of whitespace should be avoided!

The most obvious place I see it in articles....is when someone drops a photo near the top of the article along the right side...and the wiki layout engine pushes the text down to the bottom of the infobox so it can place the photo under it....thus leaving a very large amount of whitespace on the left side of the infobox.

In the past, I use to move photos around to fix the problem, but then I discovered the "Stack" template to fix the "infobox vs photo" layout problem.

Another place I see whitespace problems is when two photos are placed in nearby sections, which causes problems with the wiki layout engine.

I think the fixing of large amounts of whitespace should take more presidence than some of the other suggestions in this guideline.

o Sbmeirow o Talk o 11:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not the wiki layout engine which pushes the text down to the bottom of the infobox - it's one of those annoying features of Internet Explorer. Where plain text occurs after certain box-type objects (including images and infoboxes), Internet Explorer doesn't let this text be displayed any higher than the upper edge of the last box which precedes that text. The problem is exacerbated when two or more of these box-type objects are placed in sequence.

If you view the page in another browser such as Firefox, Chrome, Safari or Opera, you'll notice an absence of the offending blank space. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Tombstone images are banned/not banned by policy from appearing as the lead image

See Addison P. Jones and Stephen H. Wendover and help decide if this is a proper/inproper reading of the Manual of Style/Images policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Header/subheader pushing

Is it acceptable for headers and/or subheaders to be pushed in due to left-aligned images? Sasata (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not best practice. There are at least three things that can be done to alleviate this: (i) move the image to the right-hand side; (ii) move the image upward in the section, but not above the first paragraph; (iii) put a {{clearleft}} just above the displaced section heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Would it be worthwhile to add this to MOS:IMAGELOCATION? Sasata (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Not best practice"? Says whom? You see this sort of thing all the time on professionally-done websites. I much prefer it to what we're currently forced to do due to the limitations of screen readers and MediaWiki. Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Rfc on Foreign language images

Location

I really think the rule concerning text allegedly "sandwiched" between 2 images should be reviewed, and maybe eliminated altogether. My opinion on that, which I just posted elsewhere after an image I had posted facing a damn infobox was relocated:

"avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other"

One has to use common sense. Articles such as this one (Bishopric of Constance) often have an infobox that occupies more space lengthwise than the text of the article itself (not that easy to find enough stuff to write a 2000-word article on the Prince-Bishopric of Constance in English). Which means that to respect the "anti-sandwiching" rule, any maps or photographs either have to be incorporated to the Infobox (max. 1) or relegated at the bottom of the article, and out of view. Yet, in this kind of narrow-focused historical articles, maps and photographs are informative and valuable and usually more so than those (often misleading) dumb infoboxes.

What's more, the "Infobox former country" type of infobox such as the one in this article is quite narrow and the text certainly didn't look "sandwiched" before someone summarily relocated my images to the bottom of the article.

Since we are dealing with "sandwiching":

The major article "European Union" (which has a "this is good article" icon) starts (below the lead) with a whole paragraph "sandwiched" between a very wide Infobox and a picture. Nobody seems to be particularly offended.

The article "Los Angeles" has at least 3 instances of text sandwiched between 2 pictures. Doesn't look "sandwiched" to me!

Same with the Wikipedia articles on Milan, Montreal, Cairo, Belgrade, Mexican Revolution, Seven Years War, etc. etc. etc.

There are myriad Wiki articles with paragraphs fully or partially "sandwiched" between 2 photographs or an infobox and a photograph. And you know what? it doesn't look "sandwiched" and readers don't seem particularly offended. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubiesque (talk o contribs) 22:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What we're really trying to avoid is this:

It looks silly and it's hard for the reader's eye to find the first word (compared to how quickly the reader finds the first word if it's in the expected place). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The above example is absurd. Zillions of articles have paragraphs entirely or partially "sandwiched" between two images or an image and an infobox and the result is visually satisfactory, even pleasing.

For example, look at articles of majors cities of the world such as Hamburg, Chicago, Saint Petersburg, etc. etc. -- those are usually carefully presented articles -- yet, you will find that the majority have one or several cases of images facing each others.

That rule is totally unjustified and, happily, not respected. --Lubiesque (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I just quickly checked 4 other cities -- Tokyo, New York City, Paris, Buenos Aires -- Only the Paris article doesn't have two images facing each others or an image facing an infobox or table.--Lubiesque (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So? I'll bet that if you look, you can find grammar errors in many articles, too, but we are not going to re-write the Manual of Style to say that grammar errors are common and therefore acceptable. Whenever you see a page that is not compliant with some aspect of the Manual of Style, you should feel free to fix it so that it does comply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of RFC

An editor requesting to remove foreign language images from Senkaku Islands dispute. The editor claims the images violate WP:IMAGE "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information." because the foreign language text is unrecognizable to English-speaking readers. The images are used in the official web site of the Japanese government as evidences to its claims.[20] Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#RfC on two images. Please note that even an English language image, it may be unrecognizable because of the resolution.-- Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule against including images of non-English documents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Image review

Maybe this image is fine ... but it seemed so odd, and other aspects seemed so odd (its title and description and what is written on the image's page, and the fact that the purported owner is purportedly the person in the image), that I thought I would ask if an editor highly experienced with images might take a look. I just came across it due to its use in an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange, certainly, but it reads right. Other images confirm the subject as Tamás Erdélyi and it looks like a holiday snapshot - along with the filename which would fit. Overall although the description is meaningless in other respects I would accept it. WP:MCQ is a more appropriate venue for similar queries. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

New project proposal

Please review the new project proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Wikipedia editor business card project. The hope is that this project will help Wikipedians gain press credentials and make it easier to get higher quality image files for free use.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is the image gallery help file?

Where is the image gallery help file? It doesn't have to have a link from here? --RoRo (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean this? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Image size and ratio for portraits in lists

Is there a preferred or mandated image size and ratio for portraits in lists? For example the list of field marshals at Field marshal (United Kingdom) are all of differing ratios and some are whole body images while other are head and shoulders images and yet others are pretty much focused on the head. I would suggest that an image size and ratio (possibly the golden ratio?) be mandated while a head and shoulders portrait should be preferred. This would of course require portrait versions, cropped from available images, to be created but that would not be an insurmountable difficulty. Greenshed (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Images of persons whose fame was decades ago

What images does Wikipedia prefer for musicians and sportmen who had their top days many years ago? A lot of articles got pictures in the infobox which were taken at some nostalgia-related event. Meanwhile, contemporary pictures of the time when the person gained notability are already present, but hidden somewhere in the article. See for example wrestler Tito Santana and tennis icon Boris Becker. If I see just that picture of mr. Santana I wonder what is notable of that old guy. I believe that is't right. But what is the official policy on that, if there is one??

My question is if this encyclopedia prefers as picture in the infobox:
(a) recent pictures of the given person,
(b) pictures of the time when this person became famous.
Best regards in advance,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The tendency is toward recent photos in the infobox, especially if they are free. This does not preclude "heyday" photos, if they are free, from appearing just below the infobox; I'd support that placement if a discussion came up at an article. When the person dies, then their published non-free (publicity) images become candidates for inclusion (of one of them), moreso than while they're alive, in my experience. My suggestion is to lobby the individual or their PR/photo people to publish&release a PR photo as CC-BY-SA, then everybody wins. But this may not be possible if they are actively selling signed copies of their photo. --Lexein (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Infographic use

I have a number of reservations about the use of complex infographics giving a large number of facts like File:Human Aquatic Adaptations.png in Aquatic ape hypothesis. I have complained in Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis#Summary diagram but really I would like to know what is the best place to discuss something like this or where there is appropriate guidance thanks.Dmcq (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Left or Right alignment for images of faces? Thanks for that MoS...

"It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side)."

WP:CREEP much? Suggest remove. Lesion (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This level of detail exists because of real problems, not because we felt like being verbose.

If we don't say that people should look towards the text, then they get randomly placed and we get long, soul-destroying discussions about how Wikipedia looks horribly unprofessional (eyes-towards-text is a standard among professionals). If we only say that looking towards the text is good, then we get people demanding that 100% of images conform to this rule and that any image not conforming must be flipped in an image editor to face the One True Direction(TM), even if the result is wrong.

Since we achieved this level of detail, I personally haven't seen any sustained disputes over this, so it seems to be working. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is very possibly the reason why this has survived:

• The MOS is so long that no-one bothers to read it.

I think I got this caveat down to one sentence: Lesion (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on justification, "sandwiching"

At WP:IMAGELOCATION we have

In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a page is done by...[etc]

Then a moment later we have the somewhat contradictory...

Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left.

Meanwhile, there's this provision

However, avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar. If multiple related images are being placed on the right, then the {{multiple image}} template may be useful.

I've always been unsure what this means, exactly. Does the forbidden "sandwiching" occur whenever text finds itself with both an image on its left and an image on its right? Or does "sandwiching" mean that same situation, with the additional provision that there's "too little" horizontal space for the text?

Whether (per "sandwiching") IMAGE - TEXT - IMAGE is either forbidden or to be treated with caution, the second sentence seems to imply that TEXT - IMAGE - IMAGE is just plain fine no matter what.

Would the following be acceptable?

If possible, avoid placing text horizontally between two images (or infoboxes, navigation templates, etc.). The {{multiple image}} template assists in placing multiple images at the left or right. In either case, ensure that the horizontal space available for text is not unattractively narrow.

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I generally just take it to mean that two images should not be placed on the same "line", but I find it useless to take into account that no text can be placed between two images at all. FunkMonk (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Proposal 2

I agree. I'd like to change my proposal as follows:

• By default images appear on the right, but may be placed at left using |left:

[[File:Example.png|thumb|left|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

• The {{multiple image}} template may assist in placing multiple images horizontally.
• In the unusual case of text appearing with images (or infoboxes, navigation templates, etc.) to both the left and right, take care that the text column is not too "squeezed".
• Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The current guidance on right justified placement should not be changed. The guidance is flexible and allows for alternating placement if the context allows. The "sandwiching issue" seems clear enough to me. It means "Do not place a left justified image opposite a right justified image." Regarding the guidance, "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left", this is also clear to me, but some editors feel compelled to force this arrangement, and that is what causes many layout issues with left justified images placed at the start of sections. The guidance states you can stagger images, not that you must stagger images. The most common problem I see related to images is that some articles simply have too many images in relation the text they are meant to illustrate. Using a gallery or the multiple images template can solve many of these problems. Bede735 (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Proposal 3

Thanks. I was beginning to wonder whether we'd ever hear from anyone else. Let's start with what seems like an apparent conflict between two existing provisions:

most ... images should be right ... which is the default ... If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a page is done by...[etc]

and

Multiple images ... can be staggered right-and-left.

The first quote implies that left-justification is an "exception" which should be "warranted", while the second implies that alternation is normal and common (which of course would mean that left-placement isn't unusual after all). My proposal removes the implication that left placement shouldn't be used without some strong reason. At the same time I completely removed the "alternating" suggestion, so let me restore that, but in a form which doesn't make it sound compulsory:

• By default images appear on the right, but may be placed at left using |left:

[[File:Example.png|thumb|left|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

• Many articles stagger images left and right, but this is not a requirement.
• In the unusual case of text appearing with images (or infoboxes, navigation templates, etc.) to both the left and right, take care that the text column is not too "squeezed". Avoid sandwiching text between two images (or infoboxes, navboxes, etc).
• Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.
• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side).
• The {{multiple image}} template may assist in placing multiple images horizontally.

So far, so good? EEng (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandwiching and other discussion

See Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive 4#Location for an example of what we don't want. The problem can be alleviated if the two images are not placed at exactly the same height (i.e., one at the top of the section and one after the first paragraph. The problem with "unattractively narrow" is that there are easily a hundred different combinations of screen size, font size, and default image size that should be considered relatively common.

As for whether images "should" be left-aligned, it depends a lot on the ratio of images to text. If you have six screenfuls of text and three images, then you should (almost always) right-align all of them. If you have two screenfuls of text and six images, then you need to stagger, or even use a gallery. Rather than saying "Many articles stagger left and right" (since most articles don't do this), I'd say something like, "Many image-heavy articles stagger left and right". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Proposal 4

I'm glad we're getting some real participation here. I've added "image-heavy" as suggested:

• By default images appear on the right, but may be placed at left using |left:

[[File:Example.png|thumb|left|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

• Many image-heavy articles stagger images left and right, but this is not a requirement.
• Avoid sandwiching text between two images (or infoboxes, navboxes, etc).In the unusual case of text appearing with images (or infoboxes, navigation templates, etc.) to both the left and right, take care that the text column is not too "squeezed".
• Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.
• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side).
• The {{multiple image}} template may assist in placing multiple images horizontally.

Ignoring "not too squeezed" for now, are we OK so far? EEng (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 4a

Your first bullet still misses the general principle of maintaining the left margin, and implies that right placement is merely a technical default. As WhatamIdoing notes, if you have one image, it belongs on the right. I suggest modifying the text:

• In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement.
• If an article has sufficient text to support multiple images, you can stagger images right and left. To force an image to justify on the left side of a page, place a parameter in the image coding in the form:

  [[File:Example.png|thumb|left|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

• When staggering images right and left, avoid sandwiching text between two images (or infoboxes, navboxes, etc).
• Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.
• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side).
• The {{multiple image}} template may assist in placing multiple images horizontally. Bede735 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Upright for sum-of-image-widths

Now we're cookin' with gas. But to be honest (and I hope no one will feel misled) my real concern is the sandwiching issue -- but I felt it was a good idea to clean up and better organize all the related text first.

As asked in my OP

Does the forbidden "sandwiching" occur (A) whenever text finds itself with both an image on its left and an image on its right? Or does "sandwiching" mean (B) that same situation, with the additional provision that there's "too little" horizontal space for the text?

Clearly at least some in his discussion choose (A), implying a compete ban on that situation. I believe that's too restrictive, and the (B) is what we want. I understand the concern re...

The problem with "unattractively narrow" is that there are easily a hundred different combinations of screen size, font size, and default image size that should be considered relatively common.

But there are ways to set up leftimg-text-rightimg layout that makes those uncertainties no more uncertain than they are anyway. Please bear with me while I explain.

A sadly underappreciated feature of image syntax is upright (WP:Extended_image_syntax#Size) -- review if you need to, but let me emphasize that it does not "override" the user's img size preference the way xxpx does -- it adjusts img size relative to that preference. If the user has set his img size preference to his "right size" for a "typical" kind of image then there situations where we as editors want to insert an image which we, quite reasonably, believe should be 1.5X as wide as the user's "normal" (because it has a lot of detail), or 0.6X (because it's simple and would look silly any larger).

Right now WP:Manual_of_Style/Images#Size recommends that a single image not exceed upright=1.8. Whatever width that leaves over for text is what it is, subject to all the imponderables about zoom and text size and window size mentioned by Whatamidoing.

Now if, instead, we have two images, left and right, with respective uprights = .9 and .7, then the width left for text is more than would be available with a single img at 1.8.

So why not say:

In the unusual case where a block of text has an image both to its left and to its right, then upright should be used on each image, with the sum of the uprights being <= 1.8.

Muddled, but you get the idea. Note I added "the unusual case" so people wouldn't do this too casually. Also, even if 1.8 is the right max for a single image, we might for aesthetic reasons want to put a tighter limit on the sum of two uprights e.g. 1.6.

So...? EEng (talk)

How does that work?

You mentioned upright (WP:Extended_image_syntax#Size) but I think you're referring to upright=Factor?:

Adjust a thumbnail's size to Factor times the default thumbnail size, rounding the result to the nearest multiple of 10. For instance, "upright=1.5" makes the image larger, which is useful for maps or schematics that need to be larger to be readable.

And yes, I did have to review it, cause I didn't have a notion what you were talking about! ;-)

Unfortunately, I don't understand how you can arrive at the appropriate upper limit "on the sum of two uprights e.g. 1.6." Please excuse my denseness; I'm only a mathematician! ;-) But how does a limit like 1.8 (single image) or 1.6 (two images) guarantee that most (or indeed any) of the stipulated hundreds of different screen sizes and formats will show the text and images laid out as you hope for? Is the 1.8 merely a rule of thumb derived from extensive and collective editor experience? Or perhaps only a guesstimate that ought to work most times? I remain confused ...

BTW, your last edit was undated, since unsigned. yoyo (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia