Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Update WP:THUMBSIZE

Many editors have been using ###px for thumbnail image displays, despite discouragement by policy. Somehow, the rule must be updated to allow what is currently common or prevalent among editors. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If anything we should be more strongly deprecating px and more strongly encouraging use of upright. The fact that px is still very prevalent (even dominant) is regrettable, but not worth e.g. some campaign to run through articles and convert over to upright. EEng (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Then stop discourage "px" and encouraging "upright". I didn't know how upright works until I realize it by reading the policy. But even almost no one knows how much percentage of the size an image must be. 220px doesn't mean 95% or 50%. It can be any percent. --George Ho (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the current text makes clear why upright is preferable to px, except in unusual circumstances. I have no idea what you're saying about the percentages. EEng (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll put it another way: id est upright=0.50, which represents 50%. --George Ho (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your point is that 0.50 = 50%? Um... OK. What does that have to do with anything? EEng (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll rephrase: many average Joes and Janes know ###px, but what about upright=#.##? How does an average editor know how to scale the size by percentage and type out upright=#.##? --George Ho (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For those who know how to use upright=, perhaps trying to calculate a typical thumbnail size (id est 250px) by percentage is... not convenient unless I'm wrong. --George Ho (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Upright=1 produces a thumb that is as wide as the user's thumb selection (or 250px if not logged in). "Upright =x" generates one that is that fraction of the width, so when you have vertical/portrait pictures, a parameter of 0.7 is suggested (and the default if you just use "upright"). Basically, it's avoiding pixel-perfect placement which only I've found needed when presenting multiple images in a single frame (ala the multiimage template). --MASEM (t) 03:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Why can't many use "upright" nowadays but use "px" instead? --George Ho (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you're writing isn't even intelligible English. WP:THUMBSIZE explains how upright vs. px operate, and why upright is preferred. If you think THUMBSIZE should be changed somehow, then propose the specific change. EEng (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I propose it in a separate thread or in this section? --George Ho (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Here. EEng (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose scrapping out discouragement of px and also encouragement of upright. Change section into allowing either options, especially for horizontal images. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that we state, already "In general, do not use px without very good reason; upright=scaling factor is preferred wherever sensible." what is the proposed change needed? If editors are just being lazy with px vs upright, that's not really anything enforcable. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What? We can't ignore WP:IUP and poorly enforce it. Perhaps move the section to either Help:Images or just mark the section as "historically inactive". --George Ho (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a MOS thing, not anything that is going to get WP in trouble like BLP or NFC. It is certainly something that during a GA/FA or similar review should be checked and changed, but enforcing MOS bluntly is never appropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You are an administrator. You shall be aware that WP:THUMBSIZE is part of WP:IUP policy, not a MOS guideline or a guideline like MOS. (Off-topic, I've contacted you about the other article.) --George Ho (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is more linked to image MOS policies. And we never enforce any policy (save for things like BLP, NFC, and copyvio) with a heavy hand. Also keep in mind: "upright" is relatively new to the MediaWiki software, so we are also talking legacy issues with the parameters. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? MOS is tagged as a guideline, not a policy like WP:NOT. --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The point is that while we do ask editors to use upright over pixel size, it is not a requirement, it is a legacy issue due to the newness of "upright", and it's mostly a style thing that has very little direct impact on how WP functions for the most part. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:POLICY: Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. Or how about WP:PAG#Enforcement? --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• George Ho, you've really jumped the gun by issuing an RFC so quickly. Can you explain why you think px should be on an equal footing with upright? Do you not understand THUMBSIZE's explanation for why px is undesirable? EEng (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to enforce the policy's section; neither does Masem. If I do, I have to edit all thumbnails in all articles just to enforce it. You can argue NOTBUREAUCRACY, but the policy must be enforced. I can ignore it if the rule prevents me from improving a reader's viewership on images. --George Ho (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This is crazy. You don't "have to" edit all thumbnails. Just change things from px to upright when the mood strikes you. If that's never, then leave it to others. We're not going to change the guideline/policy just to relieve your obsessive feelings. EEng (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

More than feelings and prevalence, what should be other reasons to change policy? --George Ho (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Again I have no idea what you're saying or asking. You've proposed a change based, apparently, only on your desire to not have to do something which we've explained you don't have to do anyway. I won't be responding further. Maybe others can understand you better than I. EEng (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I will just enforce the policy on 4.6 million article if that suits you. --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I misinterpret. I don't have to use "upright" as long as "px" is normally discouraged. I'm told that "thumb" does the job, but thumb varies by people's preferences, like 220px or 250px. --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

|thumb does vary by people's preferences, and that is exactly why a forced image size in px should not be used. For logged-out users (and those who have not altered their prefs), |thumb gives a width of 220px; |thumb|upright gives a width of 165px, that being 220 x 0.75 (n.b. not 0.7); and |thumb|upright=1.2 gives a width of 264px (220 x 1.2). But for some users, 220px images are too small, and so they set a larger size in their prefs - perhaps 300px. Doing this means that all images with |thumb are now 300px wide; all those with |thumb|upright are now 225px wide; and all those with |thumb|upright=1.2 are now 360px wide - but any image with a size that is explicitly given in px will not be altered, and may well be smaller than all the other images on the page. It's covered at MOS:IMAGES#Size and WP:IMGSIZE. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been using "px" for a long while without being aware of this policy (or "thumb" without "px"). I haven't liked using |upright= because characters are longer than |###px. Why is that? --George Ho (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know if AWB (or a bot that's editing articles anyway) could be set to remove the least helpful px-based image sizes? I don't see these very often any more, but the ones that are most annoying are the ones that hard-code the size to be exactly the default size. Perhaps if the default is 250 px, then we could remove any that set the size as 200 to 290 px (not 300 px, I think, because some lead images have been deliberately set to 300). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Some kind of debate

From my talk page: "I don't remember who told me to avoid an image size over 300px, because of how it show on small devices. (...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)" ... " (...) answer: better don't use fixed "px" at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)"

I disagree with Gerda Arendt on several levels:

• "avoid an image size over 300px" is not what the guideline says;
• "don't use fixed 'px' at all" is not what the guideline says;
• The matter is currently under discussion: seen the simplifications some editors make of the guidance, I agree it would be better to discard ambiguous guidance that leads to incorrect oversimplification.
• My view is that examples with music notes and text shouldn't be so small that it is impossible to read/understand them (unless when clicking away from the page where they are displayed...).
• I have my doubts regarding "upright": what if someone updates an image to the same image in a higher resolution? Wouldn't that mess with intended page layouts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Francis, for placing my question here where I think it doesn't belong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Calm down, everyone.

• Guideline says that lead images should usually not be over 300px (whether that's achieved with px or with upright -- in the case of upright, 300px would nominally be upright=1.4 or so).
• Uploading a new version of an image has no effect on the displayed size of thumbnails, and that's true whether the thumbnail size is set using px or using upright.

EEng (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Galleries

Skeezix1000 removed this a couple of months ago, saying that it might benefit from some discussion:

Occasionally, gallery formatting is used to force multiple images to display in the correct section. This is most common if the article begins with an unusually long infobox that pushes all right-aligned images out of the section they are intended to illustrate. In this circumstance, a gallery may be considered if left-alignment is not sufficient to keep images in or near the relevant section.

I don't see any discussion, so let's talk about this.

The main point behind our gallery-related advice is this: "Don't cram a whole bunch of images into an article." The main point is not "Feel free to cram as many images in as you would like, so long as you can do that without using the <gallery> tag."

Let us assume that we are talking about an article that truly benefits from a relatively large number of images. An article that contains technical or scientific diagrams might be one such type; for example, most anatomy-related articles will have several. (We aren't talking about Baby or Bride, where more images probably means more spammy images.) The question is how to arrange those desirable images.

(NB that I reject the rather silly minority view that, even if everyone agrees that a good article on that subject would contain six images, you're not allowed to put all six of those images in unless and until you've written three screenfuls of text first.)

An article that (on a desktop system with a moderately large screen) has one screenful of text and infobox, followed by two screenfuls of a mostly-blank screen with images stringing vertically down the right margin suffers from bad layout. It does a disservice to readers by making less of the content immediately visible.

The same article, with the same text and the same infobox and the same images, is much better presented as text, infobox, and some images set horizontally across the screen, which, as a practical matter, means using a gallery tag.

This is especially important if, as this tag says, the images stringing down the page are likely to end up separated from their actual content. If you have an early ==section== in the article that compares and contrasts various artwork, then you really want those images to display directly in that section, which means not leaving their location to float around and to depend on how long the infobox turns out to be on someone's screen. If you need one image to appear in a section, then you might be able to set it |left (depending on whether the previous section also has a left-aligned image), but if you have multiple images that really ought to appear in a section, then you should use a gallery to make sure that this material is presented in the correct place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You were kind enough to ping me in your comments above, and then somehow I lost track of this discussion. So apologies for my delay in responding. I don't necessarily disagree, but using a gallery in the circumstances described above isn't necessarily open season to shoehorn images into the article that were being shoehorned in previously without a gallery. The section in question seems more like a helpful formatting tip that belongs more at Help:Gallery tag than here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Location included in captions of animal articles is unnecessary

I would like to raise the issue of including the location of animals in image captions when this is unnecessary. I disagree with simply adding the location for several reasons.

1) Understanding. The location does not add anything to a reader's understanding of the animal. The fact the animal is in that location is usually covered by a section of text on "Distribution" or similar.

2) Notability. The inclusion of the location implies there is something notable about the animals at that location. If this is the case, it should be stated in the caption, e.g. "...showing the darker pelage than normal"

3) Interest Some editor's have claimed the location adds interest, but reading "Animal x in back yard, California, USA" is not interesting in itself, unless why this location is interesting is stated in the caption. I have some extremely good photos of my domestic cats, but I doubt many editors would accept captions suach as "Domestic cat in bedroom, Bristol, UK", "Domestic cat in bathroom, Bristol, UK".

4) Necessary. Why is the location deemed to be necessary in a caption? There is much more information that could be included such as sex of the animal, age, season of year, etc. I know some of these details will be difficult to determine, expecially for wild animals, but why then is the location necessary? If it is necessary, then there shoould be a policy stating this. We then get into the arguement of which image should be included, based only on location.

5) Advertising. Stating the location might be considered as intentional or unintentional advertising, e.g. Zoos, Museums, Wildlife Parks. Again, there might be a good reason for including the location (perhaps it is a very rare species) but this should be justified in the caption.

All comments welcome.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To leave out the location like you did here [1] is just weird. There are two pictures of Antelopes in their native country, but nothing stating where. It was a couple of words, just a small caption. Obviously there was no problem with the length. I don't understand your hangup about this. Bhny (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You have just answered your own question. It is the fact that the animals are in their native country which makes the location suitable for the caption - but this is not stated in the caption leaving the reader uneducated about this. I suggest you edit the caption to reflect this__DrChrissy (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So you are now saying that we should put more information in the caption? Obviously we put the location if the location is relevant (as it is in Antelope). If the location is irrelevant then sure, we leave it out. Also, obviously a caption should be small, so it is not going explain everything (that's why we have hyperlinks). Bhny (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DrChrissy. In general, unless there is some significant motivating factor, the location should be left off of the caption. The closest exception example I can think of where the location might be reasonable is when showing an animal in a different clime; but then again, the caption should include the clime, not necessarily the specific location. (One reason for this is that some animals express a differeing morphology in one clime but not in others. All of the rest of the data that doesn't "fit" the caption, should be on the image's own page. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty much the same discussion as at the article talk page. There are lots of images on wiki that have unnecessary detail in captions (not just animals, look at the celebrity articles...some seem to have a zillion "My selfie with famous person foo on specific m/d/y at location X" photos...sheesh...!). I suggest that first, we look at WP:NOTSCRAPBOOK to trim out images that aren't needed for the actual article, then ask "why is THIS image still in - i.e. "Photo of foo demonstrating anatomical feature X" doesn't need a location. "Photo of foo in its native habitat in place X" is suitable for a location tag. It's all just common sense. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why is this absurdly specific question being debated here? Discuss it on the talk pages of the articles in question. This is not something for the high-level image-use policy. EEng (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Bhny: I am not suggesting that captions automatically include more information to justify having the location in the caption. I am suggesting that editors think "Is the location relevant?", and if it is, indicate why it is relevant in the caption. Careful editing will result in succinct captions that may only be one or two words longer, but much more informative.

• @EEng: I'm not sure what is a "high-level" policy page? Perhaps you would like to explain what other "lower-level" page this discussion should be on? There are dozens, probably hundreds of animal related pages which this policy would affect. It would be impossible to discuss this on seperate Talk pages. I have deliberately made the objections above, general, so that an overall policy can be agreed upon.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The captions appearing in particular articles should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles. In some cases locations will be appropriate, in some not. I don't see any need to have a Wikipedia-wide policy on captions for animal images, or for people-in-bathing-suit images, or for bridge images, or aircraft images, or any other specific kind of image. These kinds of issues are best discussed in the context in which they arise, by editors with a genuine interest in the article involved. EEng (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Supervillain Hubal

File:Warrior God Hubal 3.png

Hubal according to user:indusdreams

A user has been attempting to add this image to the article on Hubal (an ancient Arabian god of which there are no surviving representations). I have twice removed it mainly on the grounds of Unspeakable Godawfulness, though this is not, to my knowledge a policy or guideline in existence. Sporadically, similar user-created portraits or impressions of mythical figures have been added to such articles. Do we have a relevant policy on this? The user says that this is a modern impression based on sources. The sources seem to me to be comic books rather than archaology, and that's not to mention the, er, artistic qualities on display (but again, there seems to be no clear rule about artistic quality, for the obvious reason that it's very difficult to legislate on). I guess that psychedelic thing sticking out of his body on the left is supposed to be a cloak. The arrows presumably refer to the tradition of casting arrows in front of the statue as a means of divination. But this happened to a statue in the Kaaba, not a sword-wielding horned super-villain striding around in an LSD trip. Paul B (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's a bull or something back there -- look close and you'll see eyes. I agree that an editor's fantasy representation isn't appropriate, but as you say I don't know if that's stated anywhere. We certainly allow user-created diagrams and stuff, and I'm not sure how to express the dividing line. EEng (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a sailboat! Seriously though, I'm going to give vandalism warnings if he tries to re-add that.

If we wanted to be nice, we could say that his image is unsourced original research into unverifiable subject matter, and that its abstract form gives undue weight to particular aspects. Possibly throw WP:COI at there since he might've drawn it and could be using it to promote himself as an "artist".

Plus, I'm pretty sure WP:IAR allows us to remove an image on the grounds that it's so repelling it's being used to explain the expansion of the universe by Steady State theorists, and so tasteless that you have to rub it in wasabi and cayenne to get infants to eat it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I reject the accusation. "at there since he might've drawn it and [[WP:NOTPROMO|could be using it to promote himself as an "artist" " as the artist's name is not mentioned so how is the artist getting promoted?

"Actually, I think it's a bull or something back there -- look close and you'll see eyes" Yes, the wikipedia page describes him as 'human-like', also other contemporary gods as portrayed with horns. see: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=baal+god&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=-GHkVN2RJ8WSuASEr4GYDg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1708&bih=821&dpr=0.8 . So I hope that explains the horns

'"I guess that psychedelic thing sticking out of his body on the left is supposed to be a cloak"' well, in deserts cloaks are pretty common, useful for shielding yourself from dust. you only need common sense on this, not sources. is there a policy where editors without common sense are not allowed to make such decisions?

"The sources seem to me to be comic books rather than archaology," Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubal : According to Ibn Al-Kalbi, the image was made of red agate, whereas Al-Azraqi, an early Islamic commentator, described it as of "cornelian pearl . <For skin colour> from same article "Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi's Book of Idols describes the image as shaped like a human, with the right hand broken off and replaced with a golden hand." note: 'like a human' clearly indicates it was not anatomically as accurate as Greek sculpture. Hence, the techniques I have used are similar to the techniques used in contemporary sculpture or images. also, the 'LSD' effect can also be seen in the way beards/hair of contemporary images are created.

"and that's not to mention the, er, artistic qualities on display" you want to get personal? really? I think because your a nerd who sits editing wikipedia all day, you dont get laid for ages and you are taking out your sexual frustration on me.

"Plus, I'm pretty sure WP:IAR allows us to remove an image on the grounds that it's so repelling it's being used to explain the expansion of the universe by Steady State theorists, and so tasteless that you have to rub it in wasabi and cayenne to get infants to eat it. " wow, you are a very professional editor. you certainly stick to the subject and rules. Again, I don't expect some nerd desperate for a moment of power to understand quality. is this how you make up for the weak man you are in real life? I accuse both individuals here to be acting under the influence of sexual frustration and displaced aggression. I recommend wikipedia to allow only people who are subjective, stick to facts, reasoning and not use Wikipedia as a medium to vent their sexual frustration, loneliness and other insecurities.

"not a sword-wielding horned super-villain striding around in an LSD trip" sure, he should look like you, unfit, fat with a sorry 'please love me' expression on his face, thats how warrior gods are. YOU MY FRIEND are living in fantasy and comic books where they make losers like Peter Parker superheroes so you can relate to them and give them some money. seriously, get a life. learn some manners.

note: there are several users who have accused ian thomson of christian bias, so am I. now question is, are all of us wrong or is this man wrong? its clear a biased christian would not like a pagan diety to be represented. nor the psychedelic colouring, you clearly have been way too 'close' to your priest and your judgement after several standing allegations of christian bias is as valuable as my fart. infact my fart > you. seriously how much does the church pay you to insult non christian traditions? I bellieve this user is taking money from religious organizations to insult/delete non christian traditions, i strongly recommend banning him as his contribution brings down the quality & credibility of wikipedia. i never thought you guys are hired to do this also.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by indusdreams (talk • contribs)

• I think editors should have skipped the hurtful evaluations of artistic merit, and stuck to the simple fact that editors' artwork (good or bad) isn't appropriate for articles. EEng (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

{{}} Naw, its okay, I understand its not their fault, if they had better genetics, they would have led a better life and had some taste, not their mistake they are born to who they are born. and that Ian Thompson was often found in ummm... compromising positions with his church priest since the age of 8 and you know how defense mechanisms work yea? he would be telling himself 'that was a sign I had to be the church's bitch' to make sense of it. its cool. Besides, I am very happy losers don't like my artwork, I know it appeals to people of substance now.

Out of curiosity and with due respect to you, dear EEng, why is the image not appropriate for the article? I understand this is the only image of Hubal, if there is a better one then by all means this image is not right, I feel several characteristics attributed to Hubal are portrayed. the horns which you saw (contemporary to other gods of time/place), Arrows of divination, moon symbols for the moon god description, sword for warrior god description, body made of red agate/carnelian pearl as mentioned in article, use of turquoise and blue is because the gemstones Lapis Lazuli and turquoise were extensively used in the middle east at the time, the same techniques in terms of anatomy/perception as used in existing representations of other contemporary gods, facial features sharp as common to middle east. I leave it to you, after consideration to the mentioned aspects and this being the only existing image of Hubal at the moment, should it be put on the page until a new image is made by someone?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by indusdreams (talk • contribs)

No it shouldn't, in my opinion. An unacceptable something isn't better than nothing. If you keep up this kind of talk you won't be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

ok, i respect ur opinion, i really like to bring back lost gods and goddess, its my passion & my reason for doing this. as for talk, yknow they started it, yes? will they also be removed for inappropriate language?— Preceding unsigned comment added by indusdreams (talk • contribs)

Paul only criticized the artwork, not you. I insulted the artwork, but still not you. You threw a personal-attack laced temper tantrum that I've seen users get blocked for.

WP:Assume good faith - One's religious beliefs do not matter here, one's behavior is what matters. If a historical statue of Hubal was discovered, I'd be quite happy to include it in the article. Abstract art is no substitute for that, however. On the matter of one's behavior, all you have done is tried to push your artwork, which could possibly go against WP:NOTPROMO.

Also, WP:No personal attacks - Notice I never said anything about you as a person Indusdreams, just the picture. As for the priest remarks: I'm Baptist, we don't have priests. Anyone who actually studied the least bit about Christianity beyond bigoted stereotypes would know that. (Again, notice that I'm speaking about your claims, not you). I cannot accurately describe the intelligence of claims regarding a Christian bias when I just spent several hours yesterday adding ten sets of the thirty-six names of astrological deities, which has prompted a discussion on my talk page regarding expanding an article on a Greco-Egyptian god. It's not content about paganism I have a problem with, it's putting bad art that has no academic backing into articles to represent historical images.

And as I've already said, we do not take material that is not supported by citing reliable sources, and we do not take original research - in other words, a drawing would have to imitate a historical statue (not just a description of one), or else be backed by a professional academic. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, religious beliefs do not matter. but the moment I opened your user page, I find 'if you want to accuse me of christian bias, click here' something like that, now if that is how your story starts, again if you notice I am discrediting your editing skills as you are discrediting my artistic. I am discrediting the clarity of your judgement on the basis of the numerous accusations you yourself admit to be having in your page.

Now this is entering an extremely complex area. how does a person define 'you' does your editing skill or artistic skill also merit to you as it is a part of you? do you understand the complexity here? lets assume you are out for a walk, someone says hello, you reply 'don't talk please and don't get offended because I am criticizing your communication skills, not you' ? or better yet, what if your girl says 'you suck at sex, don't feel bad, I am criticizing your sexuality, not you' so my point being what we do and what we are, where can you find the boundary between the two. for the sake of arguement, I will say my criticism was regarding your editing skill or your edits, not you.

See, when you talk like a gentleman, so will I but I don't think it was logical or rational of you to expect kindness and sweet words after using the words you did. whether it is about me or what I do, there is a way to talk, I have not asked you for your opinion on my artwork so there is no need to insult my artwork if you don't like it. So understand, give respect get respect. Again, is it possible everyone accusing you of Christian bias are wrong and only you are right? just answer this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by indusdreams (talk • contribs)

Indusdreams, we understand you were contributing in good faith, and disappointment and even anger is understandable at your work being rejected somewhat harshly. We get a lot of people here who are not acting in good faith (vandalizing, trolling, self-promoting) and sometimes we mistake people like you, who mean well but haven't learned the ropes, for those others. Why don't you visit the Teahouse, where you can get to know others just starting out, and some experienced editors who have volunteered to mentor newbies? I'm sure you'll find new ways to contribute as you learn more about how this weird place works. Good luck, and happy (happier!) editing. EEng (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC) P.S. One of the things you need to start doing immediately is to sign your posts with ~~~~. When you save, that turns into your name and the time/date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)

And if you clicked that link, Indusdreams, you'd see that it's just more evidence that your accusations of Christian bias are complete nonsense based on your anger instead of any real evidence. To discredit my editing skills, you need to provide evidence that I regularly attempt to enforce a Christian bias onto articles, something that that page shows is not the case. Otherwise, making such accusations without evidence is considered a personal attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that so much space is given by you to explain why you don't have a bias paints a very unreliable picture in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by indusdreams (talk • contribs)

Stop it, both of you. You're both in the wrong. Indusdreams, please follow the link I gave to the teahouse, and have a soothing cup there. IanT, you know better -- back to editing. EEng (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we can use maths to determine whether he has an actual bias. Editors accused of bias/total amount of editors. if less than 5% of total editors are accused of bias we can determine that the accusations of bias are not a side-effect or consequence of being an editor but are influenced by the specific work done by the editor. in a yes or no question, have you, mr. thompson been accused several times of bias? yes or no?

I rest my case, EEng, if I have hurt his feelings I am sorry. mr. thompson pls don't commit suicide or get very sad, I just felt it was important to teach you some good manners. if you genuinely integrate this in your life and learn to talk, you will make yours and the people around you's life better. I have given hours talking to you, don't waste it. be a better person tomorrow with good manners. you will see you will get treated betterIndusdreams (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

question

Wikipedia's image policy sucks. Is there any way to improve it? Please tell me this is being worked on... - ^theWOLFchild 12:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Your comment is unclear. In what way does it suck? For example, what problems are you experiencing? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The myriad of rules makes very difficult, if not impossible in some cases to post images. It seems the bottom is the WP is afraid of being sued... which in most cases is nonsense.

Anyway, are there any planned changes coming up or no? - ^theWOLFchild 16:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not actual legal entanglement is a realistic possibility, Wikipedia does its best to respect copyright and privacy (as it should) plus has additional rules meant to further its free-content goals. From this discussion [2] you clearly understand a lot of the details of current policy so I don't know why you don't just come out and say what you think should be changed. EEng (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Numbskulls' favorite destination

Does anyone have any idea why this page, of all pages, is regularly visited by numbskulls who want to post their CV or advertisement e.g. [3]? EEng (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Corporate logos

I'm trying to help with a COI requested edit over at a company article [4]. Part of that is asking for a more current logo on the page. However, I'm not sure where logos fall in terms of image use policy. Could someone give me some guidance on this? I'm pretty sure it's not public domain, although I have seen other logos uploaded as such. I don't particularly feel strongly one way or another as to whether logos should even be included in articles, but I've seen this come up enough that I'm starting to get curious on how they should be handled if uploaded. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I got an answer at the article talk page. It was the organization logo upload form I was needing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Double standard

Why are fair use images allowed on Wikipedia but not Creative Commons non-commercial images? The latter is not mostly free, but certainly more free than fair use. Editor abcdef (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC) ‎

Blasphemy

Hello my name is Chavdar Likov. I am Bulgarian and I have been working on Wikipedia since its early creation. I find that the image uploading method is just a bureaucratic bunch of stupid methodology to confuse, discourage and deny free speech and free global Internet and general migration of Information; instead of using all Internet resources, we as users need, as aknowledged users and academic scholars are using and even writing in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is actually convoluting, limiting and discouraging users to put appropriate images and update Wikipedia to further level. I think that with working on WikiProject Rock Music, many bands and musical acts deserve good photos appropriate to their era and line-up at that stage. Wikipedia should open and free people from such limitations and convoluted way of presenting information. As a user with adequate education and a lot of experience, working here and observing general media circulation, I am saying it. It is not in any way undermine Wikipedia and its usage. With all due respect: The Mad Hatter (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-gallery

I plan to add something like "use the template {{Cleanup-gallery}}" somewhere in Image gallery section. Any objections or comments? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I think that would encourage tagging rather than fixing; added to the hatnote instead. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead image?

Lead image is upright=1.35 is NOT the sixe of 300px. Just tried it, it's much bigger. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackie_Chan&diff=672862056&oldid=672861350 check here. Or is it the infobox? Hafspajen (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like infobox image doesn't work on upright="1.3", it's GIANT, it can't replace 300px, it is not the same size at all... Hafspajen (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed revision to Gallery policy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus in the discussion. The responses are all well thought out and reasoned, but the discussion is to evenly split. AlbinoFerret 20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

---

I propose replacing the line in the current Gallery policy that states, "One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.", with "Galleries may be used to show a variety of images of a subject, particularly if the images are engaging, informative, educational, or illustrate a diverse variety of perspectives or instances of the subject of the article. Preference should be given to displaying captions of each image. However, image galleries with large numbers of images should be used with careful discretion, and consideration should be given to breaking up large galleries into smaller galleries or individual images that are more focused on particular aspects of an article."

• Support. --Pine^✉ 20:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This change would lead to more galleries, not fewer. And Wikipedia is not a repository of images: There are other websites that do a really fine job in collecting and displaying images; Wikipedia is primariiy a print encyclopedia. Hand-held devices, in particular, can get overwhelmed with images. WP users are primarily interested in getting their information quickly through text, not through images. There are templates asking for fewer images; see at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Too_many_photos. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• @BeenAroundAWhile: An important element of an encyclopedia is illustration of subjects in question. Furthermore, the Wikimedia Foundation's mobile team is going in the opposite direction by emphasizing more visual content, so it does seem from their research that mobile users are interested in images. Mobile users who aren't interested in images can disable images in their browsers. Meanwhile, desktop users and others with good data connections benefit from the informative visual information in galleries. --Pine^✉ 21:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see the current language as a suggestion that in most cases, galleries are not desirable because they often contain an indiscriminate collection of images. The proposed language gives decent guidelines on what to include -- "engaging, informative, educational..." -- but it lacks this stronger prohibition on overuse of images. I edit mostly in plant articles, and I can't tell you how many galleries I have removed because all they contained were redundant images of the plant or flower, usually of low quality, that the user took, uploaded, and inserted into the article. Galleries invite bloat if not crafted well and maintained. The policy stated here already makes it clear that galleries should really only be used in special cases, like comparing features or providing a set of images that tells a single story. I see no reason to make this change. ... What, may I ask, is the purpose of the change? What do you see it as accomplishing? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 20:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Rkitko: The goal is to allow for wider use of galleries in general. Images that are low quality or redundant can still be removed under this proposal, and I would welcome a suggested wording for a modification to make that clear. --Pine^✉ 21:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Request I've been invited here by RfCBot. Before I can comment meaningfully, it would be useful to have some more background information: how often are galleries used? What are examples of good use and poor use. What types of galleries would be removed under the old policy but kept under the new policy? How long has the old wording been in place? What previous discussions have taken place? Anything you could do to add colour would be helpful. Thanks! AndrewRT(Talk) 19:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Many articles are using them frequently. Per WP:PIC#Galleries say: Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. That's about that. It is rather difficult to illustrate a plant article, animal articles not to speak about art articles without galleries. Hafspajen (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Hafspajen (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Somewhat neutral The new and old text really deal with different issues. There used to be a problem with gallery-only articles, which the existing text addresses. But these were hunted to extinction many years ago. Today, galleries are concentrated in appropriate topics such as art articles, where they are normal and highly useful. The usefulness of galleries is adequately set out elsewhere in the section (as is the undesirability of image-only articles). I'd like to see a stronger injunction to include explanatory captions in galleries. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Band timeline images

A discussion is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards related to standards around generated timelines. The suggestions seem to violate the WP:IMGSIZE. It would probably be best if interested parties could comment to either support the 800 pixel width suggestions or give reasons against them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members"

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members". A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleting images

Item 5 of WP:IUP#Deleting images currently reads "For disputed non-free files, you may alternatively use a listing on the non-free content review page.", but "NFCR" was merged into WP:FFD ("Files for Discussion") a few months back and now all non-free content matters are being discussed there. There are still some open threads on NFCR, but these are slowly being closed and archived or moved to FFD. Could someone update the sentence and add a wikilink to FFD? I don't mind doing, but since this is a policy page I felt it's best to ask here first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinions requested

Please see discussion at Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750#Gallery usage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Question about image uploaded here (apparently by copyright owner) and is in a location where it is clearly copyright-protected

This is something I have wondered about generally for a while. I have a good concrete example here.

this file was recently uploaded by someone who I believe owns the image, and it was labelled appropriately with free licenses.

The same image appears on that person's website here and appears to be the cover of a book they published, as described on that website. In both those contexts, the image is obviously copyright protected.

So is the image freely licensed now or not? Sorry if this is a stupid question. I'm not dealing with the apparent effort of the copyright holder to promote herself, which is a separate issue. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Presuming the good faith of the uploader, the image is free - well, is cc-by-sa-4.0. That it has been used elsewhere is of no moment. To dig into that presumption; we presume that the uploader was the photographer; and we presume that he or she in his/her capacity as owner of the copyright has not assigned that copyright under some exclusive licence to some other entity - the book publisher, for instance.

You say "In both those contexts, the image is obviously copyright protected." But it is not obvious. Books and websites can be published under a CC licence, or the author can indicate they intend them to be in the public domain. A copyright continues to exist (for whatever the time period of copyright is), but a licence or permission is given. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If you actually go look at the link I provided you can see that the website and book are copyrighted and not openly licensed. But i hear what you are saying - you are saying that we assume that the cc license claimed with the upload is the valid one. That is interesting. I ~thought~ we were more cautious than that. I appreciate you answering and look forward to seeing if others say the same! Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The creator of the work can license it however they want, and it can be licensed in multiple ways at the same time. The book cover can be "all rights reserved" while the photo is uploaded to WP with a CC license. We have chosen to use the CC version. There is no contradiction. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Two aligned answers. OK, that seems to be the right answer then. Thanks to both of you. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Taking your "I ~thought~ we were more cautious than that" a little further ... we certainly have a mechanism for considering & dealing with images about which we have licence concerns - Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files - and we have a policy - WP:IOWN - concerned with copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia. So we can follow a couple of paths: 1. do we have concerns that someone other than the copyright owner has uploaded the image; and (whether or not we have a concern in this respect) 2. do we wish to cause the uploader to follow the WP:IOWN methods of completely resolving copyright concerns. My instinct is that a user called @Helisusa: uploading images also found on a website http://helisusa.info is probably the owner of the images and the site, and so my inclination is not to take the matter further (although by pinging User:Helisusa in this post, his or her attention is now drawn to this discussion :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Annotated image policy

Notified: WP:IM, WP:ILL, WP:PIC, MOS:IMAGE, TMP:AI4, WP:MCB, WP:GEN, WP:BIOL

Currently the only advice on image annotation seems to be Picture tutorial (WP:PIC) and a sentence in the manual of style (MOS:IMAGE). I am keen to more frequently use wikilinked image annotation (TMP:AI4) but thought it would be good to have some consensus on when/where it is appropriate/inappropriate. For example, the DNA article contains:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Which if any could appropriately have interactive wikilinked annotations? What are the general principles for when it is appropriate? When is it inappropriate? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 02:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any fundamental difference between placing text and associated wikilinks in an image vs. the image caption. Including wikilinks directly in the image is often clearer. The only disadvantage I see is that it may make it somewhat more complicated to port the image to other languages. I also do not see any fundamental difference between including Wikilinks in the main text vs. images. The same link guidelines apply to both. In particular, one should guard against overlinking. Boghog (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I've really liked the ones I've seen you create. (And shouldn't it be easier to port to other languages than an image with its own text would be?) I'm just not sure I see why there's a need for a policy on the topic. Did someone object to one of them? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Currently the wikilinked annotation template is only available in English and Welsh. To port the annotated image to another language, one also needs to port the template (and ideally also the template documentation). Furthermore maintenance of these templates in other languages is a headache. So as it currently stands, it is easier to port a text free graphic and associated caption vs. an wikilinked annotated image. Boghog (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I've not yet had anyone object to the interactive images I've made so far. I mainly want to pre-empt any future problems. Agree that there's no sense in overlinking an image where the labels are not a key feature. I think a lot of summary images could do with wikilinked labels though. Good point that the templates don't necessarily work in other languages - I hadn't thought of that. I'll make sure that the non-interactive images are always available. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 08:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images (specifically, the section titled "Making images yourself"), annotating text onto images is the preferred method for including text in images. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Added: Personally, I think it's only worthwhile to use image annotation when there's image text that would be benefit from having a link to the associated article(s) in the image. In some cases, it may be useful to use both regular image text (for text which is less relevant to the purpose of the image) and annotated text (for article links/etc) in an image. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cropped vs. full images

Map of Lorem ipsum. Clicking on the image itself takes you to an uncropped version of the full map, while clicking on the little rectangle thingee here in the caption area takes you to the formal description page for the cropped img

I hope you'll excuse my injecting a somewhat related issue. If a large image will not display well at thumbnail size (or there's a small part of it that's most important for the purposes of the article) for some time I've been using link= to allow a crop of that image to be displayed in the thumbnail, but if the user clicks on the image he's taken to the original, full (uncropped) image. This way the reader gets the best of both worlds.

Unfortunately, I've gotten static on this from that kind of editor who's hostile to anything they haven't see before -- see [5] (open the collapse box, and you can stop reading at the end of the third image). Does anyone see anything wrong with this technique? And if not, can we add something explicitly here, with an example? EEng (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This sounds to be a good option. I would use it if I knew how. I do not think it needs to be used in all cases of cropping, but sometimes it will make for a better thumbnail, eg a zoom in of a face for a portrait, or a building in its context. It would also be good for WP:DYK, where the thumbnail is even smaller. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your examples are exactly right. It's very easy -- here's the markup:

[[File:CavendishVermont 1869Map Beers AnnotatedPhineasGageLocations cropped.jpg

|link=File:CavendishVermont_1869Map_Beers_AnnotatedPhineasGageLocations.jpg

|thumb|upright=1.2

|Map of Lorem ipsum. Clicking on the image itself takes you to an uncropped version of the full map, while clicking on the little rectangle thingee here in the caption area takes you to the formal description page for the cropped img

]]

I'd really like to know whether people think this page should explicitly acknowledge this usage, so I don't have to argue with knowitalls about it in the future. EEng (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just as long as there is a link to the image file page somewhere in the caption, on the image, or as the image background link, it will suffice, since this satisfies the requirement to indicate the image copyright/licensing info (i.e., attribution requirements). There is no policy or legal requirement to have an image background link to a copyright page. This info could even be listed in the article itself, although that would be a bit tacky for an encylcopedia IMO. I should probably note that attribution is typically provided on the same page as the image in most external sources (e.g., academic journals, textbooks, webpages, etc)... linking to another page for attribution as we do is actually somewhat atypical.

As an example of an alternative way to provide attribution, I recently coded a parameter to add an info icon (i.e., this thing: ) to the end of a caption to link to the associated commons page when a background link is not used (note that template:annotated image 4 requires that an image have a commons page). If using an image-insertion template, it is a good idea to indicate/link to the image commons page somewhere on that page or its documentation as well, as was done with the example below.

Template:Psychostimulant addiction – example template without a background link

Signaling cascade in the nucleus accumbens that results in psychostimulant addiction Note: colored text contains article links. Nuclear pore Nuclear membrane Plasma membrane Cav1.2 NMDAR AMPAR DRD1 DRD5 DRD2 DRD3 DRD4 Gs Gi/o AC cAMP cAMP PKA CaM CaMKII DARPP-32 PP1 PP2B CREB ΔFosB JunD c-Fos SIRT1 HDAC1 This diagram depicts the signaling events in the brain's reward center that are induced by chronic high-dose exposure to psychostimulants that increase the concentration of synaptic dopamine, like amphetamine, methamphetamine, and phenethylamine. Following presynaptic dopamine and glutamate co-release by such psychostimulants, postsynaptic receptors for these neurotransmitters trigger internal signaling events through a cAMP-dependent pathway and a calcium-dependent pathway that ultimately result in increased CREB phosphorylation. Phosphorylated CREB increases levels of ΔFosB, which in turn represses the c-Fos gene with the help of corepressors; c-Fos repression acts as a molecular switch that enables the accumulation of ΔFosB in the neuron. A highly stable (phosphorylated) form of ΔFosB, one that persists in neurons for 1–2 months, slowly accumulates following repeated high-dose exposure to stimulants through this process. ΔFosB functions as "one of the master control proteins" that produces addiction-related structural changes in the brain, and upon sufficient accumulation, with the help of its downstream targets (e.g., nuclear factor kappa B), it induces an addictive state.  References

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, you certainly, um, know how to put an image together! We are obviously in violent agreement, but if you read the (beginning of) the discussion I linked, you'll see there are editors who simply cannot see beyond reasoning of the form "You must do X because I've only seen X, and that's the reason you must do X. QED." So, how might we acknowledge this technique on this page? I think it's one which could be used to excellent effect in a lot of articles, and it's very simple once someone points out the syntax. EEng (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Coverage of attribution requirements involving the link parameter, or no background link, is basically summarized at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax partly in the lead and mostly in Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#Link. The mere fact that the unlinked syntax is covered and the attribution requirements are explained there is an implicit endorsement of retargeting or removing background links altogether. I'd suggest just pointing people to that page for now, although the syntax page text involving links/attribution for non-PD images could just as well be added to this page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you've said -- what does "there is an implicit endorsement of retargeting or removing background links altogether" mean? In 2009 someone added this [6] without any discussion that I can see:

Note that link cannot be used in conjunction with thumb as thumb is always meant to link to the larger version of the image.

I think what this was getting at is that when the reader clicks the image he shouldn't get an easter egg -- something unexpected; he expects to get "more" of the little image in the thumb. The most obvious sense of "more" is the same image, just bigger; but it seems to me completely reasonable to extend that to the possibility of a full image, of which the thumb was a crop -- as someone mentioned above, the thumb might have been a close-up of a face, with the full image giving a larger context. How about this:

If link is used with thumb, the linked image should be a full, uncropped image from which the thumbnail was cropped, or a full document from which thumbnail was a single page, or crop of a single page.

EEng (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the following lead text on that WP:EIS:

Link
Link the image to a different resource, or to nothing. Must not be set for non-public domain images unless attribution is provided in some other fashion.
— Wikipedia:Extended image syntax lead

It explicitly states that link removal should not be done unless another form of attribution is used. Since the page doesn't state that the background link shouldn't be removed in any circumstance and given that the page explains how to remove the background link in WP:EIS#Link, the page is implicitly supporting the removal of the background link as a display option, assuming attribution is provided by another means. If removing the background link wasn't an acceptable option in articles at all, the page would've stated that instead of mention the attribution condition in the above quote. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. You seem to be using the phrase link removal to mean setting link= to a nonempty value -- that's kind of confusing (or am I misunderstanding?). But there's still the problem that the text I quoted in my earlier post does say that, in the specific context of a thumbnail, link= shouldn't be used at all. Would you agree that text is inappropriate and should be modified along the lines of my suggestion above? EEng (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my meaning is correct.

As for thumbs, as long as attribution to the associated image(s) (i.e., cropped version, full version, etc) is provided via an alternate method OR on the target page of the link, it should be perfectly fine to link a thumb. {{Annotated image 4}} actually retargets the link to the file's wikimedia commons page for all images (note that this template produces a thumbnail frame/caption which looks virtually identical to normal thumbs) which are displayed using this template.

With regard to cropped/full images, it would probably be faster and simpler to use a template to crop an image instead of upload a cropped file; when cropping with a template, the default image link would be the full version of the image since no cropped image file is used. Both {{annotated image}} and {{annotated image 4}} (and I imagine several other image templates as well) are able to crop and/or expand the area around an image. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Template cropping: these 3 images use the same image file

Example 1 Levoamphetamine cropped horizontally; expanded vertically

Racemic amphetamine Levoamphetamine Dextroamphetamine Full version, expanded vertically (the area where the wikilinks appear is not part of the image)

Example 2 Dextroamphetamine cropped horizontally; expanded vertically

You'll understand my saying that I really don't want to navigate all that syntax for every image -- I'd just like to use link=, so can we agree that the changed text I proposed above is OK? EEng (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If link is used with thumb, the linked image should be a full, uncropped image from which the thumbnail was cropped, or a full document from which thumbnail was a single page, or crop of a single page.

Add the word "generally" between "linked image should" and "be a full" and I think that's fine. It's best not to mandate a particular method for layout/syntax when there may be unusual cases in which it would be better if done differently.
In any event, should you ever decide to use it, the parameters in the AI4 template mirror the syntax in a double-bracketed image/file call, and the remainder are pretty straightforward to use. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Reviving discussion

Any objection to the text Seppi333 discusses above, with (as he/she suggests) generally inserted, as follows –

If link is used with thumb, the linked image should generally be a full, uncropped image from which the thumbnail was cropped, or a full document from which thumbnail was a single page, or crop of a single page.

 – ? EEng (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

<bump> EEng (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I can certainly sign up to that proposed text. Might be an idea to explain the idea on some of the appropriate 'how to' pages, too... BushelCandle (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Related to that discussion, it's been brought up there that our image use policy contains material that is less policy (images must be properly licensed) and more stylistic guidance (images should generally carry a caption), and that this material has a large amount of overlap with MOS:IMAGE. My impression is that the whole "Adding images to articles" section of this policy (with the possible exception of the callout to NOTCENSORED) is actually a mixture of howto (redundant with Wikipedia:Image markup) and guidance (redundant with MOS:IMAGE). Maybe we can have a discussion here about simplifying and un-WP:CREEPing this section to keep only the pieces that really should be policy, and if so identifying which pieces those are? If possible I think we should keep such a discussion limited to debating whether something in this part of the policy really should be policy or guideline, rather than whether its meaning should be changed, since otherwise we'll end up with as big a mess as we already have over on the MOS talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent idea, David. BushelCandle (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotect, please

Can some kind admin permanently semiprotect this page, plz? Of scores of IP edits over the last few years, maybe two weren't vandalism. EEng (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

While the necessary reversions do inflate the edit history, there are enough experienced editors with this policy page on their watchlist not to make this necessary, in my opinion. I think the 'anyone can edit' principle is important enough to keep this page unprotected for now. BushelCandle (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, your mother wears army boots! EEng 10:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes

EEng and Adam Cuerden, could you gain consensus for changes to the policy? It becomes hard to work out what the real changes are and what is just copy-editing, especially given the confusion at the guideline.

Image size is something editors regularly fall out about, because a few editors like to impose their image-size preferences (often by reducing size) on articles they're otherwise not involved in. This policy and the guideline act as ammunition, so changes that reduce choice will affect a lot of people. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I was simply trying to provide what I would have thought was non-controversial, neutral information. I kind of get the impression EEng just is deleting for deletion's sake. He doesn't even seem to actually object to most of it, just doesn't like discussion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral information about what technical choices work best when formatting images belongs on Wikipedia:Image markup, not here. This page should only be about actual policies that must be followed when formatting images. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that it's very annoying when people object to copy-editing and helpful changes, and I'm sorry to do that. It just seems that someone (EEng?, I'm not sure) is trying to reduce choice even further, and I know that it will affect people, particularly those who work in art. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah: I agree with the principle of what you're complaining about, but you're really waving your pistol at the wrong target if you single out EEng as "trying to reduce choice even further". He is well aware that this is a policy page and not '10 things you didn't know about image syntax'. Consequently, my analysis of the recent edit history is NOT that there is edit warring (or objections to copyediting), but rather one editor attempting to be rather too bold (and, I'm sure he'd say, helpful) and others trying to restore the minimum consensual policy. BushelCandle (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, by "one editor attempting to be rather too bold" Bushel means Adam (not me). EEng 10:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

[Edit conflicted a few times] :::His objections include "editors sophisticated enough to use these features will realize this" - so he removes it from the guideline, even though his summary implicitly agrees the statement is true. He objects to this because he can see no evidence it's a problem (because no-one is using upright for the purpose being warned about anywhere.) Again, we're writing for all users, including newbies. And with that removal, any warning about the otherwise undocumented rounding off to the nearest 10px that upright does is removed as well. It's naive to think that we should have a policy, and not engage with how it's applied. Both those aren't about technical decisions, they're simple clarifications of when using upright is impossible. No-one is seriously advocating for not using px where upright simply wouldn't work; stating a few examples of when it doesn't work will help clarify the policy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

And, you know, if one or two of the examples are genuinely controversial - sure. But are we seriously saying we should use Upright to randomly select based on user preferences between a 20px or 30px wide inline image, say, and, furthermore, not documenting that's a problem is terrible policy writing.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your first mistake is in your first sentence, where you use the word "guideline". This page is about a policy, not a guideline. It should only be for things where we say editors *must* do things, not that they *should* do them, or that in most cases those things are the best choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, but we say "You must use upright whereever possible" I think it's valid to say "It is not possible in these situations". Otherwise, it makes it sound like upright is always possible to use - and therefore, per policy, must be used (even though it won't work). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No, because it said "In most cases upright=scaling factor should be used...". In most cases... should is not must, and leaves plenty of room for exceptions. As for things you said in your earlier post:

• I understand that scaling via upright rounds the width, but I don't see why that's some kind of danger editors need to be warned about
• And yes, editors using CSS image crop and the gallery tags aren't newbies, and will know without being told that that's exactly the kind of situation where upright won't work [7]
• And there's no purpose to statements like "Also, note that most articles on Wikipedia predate the existence of upright=, or at least before guidelines were updated to suggest using it, and will likely use px for now" [8]

But none of that really matters, because useful or not these are substantive changes which, being sensibly objected to, should be discussed first. And as both I and David Eppstein have said repeatedly (e.g. [9]), this is guideline or how-to material doesn't belong here on a policy page, but rather over at MOS/Images, if it belongs anywhere. And as also already stated [10], this entire section of the policy should be merged over to MOS/Images and removed from here, not further bloated here.

EEng 05:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

{serial edit conflicts} Folks that find it "hard to work out what the real changes are and what is just copy-editing" might wish to consider a self denying ordinance with regard to editing the accompanying policy page (or study the material they contemplate reverting long and hard) before they make this kind of edit.

Mind you, I wholeheartedly agree with the implication of the accompanying edit summary for that howler: "back to Adam, please gain consensus for these changes (this is a policy page)" and not some strange new game of 'policy ping-pong'.

May I entreat anyone that wishes to change policy (or even the emphasis, or is tempted to sprinkle a few little new and ever-so-helpful 'how-to' notes) rather than mere copyediting and removing howlers, to discuss the changes they think are needed on this discussion page first?

Besides the obvious benefit that signalling the change here first will ensure that the 'improvement' has consensus, prior community input may well catch factual errors such as this edit which introduced the factually incorrect statement that "inline images, which cannot use upright= are an obvious exception", before installation on the live page. (Inline images, if the frameless syntax is used can display images inline. Admittedly, there is a drawback that the range of displayed sizes is limited to increments of 10px, but that won't be a handicap for many inline icons which would often otherwise use a fixed size of 20px, since this is equivalent to frameless|upright=0.1 for most of our readers who have not logged on or for those registered users who have not changed their base thumbnail preference size from 220px.) BushelCandle (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that's going to be rounded up to 30px. that's the problem. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Very well. I've marked that section as disputed for now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

And I'll wager one of these frameless|upright=0.1|alt=an inline image of a Singapore banknote of SGD10,000 denomination|Singapore banknote of SGD10,000 denomination, the largest value banknote in all the world in general circulation or one of these 20px|alt=an inline image of a Brunei banknote of BRD10,000 denomination|Brunei banknote of BRD10,000 denomination; also the largest value banknote in all the world in general circulation, since the Brunei and Singapore dollar are fixed at par to each other <code><!-- Please note that the banknotes both display at the exact same size on your screen despite one using 'upright' relative sizing and the other using 'px' fixed sizing --></code> at odds of 5 to 1 that you're wrong, Adam.

(3 days later:) Well, you were too late, Adam.

Because of User:Stefan2's conscientious policing and the tardiness of your response (if any) to my wager, you may have potentially lost yourself more than €6,000 x 5 = €30,000 (but only if I was wrong, of course).

Since you didn't accept my wager, I withdraw it and instead offer you a new wager of potentially lesser value:

I'll now only wager one of these or one of these but still at odds of 5 to 1 that you're wrong, Adam. BushelCandle (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(Only if you're one of the less than 0.01% of our readers that is both logged in and have changed their base thumbnail width preference from the default of 220px to one of larger size will it display at 30px (or larger). And those few of our readers are often the ones with large monitors and may have increased their text size in their browser accordingly, too...) BushelCandle (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(BUMP!!!) So, do you accept my wager, Adam? BushelCandle (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

If less than .01% of our readers have done that, why bother with upright in the first place? That's an argument against the very rationale you're supporting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Because, while small in absolute numbers, the individual cases may be quite important. In the same way that the religious practices of Jews are tolerated and catered for in 'Catholic' Ireland we should, where possible, try to honour the preferences of both the near-blind using the largest user preference available AND those who are visiting Ethiopia and have temporarily changed their thumbnail preference widths to the lowest available to save both time and expense on expensive and slow mobile data connections. BushelCandle (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair use images

A {{why}} template was added to the "Fair use images" section with this edit back in September 2013. I haven't seen tags like this used on a policy page before, so I'm wondering if such a thing is common on policy/guideline pages. to me, this seems like something more suitable for talk page discussion that tagging. Does the tag stay there until someone adds a reason? Do examples need to be added to that particular section? Just curious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer the question why: because sometimes it is not the description of how a file is used that is invalid, but the way it is used itself. This should be clear to anyone who has read the policy. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you Finnusertop, which is why I'm wondering why the "why" (no pun intended) has been left there for almost 2.5 years. Seems like it should've been answered and removed a long time ago. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Voting on how to describe upright

The advice about upright fails to cover several cases where it should definitely not be used. I suggest one of the following:

Option 1

Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. In most cases upright=scaling factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices). Common exceptions may include:

• Images below 55px (about equivalent to upright=.25 or smaller) are likely to run up against the limits of upright, which rounds up to the nearest 10px increment, and thus can vary widely given small changes in settings.
• Certain features are only available using images measured in pixels, such as {{CSS image crop}} and the <gallery> tag (see Help:Gallery tag)
• Also, note that most articles on Wikipedia predate the existence of upright=, or at least before guidelines were updated to suggest using it, and will likely use px for now.
• Where px is used, the resulting image should usually be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays).

---

This briefly sets out that upright is inappropriate for several uses. In particular, consider upright=.1 For users with the default 220px, this will give a 30px image (since it rounds up). For users that prefer slightly smaller, say a 170px default, they get 20px. This is a 50% increase. Now consider these two flag icons: . Admittedly, that's an extreme case, but the only other possible result under upright is . It works in 10px increments. No option available with upright is appropriate for this flag. Switzerland and Vatican City are similarly proportioned. Upright is simply wrong here, and it ever being right will be a matter of sheer chance.

• Support (first choice) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose misplaced (not policy) and WP:CREEP. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:David Eppstein        BushelCandle (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Option 2

The paragraph:

Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. In most cases upright=scaling factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices).

...is deleted as only suitable to guidelines, as it seeks to advise, instead of providing advice that is almost always true.

---

• Support second choice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. In particular it seems strange to have a policy that is much more frequently violated than honored. While I think the advice it offers is good, I don't think it should be stated as policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support as a temporary fix to what's there now, though as stated a zillion times, all this formatting stuff belongs over at MOS/Images, or in a how-to, and not on this policy page. EEng 10:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Option 3

I really do think this vote is premature, but if it must take place there should be a third option BushelCandle (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC) :
Keep the 23 December 2015 (UTC) status quo ante at least until a reasonable period for discussion and either confirming or overturning the existing consensus has elapsed.

---

• Support BushelCandle (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - The above two options are not suitable. I'm doing my best to abide to the scaling factor policy. While I like the idea of using the "px", we should consider a user's image size preference first. --George Ho (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think that leaving it as it is is tenable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think going about the problem of too much guideline material in the policy in such a small and piecemeal way, and making such a big three-section VOTE NOW big deal about such a small change, is the right way to do it, when we've barely started even having a discussion about the larger issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a policy page and not advice, how-to-do-it or guidance, I disagree with Adam's position. The status quo (that has endured for several years) should be an option if you want to have a vote, Adam. BushelCandle (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with moving this advice to Wikipedia:Extended image syntax but I will point out that page is currently a mess. Image size is discussed in at least three different places on that page; the lead, the "size" section, and two places in the "New syntax for images" section (why does this section exist? will an editor ever encounter the "old syntax", whatever that is?). I mention this not to oppose removing the advice here, but in the hopes that someone more familiar with image syntax than I can fix it, preferably before the paragraph is removed here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point, Kendall-K1; that page really is an embarrassment. However, after slugging it out here over every tiny tweak, I'm not encouraged to take either my shovel or my pitchfork over there! BushelCandle (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• For the record here's [11] a list of the many guidelines/policies/helps that touch on image syntax. Maybe someday we'll have the energy to rationalize them somewhat. EEng 04:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed pixel widths in galleries

It's been policy for many years now to deprecate specifying fixed image widths unless vital.

It's my understanding that the current {{gallery}} template does not allow users' image size preferences to be respected by using relative sizing rather than specifying fixed sizes in pixels.

Am I wrong in thinking that the Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries sub-section should include language pointing that out? BushelCandle (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

See "Option 1" in section "Voting on how to describe upright" above. Kendall-K1 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops sorry, you've already seen it. Yes, maybe something should go in there. I guess the argument is that pixel size is a matter of style, not policy; but the gallery tag doesn't support non-pixel sizes. So using non-pixel sizes in galleries doesn't work, and it seems reasonable to have a policy that says "don't do something that doesn't work." Kendall-K1 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments sought about logos giving credit in videos

Per WP:Watermark the community advice is that images used on Wikipedia should not have watermarks giving credit to copyright holders.

I am seeking comment at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Advice_on_noting_non-free_logo_animations_in_freely_licensed_videos on whether people feel any differently about film credits. As Wikipedia establishes more institutional partnerships, there is the opportunity to accept more videos. It is fairly common for videos to end with film credits, and common also for institutions to use logos to identify themselves.

Is there a relationship between the watermark policy for images and the concept of credits at the end of videos? Does the Wikipedia community allow uploaded videos to have credits at the end? May those credits include copyrighted logos on a de minimis rationale?

I would appreciate any comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Watermarks and logos on still images are intrusive and ugly, as they are in the "main" part of a video. End credits are completely different in that regard. EEng 16:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading the above again I think maybe I misunderstood the question. EEng 16:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

EEng - There are two questions. One is whether video credits are allowed. Another is whether video credits can take the form of a copyrighted logo. It seems like you feel that under some circumstances, videos can include some kind of credit. Other thoughts, perhaps on the logo issue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think an end-credit's appropriate for the reasons I gave. Re logo, I'm in vacation and left that kind of brainpower at home for the duration of the trip. Several of our esteemed fellow editors will drop in to argue about it presently, however -- you can count on it. EEng 17:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about image usage

Are images denoted with "This media asset is free for editorial broadcast, print, online and radio use. It is restricted for use for other purposes." suitable for use on Wikipedia? TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We would treat it as non-free, and thus must meet all requirements for non-free use, since it has restrictions on its use. It's fine to use on Wikipedia as a fair use, and arguably our use would fall under editorial online use, but others that might use the image do not necessarily have that so it's not a "Free" image. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for guidance

I wondering if a more experienced editor wouldn't mind guiding me through my first swing at adding photos from Wikimedia Commons to Wikipedia entries, particularly to be sure I understand the copyright and acknowledgement rules (I can figure out the syntax for placing them in the entry.) In short I've found four images that correspond to BLPs I've worked on:

1. Sylvie Tissot https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sylvie_Tissot.jpeg
2. Crissle West https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Read_Podcast_Live.jpg
3. Aparna Nancherla https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aparna_Nancherla.jpg
4. Jenna Wortham https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ArtAndFeminism_2016_MoMA_01.tif

They have different sources (two directly uploaded by photographer, if I'm understanding correctly; one from Flickr; one from a blog) so I just want to be sure I'm understanding the criteria for using them, and how/if there's supposed to be a crediting of the photographer (caption?). Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: with regards to copyright, you do not have to do anything. The people who have taken those photos and uploaded them onto Wikimedia Commons already have taken care of it. They have all licensed said photos under free use licenses that allow anyone to use them for any purpose, including adding them to a Wikipedia article. The licenses do require attribution ("giving credit"), but Wikipedia takes care of that for you. Images added in articles can be clicked and clicking them will take the reader to the page that specifies the author of the photo (the same page you have linked to above). A link like that will suffice as attribution, and adding image credits to a caption is unnecessary (and stylistically discouraged). All you have to do is to add the image to the article by using the syntax:
[[File:Sylvie_Tissot.jpeg|thumb|Some caption about Sylvie Tissot here]]

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Individual image noticeboard

Is there some sort of noticeboard where we can discuss the copyright compliance of individual images?--Prisencolin (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. But if the image is hosted at Commons they won't be able to help. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is: WP:FFD – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Blowing up images beyond their uploaded size

Do we have any policy regarding displaying an image above its uploaded size? Say an image is 960 pixels wide, it seems like a bad idea to display it at 1400 pixels wide, but I can't find any policy or guideline that says not to do it. This came up at Talk:New_York#Removal of waterfall image from panoramas. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hand-drawn images

Do we have a policy about hand-drawn images, an editor's own work, for which we have no indication of the reliability of the information? We don't ask for references for images. In the last week I've found two instances:

• Cerovica (Istria) (this version), a hand-drawn map
• TESPAL (this version), a group of hand-drawn images in a medical article - one of them on a page of lined paper from a notepad.

We encourage editors to create their own images, to avoid copyright problems, but I have my doubts about whether these ones are a benefit to the encyclopedia. I'd rather see an external link to a reliable source which has a copyright image which can't be added to the article but can be accessed by the reader. I can't find any policy or guidelines about this question - but then, I suppose, any photographic image can be uploaded with the title "This building, this town", when it's actually of somewhere completely different.

@Valjean1969:, @Musketeers.svu: as the creators of the images concerned, so they know I'm discussing them here. PamD 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I've mentioned this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Hand-drawn_images to get the attention of people interested in images. PamD 10:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

And see also Uncinectomy for more images, by a student on the same course as TESPAL. (@Paint.sbks: PamD 11:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Original images by editors should reflect verifyable information, and thus should have links to sources where an original version of the information can be found. If this can't be provided, then the image is original research and should be removed. While there is nothing technically wrong with hand-drawn works, it would probably help if the editor seeks help from the Graphics lab to recreate the image in a better digital format (for example, the Cerovica map can easily be remade as a digital map). --MASEM (t) 14:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's perhaps overstating the requirements a bit. You can post a photo of your neighborhood without a source that proves that it's the location you claim, and a drawing of the same thing is treated identically. Diagrams, whether hand-drawn or copied, should reflect verifiable information (as, indeed, should photos). It's wonderful when contributors of images cite any sources that they used, just like it's wonderful when contributors of text cite any sources they used. But there is no requirement to cite sources on the description page. You can verify the information by looking it up elsewhere, just like you'd attempt to verify the information if s/he'd written it out in words.

User:PamD, the official policy is WP:NOR, but may not be very satisfying to you. Basically, we're trusting image uploaders to get it right, and we're trusting editors to notice when they don't (which does happen, sometimes even for images that name their alleged sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

RE: Hand drawing. I added a note to the map on the page "Cerovica (Istria)". I this is not good I will delete the map. Thank you.Valjean1969 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Using images

An editor is seeking to delete almost all images from an article, because - as he said in his last edit summary - in his opinion they are "unnecessary photos."

The article is about Olympic athletes from a country who performed in an Olympics.

The photos are of (some of) the athletes.

Can others take a look?

It is the last discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics#Images

Appreciated.--2604:2000:E016:A700:9DE8:6DBF:9D60:CE98 (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

A note on a case law in EU to keep in mind

[12] An EU court found that an entity that had no right to re-upload images and knowingly did that was guilty of copyright infringement.

That said, a couple of things:

• This doesn't affect US law and thus should not directly affect us
• There is a "fair use" aspect in the existing EU law that if the purpose is not-for-profit and if one is unaware that the work in question is unauthorized, you are safeguarded.

It is probably still why our strong policy on non-free and assuring works are in the PD will protect us should anything like this come from an EU entity. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Huh? The case has nothing to do with uploading. It says (sort of) that linking to copyright-infringing files hosted on another site could itself be seen as a form of infringement. We already have a rule (um, I think -- can't find it just now) forbidding external links to copyvios on other sites, so I don't see how this would affects us, even if there was jurisdiction, which there isn't. EEng 17:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It's in WP:ELNEVER. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I was looking in ELNO. There are too many EL-somethings: ELYES, ELMAYBE, ELNO, and ELNEVER. Surprised there's no ELSOMETIMES and ELUPTOYOU. EEng 03:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Another huh? We do not have a policy "assuring works are in the PD." That would be silly. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

We need to be nearly 100% sure a work is in the PD or CC-BY (or equivalent free license) to be used as a free image, otherwise we will treat it as non-free. Basically what I see potentially an issue here is the same issue as Flickrwashing. It's probably not really a huge issue for us as long as we tread carefully in evaluating PD/CC-BY licensing. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, not 100% sure, since that's impossible. But this still has nothing to do with the case in your OP, which is about linking, not uploading/hosting. EEng 05:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

I've found an image of Puerto Rican boxer Félix Verdejo which was taken by someone in the Puerto Rico National Guard but it was uploaded with the copyright license. As far as I know all the work done by the U.S. Army is of public domain. The question is, can I still use the image? Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 09:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

May 1920 photo of individual died 1925, uploaded by Hudson Historical Society 2013

http://www.summitmemory.org/cdm/ref/collection/hist_hudson/id/160 I presume this has been scanned from a physical photo and therefore is covered by copyright as asserted? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Images from Flickr and stills from YouTube videos

I am having a (civil) discussion with another editor regarding the status of certain images uploaded to Wikipedia. The editor is certainly acting in good faith and with what he/she believes is within Wikipedia's image use policy – we are just discussing a couple of areas where we have different interpretations of copyright issues.

1. Use of images found on Flickr which appear to have originated on official websites. The editor believes that images can be uploaded from Flickr websites with attribution, and I agree with that – what I am concerned about is that the image was illegally uploaded to Flickr in the first place. For example, File:Brendan O'Connor MP 2011.jpg, which although uploaded from Flickr appears to have originated on an official Australian government website, and would therefore presumably be non-free use.
2. Use of video stills taken from videos uploaded to YouTube by companies who presumably still own the rights to the video – do they still own the rights to any stills from the video? For example, File:Myf Warhurst - Waffle TV.jpg, which has been taken from this video.

If anyone can clear up these issues for us we would be grateful. Richard3120 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

1. 1. This is called c:Commons:License laundering
   2. Yes, the the copyright holder of the video owns the copyright to any stills from the video. Uploading on Wikimedia Commons depends on the license of the video. In your example the video was uploaded on YouTube under the license CC-BY 3.0, and the same license was used for the still uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, so there is no problem. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In other words, 1. definitely not, 2. it depends. And in the case of the latter, I can see that it is marked CC-BY (reuse allowed), so for this particular example it is OK. Thank you for your answers, Finnusertop. Richard3120 (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I fear you may be confused about how licenses work. Works are born copyrighted, so if the author has not licensed it, you can't copy it. Once the author licenses it, you may be able to make copies depending on what the license says. Whether you got the photo from Flickr or from somewhere else does not enter in to it at all. In your example 1) the work has been CC licensed, which means anyone can copy it under terms of the CC license. Flickr has done so and you can too. You can copy it from the Australian web site, or from Flickr. The default Flickr license is "all rights reserved," so your statement that "images can be uploaded from Flickr websites with attribution" is not generally true. Kendall-K1 (talk)

Kendall-K1, yes, I think you are right, I am confused about how they work! So the other editor is correct and I am wrong – no problem, I can accept that! Thanks for answering. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Photos and scanned images should be in JPEG format"

Why should scanned images necessarily be JPEG? Common sense tells me that the right format to use depends on what kind of scanned image it is. If it's a scan of a printed photograph, then in all probability JPEG is going to be the best format to use. But if it's a scan of a drawing or diagram, then in the majority of cases PNG would be the best format to use. Nonetheless, somebody removed {{BadJPEG}} from such an image, with the explanation "Looks like a scan of hand drawn image; JPEG is appropriate for this", which seems to be based purely on this policy and not on common sense.

It was once pointed out to me (on Commons, though I can't pull up the discussion as Commons seems to be having problems at the moment) that sometimes, with scanned documents, paper texture means that JPEG is a better choice of format. I disagreed with this on the grounds that in the majority of cases there's no reason to preserve the paper texture, and often one needs only to reduce the colour depth (or scan it at a low colour depth - possibly even pure black/white) to produce an image with few colours that is a reasonable reproduction of the original content and would be well suited to lossless compression.

Furthermore, I'm having difficulty of understanding the next bit of this sentence: "though a PNG may be useful as well, especially for software screenshots". Why would a software screenshot be a scanned image? Are we talking about instances where a photo has been taken of the screen, or maybe the screen has been dumped to the printer and then scanned, for want of a software screenshooting method for the particular platform?

It also states that "TV and movie screenshots should be in JPEG format". On the whole this may be true. However, if we follow this to the letter then it implies that even a simple title card with few colours, if it's been captured from the TV broadcast, should be in JPEG format.

OK, so the bullet points do have "Generally" at the start of them. Even so, I think this goes to show that scanned images (which can also include posters, book/album/video game covers, etc.) shouldn't either generally be in JPEG format or generally be in PNG format - rather, we need to consider each on a case-by-case basis. I therefore propose to amend this. — Smjg (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Village pump discussion about allowing non-admins to close FFD discussions

The discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via NAC has started. It proposes allowing non-admins to close FFD discussions. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

103.4.117.36 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No request was made. Please clearly state what you would like changed, how, and why. TimothyJosephWood 21:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Image content suggestions after VPP discussion

Closed by Kendall-K1(non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Resolved  – Consensus to maintain the status quo. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC) In the course of discussing this failed proposal at the Village Pump, suggestions were made by @Blue Rasberry: and @Masem: that an update to the Image Use Policy might be useful. I am proposing adding a new subsection to the "Adding Images to Article - Content" section. Perhaps as follows: 3.1.1 ===Most Prominent Image Content=== When choosing the lede image for a biographical article of a real-world person, where two or more free-use images exist of comparable quality, editors should come to consensus on the talk page as to which better represents the article subject. For public figures, preference should generally be given to an image that represents the subject during the period of their greatest public prominence. The non-preferred image(s) are still fully viable to illustrate the body of the article, especially if they can be used to illustrate a different period in the subject's life. I don't know if this is a necessary part of the policy, but I though it would be useful to get the discussion going. It essentially says that the policy is that there is no fixed policy about preferred images. Consensus in the other discussion was that image choice for a lede image should be on a case-by-case basis, which is what this asks for. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Note This is not intended to re-cover the same ground of the prior discussion or WP:FORUMSHOP to a different result. It is intended to see if the community thinks this policy needs to be enshrined at all or if normal consensus procedures are enough.@Lx 121: @Jdcrutch: @Rhododendrites: @Od Mishehu: @Markbassett: @WhatamIdoing: @Andrew Davidson: @Rjensen: @Chris troutman: @Postdlf: @Hawkeye7: @Only in death: @Mz7:- Pinging other discussion participants to make sure no-one is left out Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC) As a note, this could also extend to other things that would be possible to photograph in public, such as buildings. I could imagine from that same discussion that a painting of a building in its prime would be better suited than a high-resolution photograph of the same building in a very damaged/dilapidated state; I'm sure there's other examples too. --MASEM (t) 06:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC) &, for "images of comparable quality", i would disagree; especially for a building still extant. i think that for lede image, the Pantheon & Parthenon, & pyramids of Egypt are better-represented as they are now. a photograph of the subject of the article is better than a photograph of a painting or drawing of the subject of the article. Lx 121 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Oppose per WP:CREEP. The proposed paragraph doesn't say much that isn't already obvious and will be wikilawyered in corner cases. Andrew D. (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose – WP:LEAD says "It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." I think this covers it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose "We cannot allow Wikipedians to feature this image!" The phrase "during the period of their greatest public prominence" is still questionable. I'm fine letting the aggregate decide what image(s) to use; we don't need to provide further instructions to constrain their decision. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC) "Verily, the opposes had number even beyond that of the WP:SNOWflakes that fall from the heavens." –EEng Assorted forks. From left to right: dessert fork, relish fork, salad fork, dinner fork, cold cuts fork, serving fork, carving fork. Oppose per WP:CREEP. I think editors of individual articles are competent to select the most appropriate image for their articles, and don't need our nannying to tell them how to decide. The wording is also problematic; if someone or something becomes famous some time after the events or accomplishments that it is famous for, the "period of its greatest prominence" would be the time that it is famous, but in most such cases an image from the date of the accomplshments or events would be more appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose per WP:LEAD: "the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page" Consider, for example, the case where a person is the subject of multiple biographical articles. So Film career of Audie Murphy shows him as an actor, whereas Military career of Audie Murphy shows him as a soldier. The mechanism of selection is simpler than the proposal. The article creator selects an image. In the overwhelming majority of cases no one cares. Only if someone disputes the choice do we go into a WP:BRD session. (My favourite, by the way, is Ray Crist, who was famous for being America's oldest worker at the age of 104. Naturally, the article has an image of him at age 5.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose for all of the above reasons, as well as the following: 1."of comparable quality" needs to be defined; otherwise it becomes what we would call "weasel words" if used in an article. 2."better represents the subject" is another terribly vague phrasing; "better represents" how? as an accurate depiction of the visual appearance of the subject? to "summarise"? according to whose opinion? ...which creates nnpov issues: we're not here to do elegy/eulogy stuff, to praise or condemn. we're here to report facts. if we're going to have a rule for this, it needs to be clearer. Lx 121 (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC) also comment -- in the previous discussion (which i initiated), consensus was to reject the proposal. there was not any "coherence of opinion", among the participants, as to alternatives. Lx 121 (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Oppose as one of the WP:CREEPiest attempts ever to micromanage everything in sight, for no reason at all. Ghastly. EEng 01:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC) I believe that the OP is trying to stop a long series of disputes about whether it is even theoretically possible for a color portrait from the realism (art) school to be as accurate as any black-and-white photo. So I take this as "for good reason", even if I currently think that a more effective solution probably draws on WP:TBAN instead of IUP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Eggishorn, I'm dubious about the efficacy of any such addition, but if it were added, then a more natural location would be MOS:LEADIMAGE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC) comment - 2 points: 1. this is the higher-level of image-use policy, so a decision here "takes precedence". 2. to go @ start a new proposal there, for the same thing really would be WP:FORUMSHOP-ing Lx 121 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Oppose Seems that there is a user attempting to use this to wedge in a preferred picture at various presidential articles, such as Wm. McKinley and Andrew Jackson. Users can decide for themselves which to use, but I find it hard to fathom when a crude tech 19th century photograph would be preferable to an official White House portrait. ValarianB (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC) comment -- for about the "umpteenth" time: 1. "official white house portraits" have NO "special status" in deciding lede image on an aticle that is a biography of a person. doing so would completely violate wp:npov. & do we extend this official portrait rule to everybody else too? or is it only for american presidents? or only for "good guys"/people we "like"? & that creates npov problems again. & 2. you are confused (again); the person who created this proposal wasn't me; & was in fact on your "side" in the other discussions. best, Lx 121 (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Official white house portraits do have special status, actually. ValarianB (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC) no, they don't. & please kindly show me the WP that says otherwise? Lx 121 (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Can someone please stick a fork in this? It's done. EEng 02:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Breechblock

There is a "discussion" at Talk:Breechblock regarding a rewrite [13]. This was reverted on the basis that: "galleries are generally unnecessary". A discussion was started and a notification made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms. The original reverting editor has declined to participate in the discussion and only one other editor has joined the discussion. I was wondering if an uninvolved editor or admin could have a look at this re a "consensus". I am posting here as the use of galleries was the reason for the revert in the first instance. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe a consensus has been reached. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I think it is time to revisit the wording of WP:IG, the image gallery section here. This was a rather contentious subject several years ago, but in general the wording - that I think has been little changed for some years - has sorted the matter. But the policy is still capable of misinterpretation. Whoever you think is right there, the policy ought to be clearer - he thinks it justifies just cutting the entire gallery for a major old master painter (Giovanni Bellini); I certainly don't. I'll do some research & propose a clearer wording. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I see one relevant long discussion back in 2008 at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/Archive_12#Removal_of_galleries - beginning on just this point. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Only to provide a point of reference, you might want to look at the talk of History of painting for more discussion on galleries outside of the realm of non-free images.

On a matter of opinion, as long as we are talking free images, a small feature gallery of 3-4-5 images that otherwise can't fit into context of an article, so that it spans a typical line along the page, seems reasonable, but outright removal of free image galleries isn't appropriate, nor is flooding them with dozens of images. We can always link to media at Commons for a given topic if more images are needed. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - I'm going to put a proposal together, so maybe let's wait for that. I'm thinking of free images, in the vast majority of circumstances. I hadn't contemplated changing the current strong disapproval of non-free images in galleries, though in a few cases long captions explaining the relevance of the images can make it appropriate. I'm somewhat surprised how precisely the issues not fully settled in 2008 are the ones I think need fixing now. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

collecting links for proposal:

section in 2006, when all references were to "photo montages" - changed to galleries in 2007

section on 8 April 2008

section on 20 November 2008, just before big discussion

discussion re the older "4 approaches" text, May-Aug 2008

Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/Archive_12#Why_Galleries_are_useful Feb 2009 discussion, essentially setting the text as it remains today

I'll leave these here in case anyone is interested. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File deletion RFC

You may be interested in this RFC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Image cropping

I am technically challenged when it comes to images, montages, and that sort of thing. How does one "crop" an image from Commons? Are there restrictions in the Commons realm? Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Image-related project ideas at Meta-wiki

• m:Grants:IdeaLab/In memoria and commemorations
• m:Grants:IdeaLab/images of living people

I invite you to comment and/or participate on the above ideas about obtaining more free images of persons. --George Ho (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

List clean up needed

I am starting this discussion after I made edits that where reverted by EEng and I took the time to see what other list problems there may be as listed below.

1. § What are public and private places? – mixed definition and unordered list wiki-text
2. § Examples – same as above
3. § Required information – unwanted definition list wiki-text in an unordered list
4. § Deleting images – similar to #3

The first two could be fixed by removing the semi-colons (;) and if desired bolding the affected text ie. '''Examples of private places'''. Item three can be fixed by simply replacing the colons (:) with asterisks (*). I am thinking that HTML markup could be used in item #2 in the "Deleting images" section. Any comments or objections? – Allen4names (contributions) 00:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you remind us what's broken that you're fixing? Is this one of these things where HTML Version 6bis forbids self-closing indented tag definitions on non-Euclidean code pages? EEng 01:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's probably the perennial problem where the html-semantics-purists don't like how ; is used to boldface subheadings and : is used to indent things, even though that's the meaning that all wiki-editors think of them as having, because the software turns these codes into html that is supposed to mean something different (terms and definitions in a definition list). Rather than change the translation into html to match our thinking, they want to force our thinking into the Procrustean bed of the software's interpretation of these codes. It's a wonder they can use talk pages at all; maybe they are only capable of leaving top-level posts, and not replies, because to do otherwise would be to violate their own rules. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You must terrify undergraduates. EEng 02:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately I only have a graduate-level course this term. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps I should have qualified my question with the word useful. That said #4 on the list above is probably the worst as there appears to be a list in between two lines of text. – Allen4names (contributions) 02:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You speak in riddles. EEng 04:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This is very off-topic, sorry, but the above heresy makes me think this recent comment by a senior developer may interest some of those here. The ruling from above is that we humble editors should just use <br> without those silly spaced slashes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I've run across this on my own pages sometimes, when I try to validate their html and discover that the html version I'm using is incompatible with slashed br's. On the other hand, here, my experience is that the most common use of br (to separate items in an infobox) is better handled with {{plainlist}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, how is that heresy? It's not like you're repeating something you heard from someone else but about which you have no direct knowledge and can't be cross-examined. EEng 04:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Permission Use

Can I use Getty Images in a wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo1198 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

In general, no. While Getty has made options for some unrestricted fair use, they remain commercial works, and more importantly, commercial works from a press agency (in that there is commercial value in their images), which under non-free requirements we cannot use, unless the image itself is notable on its own for a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Deleting images" section

The section needs an update. Applying PROD to files is implemented. --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Watermarks

The section Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Watermarks,_credits,_titles,_and_distortions talks about watermarks in free images, but what about fair use images stored on Wikipedia instead of Commons? --Bensin (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can't take a copyrighted image, watermark it and republish without the owner's permission. I can't see how that would be considered fair use. Do we really need to say that? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The question is: How do we handle images like this one that has a watermark. The image is non-free and is used in a Wikipedia article under a fair-use rationale. --Bensin (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That should be replaced with a non-watermarked version (which should be possible, it's just a movie poster). --MASEM (t) 00:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Can we clarify that in the policy? --Bensin (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does it need to be policy? Fair use images, almost by definition, are what we take because it's all we can get. If all we can get is a watermarked image (probably not true in this case, but probably true for others) then it still might be better than no image — that would be for the editors of the article to decide. What guidance to those editors do you think policy should provide in such a case? And instituting a blanket rule that non-watermarked images are always preferable to watermarked ones is probably a mistake — there are many other reasons why one image might be better than another and there's no good reason to elevate this reason above the others. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC discussion at WT:NFC

I started the discussion about uploading acceptable non-free images of deceased persons at WT:NFC. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Policy on colorizing?

Do we have any policy or guideline on colorizing historic photos of people? This came up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Use of Nazi propaganda images. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about any official policy on colorizing, but it does tend to contradict the principle of least modification to historical evidence. I can't put my finger on it right now, but I think that this principle has long standing among historians and encyclopedists. Reify-tech (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Source requirement for logos

bsd. I would like to suggest dropping the source requirement for logos, as it's irrelevant and inconvenient. A logo, unlike a picture or painting, has the main purpose of identifying itself and the brand it represents, it doesn't need sources. Also, why would it matter whether you got the logo from the website or the annual report? Image improvement is not a reason to require a source, especially if you consider link rot (most image links are dead in a year). That said, a source can be quoted, but shouldn't be required. --Ben Stone 16:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It's part of the general attribution aspects for WP. If it is a non-free, we absolutely must identify the source for proper copyright acknowledgement. If its' free, the source helps with attribution, even if the site later goes dead. Further, if logos change, and we keep the old logo image even though it is erased from the site, we still can show our work of where we got that old logo even though it has since disappeared. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A source is required for all files per WP:IUP#Required information, so what Ben Stone is asking is changing that, but also other policies. Provided that we are talking about non-free logos, WP:NFCC#10a requires source attribution on description pages of all non-free images, so this proposed change would also require changing the NFCC.

I don't think it's a smart idea, because many other NFC criterias also need a source in order to be comfortably met. For one thing, a source is required so that it can be verified that the upload meets WP:NFCC#4 ("previous publication"; if you can point out the publication you got the logo from, it logically follows that the logo has been previously published). Providing a source also helps determining that Wikipedia:Non-free content#Meeting the no free equivalent criterion is met when the file in question is an SVG.

Several of the NFC criteria (WP:NFCC#2, WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#10a, and the above section on SVGs) also relate to commercial opportunities of copyright holders. While logos are typically highly visible in order to maximize brand representation, merchandise with copyrighted logos is quite often also something that the copyright holder wants to sell. We should make sure that we do not provide the logos in a quality that surpasses that which the copyright holder has decided to offer them for free. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

We need the source to tell if the logo is genuine. Occasionally artists on Wikipedia make up a logo for something, particularly for things that may not have a logo, for example a book series. Perhaps sources are not needed for PD-simple images, but even so for logos we want to trace them back to their organisation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

First, sorry for the late response. Let me try to clarify what i meant: It seems impractical to change an NFCC requirement, and it's probably unnecessary. I mainly refer to actual enforcement practices. Specifically, logos differ from all other images, in that their main purpose is identifying the brand, unlike a picture of an animal, for instance, in which the source is essential to establish authorship. A logo is always tied to the owning company, and accuracy can always be checked, in their official website. (For historical logos you have to rely on possibly inaccurate sources anyway). Practically speaking: My main contribution to wikipedia is logos. Finding a good logo takes a lot of work, also, because of link rot you may not be able to replace it once deleted. Some time ago, a genius started tagging some of my uploads with Template:Bsr (base url, even though most logos can be found at the base url). Every now and then, similar taggings appear. My suggestion is: Considering that logos are unlike any other non free images, generic sources should suffice (ultimately the owning company is the source anyway), or at least it should be tagged for improvement, not deletion. Thanks --Ben Stone 06:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing nonexistent images within image galleries

Hi! I'm going to run a bot that will fix a pretty wide range of problems within image galleries. Among the rest, it will remove as well nonexistent images from galleries (example). There are no explicit guidelines about nonexistent images in galleries, nevertheless as far as I know there are no good uses for them:

1. If you want a placeholder then you should use an image placeholder
2. If the image was deleted or never uploaded is pointless to keep it in a gallery in ns0
3. A missing image does not add much to the reader's understanding of the subject (WP:IG)
4. A misspelled image may stay forever in the broken state, but I experienced that removing it actually helps authors to be aware of the mistake and fix it

What do you think about it? Do you feel WP:IG should to be more explicit about it? Since September 2016 I'm running this script on Commons and there were no problems: most of the nonexistent images were just deleted images. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems harmless, but wouldn't WP:BRFA be the right place to make this sort of request? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is :) and I tried: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 13. However an explicit consensus is needed in order to go on with that procedure. Moreover if they felt the need for a discussion, perhaps a small note here about avoiding nonexistent images in galleries may be appropriate. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Support: if possible allow, say, an hour to elaspe, in case someone is trying to upload an image. Might also be worth having a link in the edit summary leading to help with uploading images. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC).

Inserting a nonexistent image in a gallery and later tring to upload that image sounds odd, but I can certainly avoid to touch recently inserted galleries. At the moment in the edit summary is already present a link leading to a page with additional explanations and a link to Help:Gallery tag. To stay on the safe side I just added a link also to Wikipedia:Uploading images. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Support. There is nonexistent value in nonexistent images. Unless someone presents a significant problem, I find it hard to imagine cases where we would want to retain them. Alsee (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support – per nom. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support and would you consider offering to run this at small wikis as well? I've been manually cleaning up ht.wikipedia.org, but there are dozens of similarly under-maintained wikis, and they probably all have this problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  Sure, I can do it. I will take a look at ht.wiki as soon on en.wiki everything will be ok. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 15:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What words should I use when requesting permission to use an image?

I want to request permission from the United States Postal Service to use one of their images -- an image of their eclipse stamp, which I'd like to add to this Wikipedia article: 2017 Total Solar Eclipse stamp. The USPS webpage https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2017/pr17_020.htm gives the name and email address of their Media Contact: Mark Saunders, mark.r.saunders@usps.gov . So, I'll send an email to Mark Saunders requesting whatever I need to request. However, I'm not sure exactly what I need to request. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ImageRemovalBot , I see that "Simple permission is not good enough." Is there a sample wording for such a request that I could use? And in my email to Mark, should I ask him to CC you in his reply? Mksword (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised to learn that USPS content is not public domain as a work of the government. But there it is right on their web site: "Copyright© 2017 USPS. All Rights Reserved." Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Have a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Full instructions about how to proceed are there. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Deprecate and replace

|image_size= should be deprecated fully and replaced with |image_upright= using bot preferably. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Hello. You forgot to mention the name of the template for which you are requesting this. Also, you should have requested it on that template's talk page. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I am requesting this for every infobox on Wikipedia. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: You must abide by the rules: Create a test version of every and all infoboxes in their respective sandboxes and:

1. Prove what you are requesting is not a breaking change.
2. Prove what you are requesting is a huge improvement, given the time, efforts and resources that it consumes.
3. Overturn the consensus in favor of your change in every single instance where the consensus was to do something else. If there is no evidence of explicit consensus, either provide evidence of implict consensus in favor of your request, or obtain explicit consensus in favor of your request.
4. Contact the authority that can edit each template. Some templates can be edited by template editors such as me. Others can only be edited by administrators. Yet others are protected so heavily that only crats and stewards can edit.

Just as example of your hurdled: Ensure that your bot's algorithm can account for animated GIF images. These images must always appear in their native resolution using, never resized using the user's preferences. Otherwise, only their first frame is rendered.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought |image_upright= was deprecated. It has odd effects depending on what the user has set as their default image size. [14] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User page images

Is it acceptable to upload an image purely for use in one's own user page, perhaps even covered under copyright? At Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images it says, "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace; User pages are OK. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images." I'm not clear if that means such images are acceptable or not.

If they are acceptable might I recommend a slight rewording of that section; "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images. Using such images on user pages is okay."

nagualdesign 02:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You are free to include freely-licensed images on your userpage, including those of your friends and family. The restrict on images on user pages is that you are not allowed to use non-free images (those that do not have a free license). --MASEM (t) 02:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. Regards, nagualdesign 02:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:IMGSIZE

Does the WP:IMGSIZE guidance against px apply only to thumbnails, or to both thumb and non-thumb images? The software recognizes and respects the |upright= parameter without |thumb, although it appears you have to add |frameless as well. I can't think of a reason why non-thumb images should be exempt from the user pref for image size. But the doc at IMGSIZE seems to put almost everything into a |thumb context. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure it is only meant to caution using it on thumbs. Non-thumbs are used frequently in infoboxes (size set by infobox parameters), in imageframes or other gridded presentations, and the like. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my feeling is that the non-thumbs are more varied in their usage and that therefore it makes less sense to try to prescribe how to use them here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

We already say "Except with very good reason, do not use px...". Even if half of non-thumb cases have such a "very good reason", they would still be provided for. I'm here because my conversion of a non-thumb to use |upright= is disputed partly because it's a non-thumb, and there is not even an attempt at a "very good reason". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Re Masem's comments, "upright" scaling works fine in infoboxes, and the last paragraph of IMGSIZE mentions two different ways of doing it. (The latter method is semi-deprecated in that it adds the article to a tracking cat, but not all infobox templates support the newer method yet. That's a separate issue, the relevant point here is that infobox images are one example of non-thumbs that can make good use of scaling.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I still read the IMGSIZE text as only to avoid the combination of "thumb" and "px", instead preferring to use "thumb" and "upright" if that is needed, as to respect the user's preferred thumb size. When the image used is not presented as a thumb, then there's no requirement to use or avoid "upright", and in fact, unless you include "frameless", "upright" has no effect, if I read the details and my sandbox tests are correct. "px" is perfectly fine to use on bare images as long as it is a "sane" value (eg still around 300-500px, but not 2000px). --MASEM (t) 00:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking what the guidance currently says; I'm questioning whether it serves the project to say it like that. I've yet to see an explanation of why px is perfectly fine for non-thumbs in general. For many of them, the reasons for scaling apply every bit as much as to thumbs; from a reader's perspective they are no different from thumbs. For the rest, we have the "very good reason" clause. As I said, I'm getting resistance partly because it's a non-thumb, and without any "very good reason" rationale; how does that benefit the project? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't use px sizes on thumbs because that would defeat the user's thumb size preference. For non-thumbs there is no user preference, so I don't think it makes sense to avoid using px sizes for non-thumbs. (We should also avoid px sizes because px is not a good unit for measuring image size, but that's a different issue.) Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: Self-quote: "The software recognizes and respects the |upright= parameter without |thumb, although it appears you have to add |frameless as well." This is an indisputable fact; try it yourself if you like. That being the case, what is meant by For non-thumbs there is no user preference? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. The only image size preferences I can find are "Image size limit" and "Thumbnail size". Which preference are you talking about? Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying the "Thumbnail size" preference (and any |upright= scaling) is applied to |frameless non-thumbs as well, when they omit px, as verified by experimentation, and the label there is simply incorrect. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand now, thanks. It looks like the software treats "frameless" and "thumb" the same as far as scaling. I would say that "px" should not be used on any image that is subject to the mis-named "thumbnail size" preference. So that would include thumbnails and frameless. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That's what I found on testing. However, if you include neither thumb or frameless, upright does nothing. And there are valid uses of images that do not use either thumb or frameless. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That's still not quite right, Kendall. Many non-thumbs that should be made scalable don't already have |frameless; you just have to add |frameless to make them scalable. My current example is here; see page history beginning yesterday. I think one well-worded sentence near the end of IMGSIZE could clarify that |upright= is not only for thumbs.
I now see that this is all supported in the references to |frameless at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax; it's just a matter of getting IMGSIZE into closer harmony with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no requirement that non-thumbs have to be scalable - as I said above, using things like image frames or trying to present gridded imgaes, px is far more appropriate to use than upright. Yes, when possible, they should be, but we have no requirement at all for this. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Jeebus H. Crispy, I have never suggested that there is or should be a "requirement that non-thumbs have to be scalable". I have said that IMGSIZE currently gives the false impression that |upright= is only for thumbs, resulting in resistance to the addition of scalability to non-thumbs where it is warranted and appropriate. Is this really that difficult to grasp? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. It is difficult to discover what's going on here, especially since some of our documentation seems to be wrong. You had the universe divided in to thumb and non-thumb images, and that's not accurate. You had to resort to experimentation and I think that's evidence that this is not an easy subject. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

In this day and age, we need to deprecate use of px units more strongly. Using them does not make sense in an era when one minute I'm using a vertical 5.3 inch, 800 × 1280 px mobile display and the next I'm using a 38 inch, 3840 × 1600 px ultra-wide destop monitor. I don't want to see Chicklet-sized images on my big monitor, nor have trivial images fill my entire mobile screen when I'm using the desktop version of the site (as is often necessary for editors rather than just-readers).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

100% agree. EEng 18:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to deprecate px more strongly than we already do at IMGSIZE. That is, short of identifying and enumerating all of the "very good reasons", which is almost never done in Wikipedia guidance. Otherwise, I share your general sentiment. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have made this clarifying edit. This is fully supported by Wikipedia:Extended image syntax and, had I known what it said, I wouldn't have started this discussion. Sorry for wasting people's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It could bear further improvement, as much of it applies a thumbnail context to things that also apply to non-thumb cases. But that's a major re-write of the scale we had not too long ago, and that's more than I care to take on at the moment. This is a clear improvement, and that's good enough for me, for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We forgive you. We all make mistakes. EEng 18:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Policy/guideline on cheap filters

I couldn't find an "official" guideline on avoiding cheap filters.

Wikipedia:How to improve image quality mentions to "Make sure the colours look natural" but the page clearly mentions that is a "how-to guide" and not an official guideline. commons:Commons:Image guidelines also mentions natural colors but again it is just a guide on what constitutes a quality/featured picture at commons, not a guideline of what should be included in a Wikipedia article.

I'm talking about completely unnatural looking pictures such as commons:Special:ListFiles/Benjade, most of these pictures were posted to the relevant Wikipedia articles and I think these filtered images are of little encyclopedic value. I would like to mention to fr:User_talk:Benjade that real (not purposefully altered) colors are much more valuable, but I don't have a guideline to go by.

--Trougnouf (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The closest I found is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature: "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic.". --Trougnouf (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:Manual_of_Style/Images#Editing_images? EEng 10:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was looking for, sorry I missed it. Thank you! --Trougnouf (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll get my bill. EEng 20:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Case sensitiveness regarding file names

This page says: "Note that names are case sensitive, 'Africa.PNG' is considered different from 'Africa.png'". Does that only apply to the file name extension or to the file name as well?

Thanks,

Jan Hoellwarth (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the same as for article titles. Every character after the first in the file name is case sensitive, regardless of whether it is in the first part or the extension. The first character is not case sensitive. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I will try to make the text clearer.

Jan Hoellwarth (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Does my rewording look acceptable to you?

Jan Hoellwarth (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It has already been reworded by another user in the meantime, and it looks good to me.

Jan Hoellwarth (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Another user" – harrumph! EEng 21:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Special characters

I'm looking for thorough information on the topic "special characters" to link on this page, but I can't find a comprehensive list on Wikipedia. Does anybody know where to find it?

Thanks,

Jan Hoellwarth (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Re the advice to "Avoid special characters in filenames" — most likely this is intended to mean non-ASCII characters. If so it should say so more specifically, since "special" is relative to one's point of view and local character set. But is that advice really needed any more? All modern computers can handle unicode in filenames, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's more though about easy to use. Using non-ASCII characters is difficult to type for most people, so if they can be avoided, that's great. However, this is more advice to be taken at file creation; I would not want editors moving files that have an accented character to a non-accent version just because we ask people to avoid special characters. --Masem (t) 21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thinking more on this, I think the intent is to reduce the character set even more, to only unaccented alphanumeric characters. So maybe we could gloss it as "special characters (anything other than basic Latin or digits)"? But I agree, this should be worded as advice, not as a command. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the sentence is not clear enough in its current form. That's why I wanted to add a link in the first place. Your proposal seems good to me, David, so if there is consensus on it, I would reformulate the text that way or similarly.

Jan Hoellwarth (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you're looking for special character? "Special character" is typographer's jargon for ASCII Punctuation & Symbols, U+0020 through U+002F. We avoid them because they "might make it difficult for some users to download the files onto their machines." This is because some file systems use special characters for special purposes. For example the slash ("/") is often used as a path separator, and is forbidden in file names. I don't think there is any reason to avoid non-ascii characters. I do wish people would avoid using the special character "space" but that's a lost cause. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia images

Hello! If a photo of a person (a portrait) is already uploaded and in use in Wikipedia (or not in use, this should not matter), can it be used in any other Internet publication or in a paper publication? I think yes, if it is uploaded under an open license (which is the case in 99% of images). I am asking this question just to make sure and in case if there are some nuances. I understand also that no explicit reference to wikipedia is required. Please confirm.--Asimsky (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the license. Many images are Creative Commons licensed, in which case you have to credit the author, link to the license, and maybe do some other things I don't remember right now. The license is readable, and I recommend you read it. Other images may be public domain or in a few cases non-free. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Content heading

Just noticed that clicking 3.1 Content in the table of contents does not work with IE11. It works with Chrome and FF. It appears to get confused between the content section and the TOC, which is internally called contents. Changing the section header to Image content would fix this. O3000 (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Can you confirm that here? I don't have IE. It may be necessary to make your window smaller to confirm the behavior on such a short page. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed under Win7 and Win2012 by using preview. I'll make the change. Don't mind if someone shows I'm incorrect or has a better solution. O3000 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Images per article or image per section

I have been trying to find out how many is too many in terms of images. I did found the Do's and Don'ts page and it did state "Don't overload articles with images", but how many might that be? Is there any kind of guide? One image per section?

Also I find I am not very good at figuring out what the guidelines are in general. Do you have any tips on how to find the right guides? For instance one of the players I am working on has played internationally, and some very helpful articles on her are in French. Can I cite a foreign language source? I assume yes, but I am not sure. The Manual of Style pages seem like a jungle to me. I end up doing a lot of reading but not getting to the point of what I need. I think I am not using them very well. Really what I am asking is, short of making myself a Wikipedia Manual of Style master, how could I have answered these questions for myself? Thanks so much!! AliciaZag13 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If the images start piling up on top of each other to the point where you have to use left-alignment or similar tricks to keep them from spilling into the wrong section, after you've narrowed your browser window to the width it would normally be viewed on a laptop, you probably have too many. Yes, you can cite foreign-language sources; English sources are better if you can find them but other languages are acceptable and much better than no sources. And my answer tends to be: use Google with site:en.wikipedia.org as one of the search parameters, because Wikipedia's internal search isn't usually as powerful. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I found it! It was under Wikipedia:Verifiability. I used google search and the following terms: "en.wikipedia.org"+"reliable sources"+"English". Is that how you were suggesting I format the search parameters? Anyway, thanks so much for the answer and search tips!! AliciaZag13 (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Image use guidance is particularly hard to find because there are so many different articles that cover it, and they are not always in agreement with each other. I'd like to see that get fixed but it would be a big job. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Title should be hyphenated

This project (and its page) should be named "Image-use policy", with a hyphen. — Hugh (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm tossing this one to SMcCandlish. EEng 00:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Clearly true, though this form of hyphenation isn't required in all style guides (some written for "business English", "medical English", and other narrow reality tunnels, mostly for specialist-to-specialist writing suggest leaving it out, if the meaning is clear without it). WP shouldn't presume much of anything about intelligibility given that many editors are non-native English speakers. Also, we should follow MoS in writing Wikipedia-namespace pages, even if the guideline doesn't technically have scope over them; it just sets a bad and confusing example to veer into a different set of style conventions across namespaces.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Users should be aware of how EXIF image metadata is handled by Wikipedia and Wikimedia

I think the image use page should be updated to include a privacy statement on the way in which EXIF image metadata in jpeg image files is handled. I use an app to strip out the “camera manufacturer” and “camera model” metadata before uploading images as I found all the EXIF image metadata publicly available in an image uploaded from my smartphone. A statement like “All hidden image metadata contained in the jpeg files uploaded to the website is published. You can remove manufacturer and device information before uploading your images using an app if you wish.” Please can an administrator of the page make the relevant edit as it’s protected. Thanks

Adrian816 (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include this content three separate times? GMG^talk 15:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I count four now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the notices from the Licensing and Required information sections, since they don't really relate to those subjects. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Advice for videos

People who follow this page may be interested in the new essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube, and especially its advice on what to do to make useful, accessible videos (e.g., posting a transcript). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"About 2% of articles at the English Wikipedia use galleries"

- says WP:IG. Questions:

• Where does this # come from?
• Is it up to date?
• Are disam pages included?
• Do we have a figure for the number of WP articles with/without images? Or those with x images.

As stated, it make the proportion sound very low. Allowing for all those with no images at all, I suspect it actually represents a respectable proportion. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to add a bit of text

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, section "Images are good". The relevant bit for here is:

b) Adding to WP:IG a statement along the lines of "Generally, available space beside the text should be used for images before a gallery is added".

Please centralize discussion there for now, since I think the proposals for that page and this are sufficiently similar. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor deleting images

Can someone please keep on eye on this page? This editor seems to hate images, and just deletes them. --2604:2000:E020:9500:1C60:90E5:7385:1F62 (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

nude images of minors

[15] The picture clearly states she was 17 at the time of the nude image. In America it is illegal to have images of anyone nude that is under the age of 18. I believe Wikipedia's servers and headquarters are in America. So can they legally have this image? Dream Focus 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It is certainly not illegal to have images of nude minors, nor against policy to display them here. See e.g. Phan Thi Kim Phuc. What is illegal is to have prurient images of nude minors. But if this is the same image as the one discussed above (I'm certainly not going to click on an image labeled as being of a nude minor to check) then it's hard to argue that it's not prurient. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Different image. I think it is prurient, since no reason to be showing their bare breasts except for sex appeal. Anyway, I found where on wikicommons to report things, so did that to ask them. Dream Focus 18:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

nudity issue

If someone wants to place a nude image of a famous person into an article that doesn't add anything to the article at all, is that allowed? [16] If there are plenty of images of famous people to use, can people just decide to toss in nude ones? Wikipedia is not censored of course, but I don't see any reason for that. Articles for porn stars and porn films don't have pictures of nudity in them, so no idea why other articles would. Dream Focus 23:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK the only policy that affects the issue is WP:CENSOR. That it "doesn't add anything to the article at all" is your editorial opinion, largely resulting from your sense of decorum, and it's useful to refrain from presenting that as fact. Clearly others have different editorial opinions. You would be hard pressed to say exactly what the other images in that article add to it; would the photo of Bardot suddenly become irrelevant if it showed her breasts?
As I see it, it's a routine content dispute and you should seek consensus in article talk, and I see you have already started that. Everybody needs to stop edit warring, participate in the discussion, and respect the consensus reached there, and you know what to do if they refuse to do so. If no consensus can be reached, you can start an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not CENSOR, but the principle of lease surprise. We would not use a nude if the topic area is not normally associated with nudity (of which Bombshell would fall into), famous person or not. We don't include "gratitious nudity" just because CENSOR says we can. --Masem (t) 23:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Principle of lease surprise -- Is that like when you rent a car and find a lot of hidden charges on the bill? EEng 19:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Did most bombshells pose nude? Back in those days, and the modern examples, I think not. Wasn't required to become one, just media attention, which was for famous people in films and music. We don't have any famous porn stars on the list. Dream Focus 00:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Did most bombshells pose nude? Perhaps not, but clearly one did and I'm fairly sure she wasn't the only one. Is there something wrong with showing one atypical example of the subject?
Why are we conducting the article talk discussion on this page? If you want to propose a PAG change in this area, I think it will need an RfC; otherwise it's a matter for local consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking there would be a policy somewhere about tossing out unnecessary nude images of random people about, so I asked here. Dream Focus 00:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. We include nudity on articles where nudity is relevant, just like we include pictures of fish on articles where pictures of fish are relevant. We don't remove it from articles in order to censor it from our articles, but because it's not relevant and distracts from the actual topic, just like superimposing a fish onto an otherwise-relevant image would probably be seen as gratuitous and distracting. In this case, I agree, it's insufficiently relevant. Also in this case there's not much beyond the nudity to recommend the photo. Surely we have a better shot of Loren available somewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Images from Open Access journal articles

Can images from open access journal articles like this be used on Wikipedia? Although the linked page also shows copyright mark, but here it says by default it is CC BY 3.0. Thanks in advance. AhmadLX (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Merely being open access is not enough; it has to be compatibly licensed. The article you link says "© 2000. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved." which is definitely not compatible and would most likely override any default assumptions (unless you can find elsewhere a clear statement that they are relicensing this article). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"Please also upload a version without any text"

It came to my attention today (because Natureium fixed a coding error in that bit) that our policy asks image creators to upload text-blanked versions of their images, to assist others in translating the images.

• This is about image creation, not image use, so why is it in the image use policy?
• If this is intended to be helpful advice, why is stated as policy? Or if this really is intended to be policy, should we start deleting all images that do not have text-blanked versions?
• This would make some sense for Wikimedia Commons, where multi-language use of images is standard, but why should it be policy on the English Wikipedia (where this policy resides)?
• The policy does not make any exceptions. Is it really appropriate to do this for photographs that include text (say in a street sign)? Or for images whose text consists only of digits or other mathematical notation rather than words requiring translation into another language?
• Even for images containing translatable text, in svg format, in what way does removing the text objects from the file make it easy for a translator to match their position and appearance?
• Uploaded images should in general be on commons if they can be freely licensed, so uploads here (the ones subject to policy about uploads here) should primarily be of non-free but fair use images. In what way does uploading a text-blanked version of a fair use image, without actually using it in any article, satisfy the fair use part of our image use policy?

I suggest that maybe this advice is misplaced and should not be in the policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• You're not wrong... --BushelCandle (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Agreed. This is advice that should move to Commons. To the extent that any en.WP page should mention it, it should be a note in a "Help:"-namespace page about image uploading.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• You have mis-interpreted what this section says. "If you create an image that contains text" doesn't mean taking a picture of a sign that has text on it. It means creating an image, using gimp or similar, in which you have inserted some text. An example might be a map or graph with a legend on it. This does not mean that if you took a picture with a camera, and there was some text, you are expected to blank out the text that was already there. The fact that at least two other editors also misinterpreted this means we should probably re-word it to make it more clear. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That might be what the section is intended to mean, but it is not what it says now. Taking a photograph is certainly a valid way of creating an image, and text on a sign is still text. In any case, rather than polishing what has been left there, I think we would be better off removing the section altogether. If you want to defend this part of the policy, can you point to any instance where it has been followed recently, and where following it led to beneficial results? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

    I'm not defending it. I would be in favor of removal. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  Even if someone where having such a misinterpretation, it wouldn't affect the nature of the issue: whether people should create blank charts for filling in with German or Chinese has nothing to do with w:en:Wikipedia:Image use policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Modern history#Image use is excessive

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Modern history#Image use is excessive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair-use images and watermarks

Currently, the section on watermarks only appears to cover freely available images, but what about fair-use images? I ask because of a dispute at this stock photograph over whether the copyrighted image should include the watermark. My own view is these images should maintain their watermarks if it respects the commercial opportunities of the copyright holder (in this case, it costs $12 to get the non-watermarked version). ^Falling_Gravity 19:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a bit of guidance at Removal of watermarks from Commons images. Although that's mostly about CC licensed works, the part about the DMCA prohibiting removal of CMI would apply regardless of license. Removing the watermark seems quite risky to me and I wouldn't do it myself. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018

119.160.119.76 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

D&D images dispute

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76)#Image use policy. I did not directly perform the cleanup I've called for, because it's conceivable there's a valid fair-use rationale. I'm not a US intellectual property attorney, after all, nor a copyright-policy-enforcement admin, so some consensus discussion might be in order before such a major change.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Gabriella Crespi picture

Hello, a user sent me here to discuss a doubt I have as a new user. I had some troubles with a picture I need for the Gabriella Crespi page I created. After some issues with Wikipedia's copyright, I asked the Crespi official archive if I could use a photo of the artist and they actually published the licensing on the website. So now I can use the photo but Wikipedia is telling me that photo has already been uploaded and doesn't fit the copyright. You can see the archive released the copyright here. What should I do to insert the picture on the page? Thank you very much in advanced. --Lorenzo Mattiello (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've added it for you. There shouldn't be an issue. It's properly licensed and confirmed as such. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 4#File:Dril.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 4#File:Dril.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverting edit with elipsis

Hi David Eppstein, you reverted the edit that removed the elipsis from this text: "(150 / 220 = 0.6818...)."

This "looks" erroneous. I agree that this fraction cannot be represented as an exact decimal fraction, as the "81" is a recurring sequence but the text has insufficient digits to show that the sequence is repeated. Per Repeating decimal#Notation: "it should be avoided when several digits are repeated". MOS:ELLIPSIS is silent on this use. WP:DECIMAL specifies a bar over recurring digits, ie 0.681. I would have recognised this for what it is, had that been done (or the use of dots over digits). However, such conventions are likely unrecognisable by a large portion of our editors. At pi, the elipsis is used in the infobox to show omitted text, where there is no recurring pattern. It is done in an unambiguous way. If necessary, it may be better to use "≈" to show that it is not an exact equality. All of this is largely a matter of symantics. At four significant figures, the decimal fraction reported will be indistinguishable from using more digits, given that only 3 digits are used for each term in the equation. Imperfect equalities are routinely accepted (and acceptable) in the RW in all but a few instances.

Bottom line:

• The intent of the elipsis is unclear and "appears" to be erroneous.
• Its use is not supported by guidelines nor is it preferred in RW usage.
• The intent (symantics) will be lost on many.
• In practical terms, it is irreverent.
• It appears to be unnecessarily pedantic to specify that the decimal fraction is not exactly accurate.

Consequently, if you feel that it is absolutely necessary to specify that it is not a perfect equality (for which I see no reason myself), would you please amend the text in a way that is less ambiguous and IAW guidance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You changed an equation that "appears to be erronous" to the mathematically unsophisticated, into an equation that actually is erroneous. It is false that 150/220 equals 0.6818. It equals a different number that is slightly more than 0.6818. You can indicate that with ellipses (as was done in the status quo ante) or with a different symbol than equality such as $\approx$ to mean that they are only approximately equal, or even use an overbar, but you cannot just remove the ellipses. Also your opinion about how reverent I am is not appropriate; we don't discuss the religious belief of participants here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I AGF but hope you don't consider me "mathematically unsophisticated" and that the preceding is sufficient evidence. Different disciplines incorporate maths and across the domain of such disciplines "conventions" (and views) may vary. These conventions may also vary globally, within a discipline and more generally. The use of the elipsis here was quite lost on me but not the reason - ie I was not familiar with that convention for reasons that do not make me "mathematically unsophisticated" but are related to either discipline, geography or both. When I first saw the "result", I did not assume it an exact equality but that it was (more than) sufficiently precise in the context. A purist would argue as you have. A pragmatist would accept the imperfect equality for what it is (as I do). And most (or many - the "mathematically unsophisticated") will be more confused by purist syntax than by the imperfection of the equality without further explanation. You will see my edit, which I trust you find acceptable but you might consider the virtues of a pragmatic view and our ultimate duty here. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Your privacy rights as a contributor to Wikipedia.

Why is this passage in a policy on image use? Is there some way that this is not completely off topic? GMG^talk 11:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, That paragraph was added by User:Adrian816 with these edits. While a note about how EXIF data exists and can be useful for categorization and copyright purposes but may leak unwanted information might be suitable for this page, the sentence about creating an account is irrelevant for a process that requires an account in the first place. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. I see it's already been removed. GMG^talk 00:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Advice here on scaling for portrait and landscape images

Per this statement:

"Landscape" images (short and wide) often call for upright greater than 1. Similarly, "portrait" images (tall and narrow) may look best with upright less than 1.

Typically, photographs range in aspect from the fairly ubiquitous 8 x 10 aspect raito of 1.25 up to 1.5 (with some others). It occurs to me that this advice is highly dependent on the aspect ratio of the image. It is likely most appropriate for ratios greater than 1.5. The advice is likely of marginal applicability for images with an aspect less than but close to 1.5 (say 1.4 - 1.5). It is likely not applicable for images with a ratio less than 1.4 and particularly if they are in portrait format.

I acknowledge that landscape orientated images may benefit from having the short side (ie height being at or close to the default "length" (ie nominally 220px).

• The text is unclear as to whether it applies to image orientation (ie landscape or portrait) or compositions having the same designation.

• In the first instance, the existing advice omits any reference to the aspect of the image with the consequence that the advice may be construed as applying regardless of aspect used - ie, when a scaling factor might be appropriate.

• There is no indication or suggestion of how much to scale.

• Some of this is repeated at MOS:IMGSIZE and distinguishing between policy (what has importance in this context) and guidance is unclear.

In order of the above, I suggest:

• Some clarification of text terms (by linking).

• Clarification of when and perhaps by how much to scale.

• Moving to MOS:IMGSIZE for advice and linking from here.

For comment. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The advice is merely to work around the issue that our software scales pictures so that they have the same height, when really what you probably want is to scale them so that they have the same area. So in general, the advice to use smaller upright parameters for taller thinner pictures and larger upright parameters for wider shorter pictures should be true in general, not merely for ones that are particularly far from square. But since this is advice, I'm not sure it belongs in the policy at all, and I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be making it more specific and detailed in the policy. It should be left at least somewhat to editor discretion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Surely you mean software scales pictures so that they have the same height width (unless modified by upright, but even then that modifies width not height). I seem to recall trying to rationalize what was here and what was at MOS:IMAGE but got accused of changing policy without consensus. I can't make heads nor tails of what the OP is saying. For starters, we have images with aspect ratios from .1 to 10. EEng 08:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, what he said. (There are circumstances where they're the same height but they're rare and usually intentional.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

EEng the aspect ratio could be expressed as x/y or as longest/shortest (ie > 1) and then specifying the orientation as landscape or portrait. My OP was made using the latter. Using x/y is an absolute reference system and using this will mean that portrait orientated images will have an aspect ratio < 1, which will be related to the equivalent landscape orientation as the inverse (ie for landscape = 1.25, portrait = 0.8). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I remain utterly mystified at to what you're getting at. Can you point to an editing situation in which you or some other editor was ill-served by the current guideline? EEng 23:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I have come here looking and found it ambiguous and unhelpful. As you say, some of this is guidance and therefore appears to be in the wrong place. David also appears to agree. It seems to suggest that portraits of people should be scaled down in general? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs)

Oh. That's what you're confused about. No, it suggests no such thing. "Portrait" in this context means pictures that are taller than they are wide, and "landscape" means pictures that are wider than they are tall. It has nothing to do with what kind of thing is shown in the picture. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break and outdent

I was "confused" by what was the likely intent and what it actually said. I have clarified here and at MOS:IMAGE accordingly. It is also unclear when to consider scaling and by how much. This this advice (as opposed to other considerations in fuller detail at MOS:IMAGES) only really becomes a consideration for particularly narrow images (ie relative aspect > 1.5)? David Eppstein, you have made the comment about area. I have looked at archived discussions on default image size. The question I am trying to answer is "why change from the default" for normal pictures? This advice suggests a change is appropriate for any (every) picture depending on orientation. I don't think this is the intent, but it lacks any context to indicate otherwise. It also lacks the fuller context of other considerations that are discussed at MOS:IMAGE. Even this qualification might be an improvement(?):

"Landscape" oriented images that are particularly wide and short, often call for upright greater than 1. Similarly, "portrait" oriented images that are particularly tall and narrow may look best with upright less than 1.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

EEng, per your edit summary at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images: "I don't know where this "particularly" stuff came from, but it overemphasizes". Without any qualification to the advice, it suggests that all images should be scaled on the basis of their orientation. Without qualification, it is probably also in conflict with other advice on size at MOS:IMAGES. Dealing with advice in a qualitative way is both less confusing (as your responses here suggest) and less prescriptive. Can you suggest a better "qualification" that does not, in your mind "over emphasise". As to orientated/oriented, see below. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The current guideline says that "Landscape" orientated images (short and wide) often call for upright of 1 or greater; "portrait" orientated images (tall and narrow) may look best with upright of 1 or less. That doesn't suggest that all images should be scaled on the basis of their orientation, merely that novice editors will find it a handy rule of thumb that images "often" or "may" look best that way, sometimes. They certainly don't need to be "particularly" tall or wide to benefit from use of upright: as the guideline also explains, For example ... upright=1.3 might be used for an image with fine detail (e.g. a map or diagram) to render it "30% larger than this user generally wants"... upright=0.60 might be used for an image with little detail. EEng 05:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

EEng, the text is not that images benefit from upright but from a "scaling factor" other than 1. You raise the matter of this being a "handy rule" for "novice" editors but "often" or "may" look best that way, sometimes is singularly unhelpful? When is "sometimes"? When then, is the advice most pertinent? For landscape orientation, it is most relevant when the height is small compared with the width. For portrait orientation, it is most relevant when the width is small relative to the height. Not just "smaller" but "small". You don't like how I have tried to capture this (ie using "particularly") to qualify the advice. Do you have a better way to simply describe this? Your further example upright=1.3 might be used for an image would be at odds with the unqualified advice if the image to be scaled up were in portrait orientation (one advice says make bigger and the other smaller). However, maps (per the example) are most likely to have an aspect ratio similar to the most common photo formats. The same "conflict" might arise for the second part of that example. There would be no conflict with the advice after adopting the way I propose it should be qualified (or similar). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, as you are disorientizationedingeded about "orientated" being a word, please see here or I can seed you my Macquirie dictionary. This simply clarifies that we are talking about the orientation and not landscape scenes or portraits of people by removing the ambiguity. (add elipsis here :)) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"Orientated" has an extra syllable and is unfamiliar to readers of American English. Simpler is "oriented". —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it is turning oriental to me but I can live with that. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Landscape" images (short and wide) often call for upright greater than 1. Similarly, "portrait" images (tall and narrow) may look best with upright less than 1." is certainly too vague and rather misleading. The wording implies that all portrait images are tall and narrow, which of course is not the case. Nor for that matter are most actual portraits (typically half-length or less) "tall and narrow". Our default image sizes are criminally small as it is - where else on the internet can you see such tiny postage stamps? - and should not be further reduced unless they are at least 2.5:1. In my experience "upright" is hugely over-used and poorly-used, being used to reduce sizes far more often than to increase them. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Policy dictating size?

It's really odd that this page dictates size for images should this be something that's covered by the MOS and seems to be already? Just odd to have these in two places and that it's policy worthy. I noticed this instructional creep happened a few years ago and think it's perhaps time we address this. This policy should address copyright concerns and other legal matters not tell us what size things should be that's what the MOS is for. -Moxy (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I think I tried to move this stuff over to MOS a while ago and got slapped for "changing policy without consensus". EEng 16:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent removal

Moxy, Do you actually know this? What's the source? Is there a current figure - one would be useful. I doubt the spam tool has made much impact, and the number of galleries in articles on visual subjects continues to grow. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No stats for any number included 2%...but yes gallery spam is at an all time high [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22%3Cgallery%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22namespaces%22%3A%5B0%2C4%2C10%2C12%5D%7D&ns0=1&ns4=1&ns10=1&ns12=1

File:== Picture on Satyagraha ==

File:Hello everybody!

File:I've got a question! :-)

File:The picture is an interpretation of the Satyagraha doctrine and it is derived from Gandhi's writings on that subject. The sources are named in the description page (book, pages, chapter...).

File:My question is: Is the english picture good enough for the english Wikipedia? :-)

File:== Images from other language versions of Wikipedia: clarification sought ==

File:== Quality of images ==

File:What is the policy on the technical quality of images? Or the illustrative quality?

File:== Slidshows ==

caption 1

caption 2

caption 3

caption 4

|} Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Need to also look at the mobile version as seen here...this is the version /format problem I saw thus why I removed it from a few articles.--Moxy 🍁 15:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Sentence from User-Created Images

This sentence doesn't make sense within the context. It is referring to tables and text being accessible, not to images. In most images, people don't choose the colors. This may belong in a section talking about people creating graphs or maps or other things though. >>Try not to use color alone to convey information, as it is inaccessible in many situations. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If we are talking user-created images - in control of the Wikipedia editor - they have full control of colors and the like, and thus is wholly appropriate here. --Masem (t) 02:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Image use policy

Presently, this page mostly talks about copyright. That's OK, but shouldn't it start from the assumption that material used is copyleft and then give pointers on things like image quality, relevance to the subject, image dissimilarity (so that we don't end up with 5 very similar images), relevance to the text, photographs, drawings, video, etc, what to do about "vanity images", etc? That is what they have in some other languages. Tony May (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of a clarify template

This is an "extended edit summary" for my removal of a {{clarify}} template that was added in Jan 2020 by User:Hyacinth.

If we were to have a discussion about how this should be "clarified", I believe the outcome would be no consensus for change to the policy, mostly per WP:CREEP. We can't codify everything and many things are best left to local discussion and consensus. I haven't found this to be an expensive topic of contention.

In any case, should one feel that such clarification is warranted, it seems to me that starting such a discussion would be more useful than adding a {{clarify}} template and expecting others to do so. Judging by the fact that nobody has done that in the six weeks since the template was added, I'm guessing the community doesn't see much need for that discussion.

This is not that discussion. If you want to discuss "What is a good reason?", please do it separately on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for coming up with a more concise way of saying what I tried to express. I agree with your sentiments above. I can't think of a scenario in which overriding the user preference with a hard-wired pixel count would be useful, but perhaps somebody can come up with one. Otherwise, the user knows best what their display hardware and personal preferences are. Reify-tech (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hyacinth: In my experience, for one example, |upright= is never used for tiny images, those in the range of 40px. There isn't a really good reason for that, it's just avoided because those images very often occur in large numbers, meaning a lot of work to convert them, and the pixel difference of scaling would be relatively very small. In other words, the unwritten consensus is that the cost outweighs the benefit for those tiny thumbnails. But no one could say that px is "absolutely necessary" in those cases, so I disagree with this change. The previous language may seem vague, but that's the way with most policy. Worse than vague language is language that is clearly contrary to common usage. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The current language is still just as vague, except that it parallels rather than contradicts and no one has yet voiced support for the use of px either without good reason nor even with good reason. Regarding WP:CREEP, a guideline or policy with no purpose and no known application seems like a weed. Perhaps the relevant sentence should be removed. Hyacinth (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why, when a Wikipedia policy differs with an MOS guideline, the policy is the one that should be changed.

I've just given one cogent rationale for the use of px. Another case I avoid converting is in table cells where image scaling might disrupt the table formatting – and it would be difficult to predict the effect without testing on a range of devices and size pref settings.

Removal of the sentence is not going to work, as the policy needs to express the general preference for |upright=. I would support something to the effect of "In most cases," leaving the rest to editor discretion and local consensus like most other policy. I do not support "absolutely necessary". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that removing this important guidance is a bad idea, and would let Wikipedia drift towards the badly improvised, chaotic page layouts of the past. As it currently stands, firm guidance and motivation are provided, while still allowing for editor discretion and local consensus. I often refer novice editors to MOS:IMGSIZE when they need guidance regarding effective page layouts.

After some thought, the only case that comes to mind where widespread usage of |px= was constructive was in certain List articles, such as List of breads, to cram various images into a crowded and lengthy table. Even there, perhaps there is a better way of doing this, but I am unaware of it. Reify-tech (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The {{multiple image}} template requires pixel-based sizes when using its |total_width= parameter to make images all have the same height and a given total width. My understanding is that this is for technical reasons: it does not appear to be possible to rewrite this template to use relative sizes and still work with the information that Wikimedia makes available to templates. So to me, that is the sort of thing that qualifies as "a good reason". We should not remove this clause and require all images to use relative sizes in all circumstances, because if we did that then we could no longer use height-balanced multiple images. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware that anybody has proposed that we require all images to use relative sizes in all circumstances. If that was Hyacinth's intent in suggesting removal of the sentence, it's an obvious non-starter. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You need not guess as to my intent. You can and may simply ask me. I did not suggest removal of the sentence, I added a clarify tag in order to strengthen the sentence, not destroy it. Hyacinth (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

My reply above was in response to Reify-tech, who could think of only one weak reason to ever use px. I supplied another reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, then. I thought Perhaps the relevant sentence should be removed. was suggesting removal of the sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Instruction without instruction

If this page does not indicate or specify what a "very good reason" is then any user can use "px" for any reason. Hyacinth (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Specifying a list of things that count as good reasons makes it very likely that we will miss some and that our failure to list them will be used to prevent those good reasons from being allowed as good. See also WP:CREEP and WP:BURO: "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures". —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that David Eppstein could come up with another reason to use |px=, and there are probably other reasonable use cases. It is not necessary (or often possible) to specify everything in advance, in precise comprehensive detail. We can leave plenty of room between what is required and what is forbidden, trusting in editorial judgement and local consensus to resolve most differences. The reason I want to have a firm but flexible guideline discouraging routine use of |px= is to discourage unthinking use of this parameter, just because it has been heavily used in the past. There are a lot more diverse display types in use today, compared to the good old days when 640 x 480 CRT monitors were commonplace. I think the MOS guidance on this is good enough as it is, and doesn't warrant spending a lot of time and energy trying to catalog all possible exceptions in advance. Reify-tech (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

An example of when px might be used is not an example of px being used for a very good reason. Hyacinth (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason for this phrasing allowing the use of px is unclear, although the reason to use upright is explained: "do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), [thereby] disregarding the user's image size preference setting. In most cases upright=scaling_factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices)." Presumably this WP:CREEP should be removed and rephrased as simply: "do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px). In most cases upright=scaling_factor should be used." Hyacinth (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about examples, I'm talking about reasons. According to the present policy they are very good reasons. I wasn't talking about a list, I was talking about a definition. However, a list can always be phrased as follows: "Very good reasons include but are not limited to...". Hyacinth (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Very good reasons are reasons that the consensus of editors agrees are very good. "include but are not limited to..." is not a definition and should not be used as if it were one. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT

'Freely licensed' bulleted item had some issues regarding perception and style.

1. Perception: every bulleted item on this list is complemented by an example and a link to thematic section. Examples are aimed to illustrate descriptions of these four acceptable categories, and it should be clear to everyone what exactly these examples are illustrating. 'Freely licensed' item has a very confusing wording, probably due to several different edits. First sentence (You can prove that the copyright holder..) describes what is actually suitable, while second sentence (Note that images that are licensed for use only..) notes what is not suitable and what does not fall in this category. Since there are further sentences, including another note, it may appear that the example given shows what is unsuitable (context: ..under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable (example, see below for details). When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images..), and it seems so for new users, bearing in mind other bulleted items give examples just after the description in the same sentence.
2. Style: 'Note that' and 'Important note' are of the same nature in this context. The fact of them being divided by the example and details link makes it even more confusing. The middle sentence (When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images.) is obviously more suitable to end the bullet point in order to provide a consecutive reasoning. Capital letters for 'Important note' don't seem to play a significant role and may be changed to bold, especially given that this styling defeats design of this section (see: When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images.).

In view of the above, this edit was done. Should you disagree with me, leave me a message. I did not change the text of this section, nor did I change its meaning. Juliette Han (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Galleries and sandwiches - table of use in recent artist bio FAs

Came across the useful table here. Should be read by those who still claim this page "deprecates" galleries, and interesting re image sandwiches. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

In broad terms, there is a general conflict with those in the visual arts Wikiprojects and the image guidelines, as the former obviously tend towards wanting more images, and it is very hard to "fight" against a few there that insist that art must be seen to go against established rules. --Masem (t) 14:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense - the problem is that many editors think they know what the rules say, when they actually don't say anything like that. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Email license

I am currently contacting a company, about whom I am writing an article, to give me some images I can use on the article. I have no affiliation with this company. They did email me an images, what do they have to do to release it under a free license? Is it ok if they just write to me an email saying "we hereby release the attached image under license X"?VR _talk 14:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Easiest is for them to follow the email suggest at WP:CONSENT which sends that confirmation to the OTRS so that it can be verified later if needed. Sending it to you only isn't sufficient for us. --Masem (t) 15:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:PDF" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:PDF. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 3#Wikipedia:PDF until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It does seem like this policy should mention PDF images at least once. Such as to say they are not the preferred image format or that this policy fully applies to PDFs used as/for images. Hyacinth (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Question re selection of images

I have a question about File:Aliocha Schneider.jpg, which was recently uploaded for use in the infobox of actor Aliocha Schneider. Specifically, it's not a photograph of him, but a computerized fan art illustration. This seems wildly inappropriate to me, but I don't know if we have a formal policy against that, so I wanted to ask for input here before removing it from the article arbitrarily — particularly as it's not just Aliocha Schneider, but rather the uploader has also added comnputer-generated fan art images to several other figures as well, including Laurence Leboeuf, Céline Galipeau, Patrick Huard, Charlotte Laurier, Denise Filiatrault, Magalie Lépine-Blondeau, Sophie Lorain, Lucie Laurier, Marc Labrèche, Michel Courtemanche and Éveline Gélinas. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

User-created art of persons released as free are ok -- but they have to be clear non-derivative images (if it is clearly based on a known photo or shot, that's a problem), and they should be of reasonable quality (not exaggerated caricatures for example, nor poorly drawn line-art). The quality here seems fine, but whether its based on existing photos I don't know. --Masem (t) 16:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

At least some of these are definitely derivatives; for example, compare File:Lhasa de Sela 29r.jpg, the existing photo that we already had of Lhasa de Sela, to File:Lhasa de Sela.jpg, which the same user tried to replace it with, as well as the preexisting File:René Angelil.jpg vs. Jeangagnon's File:Rene Angelil.jpg. Both have already been reverted, because Jeangagnon attempted to replace the existing images with his fanart, but they both demonstrate that the fan art is more or less Jeangagnon running existing photographs through an instafilter rather than creating genuinely original work. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the quality, or rights situation, we should avoid these in favour of real photos wherever possible. So, no, it's not "ok" at all. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Added line to not use arithmetic encoding for JPEGs

I added a line to the page noting not to use arithmetic coding and to prefer Huffman coding for JPEG images. This is due to most browsers having limited-to-no support for arithmetic coding due to patent encumbrance.

I added this line using the Wikipedia:Be bold guidance since it seemed uncontroversial. If I'm wrong and you'd like to discuss this change further, or if I should add sources, or anything else, please let me know.

Thanks! Catleeball (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Security guard § Maurice Novoa photos

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Security guard § Maurice Novoa photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Australian Grand Prix § Photo question

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Australian Grand Prix § Photo question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC about image galleries

There is currently an RfC about image galleries at Talk:Southern Methodist University#Image gallery of former students. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Graves

Is there an official policy on photos of graves in biographical articles? Is there a threshold of significance that needs to be met? --Pokelova (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPP § Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPP § Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)