This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

What's a good rule of thumb for the quality and accurateness of an image for adding it to an article. I've been in a series of debates and disputes about a certain user's images which I feel are not encyclopedic in nature. (See talk:yeti and talk:paranthropus for instance.) - UtherSRG 16:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would say, use artist's impressions only if they match available descriptions closely and no real images -- photographs, drawings taken from first-hand experience -- are available. What the yeti looks like is anyone's guess, but there are photographs of the paranthropus bones, and drawings that were based on a first-hand look at those bones, available. -- No-One Jones (talk) 16:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Mirv. When you say match available descriptions, I come into disagreement with the artist on match and available descriptions. For the most part, I'm not looking for specifics for these two articles, I'm looking more for a general solution to the question, so as to deal with future issues. - UtherSRG 16:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I think the principle could be the same in future cases: don't use amateur or second-hand sketches of a subject when there are photographs or first-hand renderings available. As for "matching the subject", maybe you're right; that judgement is necessarily subjective. I suppose if there's disagreement, it's better to find a third-party image on which everyone can agree. -- No-One Jones (talk) 16:42, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think sketches should be a last resort, although they are sometimes appropriate; an example is dodo, where many life-sketches exist and agree with each other. In using a sketch, I think it's important that the artist has seen the subject firsthand. Nowadays there are much more effective ways to render an image of hypotheticals. If you do a Google image search on paranthropus, you'll find a mock-up done by the BBC that I think would be ideal except for the copyright concerns. - Hephaestos 16:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This leads me to another question: When by far the best existing images are unavailable for GFDL, and an image is still preferred over none, should a link to the existingimages be provided, should an artist attempt to recreate the images, or should an artist do primary rsearch and create their own unique version for the article? - UtherSRG 17:31, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think using an external link is best until something that's usable internally presents itself. (See for example Albert Lebrun-there's got to be a PD picture of him as president somewhere but I can't find one.) - Hephaestos 17:41, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Heph. I neglected to mention that In the discussion that followed my removal of the image from the article that I had posted Google image searches. It was those searches and the pages they link to that helped me decide the image was not accurate. (The user then went ahead an uploaded some of the copyrighted image to the talk - but only the ones that supported his view of things.) - UtherSRG 01:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The question might sound a bit loaded, but i think it does not beg the question at hand: WikiPrecedent is not available, in part bcz we mostly work on "rough consensus and working text" rather than hammering out binding compromise agreements.

It's not obvious that the principles underlying the rejection of texts embodying original research apply to "an artist do[ing] primary r[e]search", but IMO the same reasoning is wise in both cases: the peer review we engage in is based primarily on our shared understanding of the process of editing, and not on any ability to do or judge original research in the field at hand. So in reviewing original drawings, the corresponding problems occur, and we are forced to judge the applicability of the drawings in terms of their acceptance by non-WP authorities in the corresponding fields.

(I hasten to add that abstract diagrams that compress the logical structure of a long verbal description resemble, in doing that, mathematical equations more than they do drawings that purport to represent visual appearance. Most of us are good at judging, within fields that broadly educated moderns are "conversant" with, whether an equation or diagram got it right: that's entirely different from reconstructing the appearance of an object from verbal description(s).) -- Jerzy 20:28, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)~

True that, Jerz. However, editting image and editting text are not entirely the same thing. With text, the community can edit at any level from word choice to rewriting/omitting/adding whole paragraphs. Images are not so easily modified. The common user can at best be expected to change only the presentation of the image, not the image's content - unless one were to upload an entirely new image.

I do know that I'm stretching when I mention "primary research". It's not the same, but some of the principles are. In the case of paranthropus: the hard data we have are the skulls. The images created by scientists and artist with significant understanding of anatomy do vary. However, the image presented by the user departs from all of the images found in an image search, as do some of his views supporting the image. Is this not a parallel to "primary research"? - UtherSRG 01:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Uther, it is, and i don't think you were stretching; what i hoped to put across was the idea that custom-made drawings (as opposed to original diagrams) are like original research in that they are usually beyond our ability to verify, and should be excluded as we exclude original research. -- Jerzy 04:26, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)

LOL, at the risk of arousing Angela's ire -- she just now told me to stay away from "conflict pages" for a while...

I think a recent photograph of a yeti or sasquatch is far preferable to an artist's conception. Still better, would be a GFDL photo, or supposing one could be persuaded to sit for it, an portrait in oils.

I hope this settles the question <chuckle, smirk> -- Uncle Ed 17:59, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Silly Ed. Perhaps I'll tie you to a chair so we can finally get a Yeti image! <ducks and covers> - UtherSRG 01:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your comment is abominable. If I were a man, I'd resent that! ;-) -- Uncle Ed 17:44, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why is this on an RfC page? Where has there been a failed attempt by at least two people to resolve this "conflict" by using Step 1? Isn't this more appropriate for the Village pump or the image use policy talk page? I don't get it. -- mav 20:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, for one thing there are too many right/wrong places to have the discussion. I don't know them all, and I needed to pick one that would be considered reasonable, if not best. I did first start the thread on VP, but since I am in a mediation dispute over a number of images with another user, as well as in a dispute directly with that user, this seemed more approprate. And truely, I hadn't even thought to look to see if the image use policy talk would be the right forum as I'd not thought that this would be appropriate, that that page would be for discussion more along the lines of copyvio and such. Sorry for any inconvenience - I don't really care where the discussion takes place. If there is someplace more appropriate I'd be just as happy moving the discussion there. - UtherSRG 01:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to agree with Mirv. As you may've noticed, I use many drawn-from-life depictions of fish from NOAA and USFWS (e.g. muskellunge, cobia). But I find these to be accurate and in many cases they convey much more information than a small and/or blurry PD photograph would. I also alter the ancient plates from NOAA and shade/colourize appropriately (and to the best of my ability, accurately).

That said, I wouldn't trust myself to produce an original rendition without the subject right in front of me. With the Yeti and Paranthropus, not only would I be taking an unacceptable degree of artistic license, I'd also unnecessarily ignite controversy (not that I'm implying a motive, but.. one wonders).

So, to summarize: if they're first-hand, accurate, and free of controversy, drawings are fine and need not be elided. I don't mean to insult the author of the disputed work, but it simply has no place in an encyclopedia. I've sinced removed my own overzealous and misguided newbish attempt to illustrate an article, and I certainly won't be doing it again. </ramble> Hadal 20:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I should also add that a) I don't think the drawings at hand are "bad" in and of themselves and the author does have talent; and b) in cases of mythical or "cryptic" subjects (such as unicorns), artistic drawings are fine *if agreed upon* by those concerned. Hadal 21:43, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And controversy has been so ignited. Your cited images are eactly the kind of images I'd expect to find in an encyclopedia or other relevant hard-copy text. they are of exceptionally high quality and accuracy. While the image I'm in conflict over are good art, I have problems both with their quality and their accuracy. I would not expect to find them in a text (an NPOV representation of fact) except as a first-hand accounting of a sighting. - UtherSRG 01:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are we making a distinction here between drawings and diagrams? Should there be no home-grown diagrams of objects if it's possible to photograph them (i.e. on the science pages). Also I've drawn a couple of (not very high-tech) diagrams in the last few days. As an example, a few of menstrual cups, what they look like and their proper positioning in the vagina. Now, there are a few photographs of these online, and a few manufacturors have produced "internal diagrams", but I don't think that it's necessarily "fair use" to upload these to wikipedia. Or desirible if they essentially promote one brand over another. And there's no way I'm shelling out $$$ to buy some for the purpose of photographing them for wikipedia... and do we want to encourage people to photograph their menstrual cup that they've been usuing for 3 years?  :) fabiform | talk 20:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ew! Please no thanks! I don't need to see someone's cup! *grins*

And no, I wasn't makeing any distinctions between drawings and diagrams. I think though that there isn't a problem as long as the answers to these questions apply: Are the images of reasonable quality? Are they accurate (match available descriptions closely, do not contain incorrect data)? Are no GFDL allowed images available? - UtherSRG 01:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

In my arrogant opinion:

Drawings as such are fine. There is, or was, longstanding tradition in biology that drawings are usually preferred over photographs; I don't know how much of that tradition was due to cost of reproduction, and how much was due to the fact that it was much, much harder to secure a photograph that illustrated the visual point being made than to make a drawing.

I thought it was because a drawing can include only those features that the illustrator wants to call attention to and exclude others. Michael Hardy 02:18, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Peterson's Field Guide to the Birds uses paintings, rather than photographs, and with good reason. So does Sibley's. There have been bird guides that used photographs, and the general consensus among birders is that they're not as good.

The gradual reduction in the cost of both black-and-white and color printing processes has probably led to an overuse of photographs in print reference works; it's sort of the print equivalent of flash animation.

Mediocre drawings are fine if good drawings or good photographs aren't available. Just as with text. If an illustration is appropriate, better a mediocre illustration than no illustration. If someone objects, they are always free to replace it with a better one. Quality standards for illustrations are no different than quality standards for anything else in Wikipedia. If you don't think it's good enough, don't put it in. If you think what someone else has put in isn't good enough, put in something better or shut up. If you think what someone else has put in is inaccurate, that's different, of course.

If the issue is capturing an idea, that's fine too. There's no requirement that an illustration should always represent a physical object that the artist is viewing. They should be appropriately captioned, of course. "Artist's conception" is a perfectly respectable phrase. Artist's conception of... what people see in near-death experiences. Artist's conception of... Stegosaurus. Artist's conception of... appearance of floaters in the eye. Artist's conception of... Unicorn. Wouldn't it be silly to insist that only photographs of unicorns are permissible? Or that an article about a unicorn shouldn't have a picture?

Just as we may synthesize the ideas of a number of published sources in writing an article, it should be perfectly acceptable to synthesize the visual idea of a number of published pictures, if that's what seems to be the best presentation.

If the issue is "sanitizing" copyrighted photographs by substituting a home-drawn version, that's not so fine. I'm not even sure that it protects against copyright infringement. Derivative works, and all that. Again, in biology, there is certainly a longstanding tradition of crediting the original when something is drawn ("after Hyman," "after Lankester," etc.) I forget the citation style but you'll even see double-barrelled citations that credit the two preceding generations of the drawing.

Just my ... well, lets say $0.09 Dpbsmith 21:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

P. S.

'This is a new principle, a discovery, a great discovery,' said the gentleman. 'Now, I'll try you again. Suppose you were going to carpet a room. Would you use a carpet having a representation of flowers upon it?'

There being a general conviction by this time that 'No, sir!' was always the right answer to this gentleman, the chorus of no was very strong. Only a few feeble stragglers said Yes: among them Sissy Jupe.

'Girl number twenty,' said the gentleman, smiling in the calm strength of knowledge.

Sissy blushed, and stood up.

'So you would carpet your room - or your husband's room, if you were a grown woman, and had a husband - with representations of flowers, would you?' said the gentleman. 'Why would you?'

'If you please, sir, I am very fond of flowers,' returned the girl.

'And is that why you would put tables and chairs upon them, and have people walking over them with heavy boots?'

'It wouldn't hurt them, sir. They wouldn't crush and wither, if you please, sir. They would be the pictures of what was very pretty and pleasant, and I would fancy - '

'Ay, ay, ay! But you mustn't fancy,' cried the gentleman, quite elated by coming so happily to his point. 'That's it! You are never to fancy.'

'You are not, Cecilia Jupe,' Thomas Gradgrind solemnly repeated, 'to do anything of that kind.'

'Fact, fact, fact!' said the gentleman. And 'Fact, fact, fact!' repeated Thomas Gradgrind.

—Dickens, Hard Times

Thanks for the comments. I think anything I'd reply with would be a repeat of something I've already said above. (If you disagree, please point it out. *grins*). I'm not sure I got the point of the Dickens passage. It was nice reading nonetheless. - UtherSRG 01:37, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh. The point. You wanted a point. The point is... sometimes it's OK to have pictures of things that aren't real. Dpbsmith 18:56, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You guys are really impossible. How can you have a photograph of something that isn't real, or which won't let you get close enough for an attractive pose? I want to believe in sasquatch, flying saucers and the chance that someday I'll collect social security as much as the next man, but you'll have to draw me a sketch if the subject won't hold still... -- Uncle Ed 19:50, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

In my somewhat-arrogant opinion...

There should be a hierarchy of images used, based on type and quality, and other characteristics I haven't come up with.

Photographs would be top of the list, ranked by quality, depiction of subject, and so on. Then would come images from historical works; say, if you can't get a photo of a Unicorn, you get an image from some Dark Ages tapestry. Then you'd have professional sketches, and then finally amateur ones made by Wikipedians.

So then if an article had a lovely sketch and someone found an even-better photograph, the photo would be put in the article in place of the sketch. It just seems more encyclopaedic to have photos rather than sketches, although absolutely horrid photos would of course not be used...mostly I think we should use common sense - does the image depict the concept of the article well? If yes, use. If no, discard. </rambling> PMC 00:00, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you... but I don't understand why, other things being equal, a photograph should be considered "more encyclopaedic" than a drawing. Dpbsmith 02:07, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again you're forgetting diagrams. Would you rank of photograph of the cross-section of the human torso higher than a diagram? Of course not - a professional, accurate, well annotated diagram would be _far_ superior in this case (and less gory), and many others (diagrams of sport pitches, cross-sections of crafts, anatomy of pretty much anything (from flowers via humans to mechanics), maps rather than ariel photography, etc). Personally I think brilliant photos and brilliant diagrams should rank equally, and which is the most suitable for an article should be left to the good sense of the wikipedians working on that article. fabiform | talk 02:33, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And, as I noted above, there are many examples&mdashbird guides being one—whose painted pictures can hardly be called "diagrams," but are, nevertheless, used in place of photographs because they provide superior communication of the visual point the author wishes to make. (And, for portraits doesn't The Wall Street Journal still use those things that look like engravings, rather than traditional halftone photos? I've never known whether they're really engravings or done by Photoshoppery...) Dpbsmith 03:24, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I find it irritating when Wikipedia contributors feel the need to graffiti their names or the like in the corner of contributed images. We do not sign our names to the text that we contribute to articles, and it seems to me likewise both needless and rude to do so with images. Is there any kind of policy or recommendation on the subject that I simply haven't been able to find? Anyone else think there should be? -- FOo 03:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Artists sign their paintings. Is that graffiti? If someone wants to put their name in an image that they created, that is their right. As long as it doesn't obscure the meaning or aesthetic of the image, it should be allowed. When done discreetly, it is in fact helpful. The creator of the image is important. I want to know who is the creative force behind the image (not simply the person who uploaded it). Discreet signitures do this in an efficient way. - Pioneer-12 12:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I routinely create images expressly for use in this project. I do not sign them. I would neither encourage another to sign his work created for this use, nor discourage him from doing so. It is a purely artistic consideration. — Xiong 熊 talk * 07:26, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

(I realize I'm replying 1 year later)Granted, but as FOo stated, why permit anyone to seek any recognition in a creative work, textual or artistic, when that fundamentally contradicts the goals of Wikipedia? AdamBiswanger1 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How should this page be updated to reflect Wikimedia Commons ( [1])? Hyacinth 04:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

is there a policy for biography pages in which a portrait should be the main image, and image of the person in action or with other people should be secondary? i believe this is the policy, but i cannot find it written. can someone show me where it is? Kingturtle 01:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I am having a problem with images. On Ranks_and_insignia_of_Starfleet, the way the images are used now is that one piece of an image is placed inside a template, then the rest of the image is completed by putting the other pieces in. Example: [[Image:Tng_red_pipbg.PNG|14px]][[Image:Tng fc pip.PNG|24px]][[Image:Tng fc pip.PNG|24px]][[Image:Tng fc pip.PNG|24px]][[Image:Tng fc pip.PNG|24px]][[Image:Tng_red_pipbg.PNG|14px]] becomes File:Tng fc pip.PNG File:Tng fc pip.PNG File:Tng fc pip.PNG File:Tng fc pip.PNG . Is this helpful or hurtful to Wikipedia? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

How do I display (not link) to images in other Wikipedia's; I'm trying to do it in the Reaction section of Anna Lindh. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know how to do this too, in my case from the german version of the same artical

On :sl we have a lot (IMO) of unverified images. Is there any rule on how much time must past after tagging it with {{unverified}} and deletion? There we don't have any rule about this and I would like to know is there any common rule/timeline about this, TIA, -- Klemen Kocjancic 3 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

There should be a method to upload image sources such as vector art or photoshop files that retain the maximum ammount of detail possible for a picture.

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs we automate the insertion of images into a template. However, some images are not named systematically and therefore cannot be used in the template. Apart from uploading the image again, is there any way to rename them? JFW |  T@lk 20:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Could I somehow use it without downloading it and than uploading to english part of wiki????? Otherwise sound like waste of resourses.

Download it and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Then every language can use it. -- Error 03:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it not uploaded to the commons when I add it using the upload file link when I'm editing an article? Example: I uploaded an image for Daihatsu Hijet in English. I'm trying to add that image to the Japanese article. I thought I WAS uploading to the commons, but just transferring that text to the other article won't display the image. user:Andy_Christ

I have the same problem, as I often translate (part of) english articles into french. When there is a good image on the english (or other language) page, it may be possible to use it directly (when it's already in Commons, I guess) but most of the time it doesn't work. An inter-language image linking feature would be cool (and reduce disk usage), something like [[:language:image:name_of_image]]. But a automatic upload to Commons, like suggested above, might be even better. 82.238.95.176 23:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there any plans to add support for image maps? I think this would be exceedingly useful to be able to hotlink areas of a diagram to relevant articles (and anchors). This could be done through a special map parameter like so:

[[Image:MyDiagram.png|map:rect;0,0,10,10;Foo_handle|map:rect;20,10,30,20;Foo_bar|map:circle;20,40,10;Widget]]

The map tag would take three parameters. The shape (rect, circle, poly), the coordinates, and the article to link to.

I can't see this being difficult to implement. -- Thoric 15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Rhollenton and I have been debating whether images should be put in categories along articles, now that we have Commons. -- Error 03:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I would think generally not, but what about non-free images that can't go in Commons? ··gracefool | ☺ 09:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If images aren't categorized then how is one supposed to know what all is available to them. -- *Kat* 07:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing boldly, I added a short section. The subject wasn't addressed elsewhere and seemed to fit best on this article. I incorporated coments from the talk page. Durova 11:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone either tell me if this [2] image falls under fair use for Chef's knife, or direct me to a suitable forum where that question can be answered? I would be quite grateful. -- Chris 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I need help, I want to put an image on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andean_Tinamou but I can't it just looks like a link. Do I have to register at the Wiki Commmons? Please help! Mitternacht90

It seems the image pages serve dual function - enlarged views and image maintenance. I think the end-user experience could be better. Pages that feature large images should have minimum markup at the top of page to avoid forcing the user to scroll down. And it seems most users would want a caption right below the image, a short description of what is in the image. Rtdrury 21:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the rule for using Time magazine covers to illustrate articles? I just had someone delete a cover from 1930 and they left this message: "The fairuse criteria is to illustrate the publication of the issue in question, the article this is used in is not doing this. Deleting.)" Can someone explain what the rules are. It was a cover of Glenn Curtiss. Is the rule you can only use a photo of a Time cover on an article about Time magazine and all others have to be deleted? Should I be deleting every Time cover I see, or was the Administrator incorrect? I see dozens of covers in biographies.

Will someone please read this and respond. Someone is removeing EVERY Time magazine cover without any discussion here. The images are being deleted without any discussion. Time magazine allows use of its images if the whole cover is shown. An editor is now deleting EVERY cover of Time magazine that does not appear under the Time article. There are many images and lots of work being reversed if no one is even discussing it. Please, someone respond. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just wondering if there was a way to link images to articles rather than the image page.-- Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Many image pages contain the words

Download high resolution version

How would one edit that so that they say the following?:

Download high-resolution version

Michael Hardy 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

All such system messages are part of MediaWiki namespace. As such, they can only be edited by an administrator. This particular message is at MediaWiki:Showbigimage. For a commonsense change like this, you might post a note on the Wikipedia:Village pump and also on the message talk page, MediaWiki talk:Showbigimage.

Of course, it would have been nice if it someone had answered this question a little more promptly. But hey, what's six months between friends?  :-) -- Visviva 17:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dorantes2.jpg and Image:Meximullet.jpg are the same pictures - how can I propose a "merge"? -- Abdull 22:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You can tag it with the Template:Redundant image, and then make sure all the image includes are pointing to one image (the one not being tagged for deletion). -- Andrew c 16:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

How do I move an image uploaded to Wikipedia (or sister project) to Commons? -- Stbalbach 02:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Copy the image to My Pictures, go to the Commons, and upload it there. Ask an admin to delete the Wikipedia copy-- M Johnson ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to post a a US gov't image scan that is up on a private website. It's a diagram from a Navy handbook. Do I need the permission of the people who run that website?

Similarly, I want to post a fair-use computer-game screenshot and I want to know if I need permission from the people who made it and put it on the Web. I think these both are probably common questions and should be addressed on this page. --- Howdybob 12:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm unwatching this now, so if anyone has as answer they want me to get they'll have to mention it on my talk page as well. -- Howdybob 10:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my two cents: In the case of the Navy image, that should be in the public domain provided that it is really an unretouched duplicate of the original Navy handbook. If that's the case, then the webmaster has no basis for a copyright claim. So before claiming public-domain, it might be prudent to verify that that is the case. As for the fair-use screenshot, I think the claim is dubious, and doubly so given the tenuous nature of all fair use claims. The screenshot could *arguably* be seen as a unique creative work, although current US law wouldn't appear to support such a claim; all in all, it would be much better to use a screenshot made by you or another Wikipedian.

I agree that questions of this sort should be addressed on the main page, particularly since very few people seem to be responding to the questions posted here.  :-) -- Visviva 17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What would be a good program to use to edit images? Do they have to output in .png format? Can I use Windows Paint? Ideogram 22:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Windows Paint works quite well, although the serious image-makers among us would recommend something like GIMP or Sodipodi. You should be able to save images in PNG format from Paint; if that doesn't work, you can convert from one format to another using a free program such as IrfanView. -- Visviva 17:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I use PaintShop Pro, which is very powerful but relatively simple to use and with excellent help. It comes bundled with Animation Shop. Both are as friendly to experts as they are to beginners. Gordon | Talk, 16 October 2006 @12:01 UTC

If you are looking for a free powerfull graphics package there is an open source one called GIMP Back ache 20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can Flickr images with this license be use? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ -- Dara 23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not as a rule. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Non-free_Creative_Commons_licenses. Cheers, -- Visviva 17:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I wanna ask about Image policy in Wikipedia. Can we edit existing images uploaded from the other website (such as resizing, cropping, or other effects)? wic2020 ^{talk bicara} 01:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, provided that you cite the original source, and it is released under a free license which allows such modifications. Remember that the derivative work is still bound by any licensing restrictions on the original. -- Visviva 17:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are Creative Commons images under non-commericl and non-derivative images allowed on Wikipedia? -- D -Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not as a rule. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Non-free_Creative_Commons_licenses. -- Visviva 17:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to upload my first image the other day. It was a .bmp Doesn't seem to be in the Image index. I remember it gave me some message like "bmp is not a preferred format" or something to that effect. This main page doesn't seem to really address that issue. I assume it just threw my image away or didn't upload it or something, but it wasn't really very clear to me. If there are certain formats that are acceptable and others that aren't, the main page should have some statement like that and list the acceptable formats. I'd do it, but I don't know what they are. Thanks. Wjhonson 19:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

BMP files, to my understanding, end up being quite large in regards to memory, hence taking up more space and using up more bandwidth. A JPEG image would be preferrable for a photograph, and I think PNG is what's preferred for graphics.-- Daveswagon 08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to make images from a VHS? -- 67.81.199.59 20:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's probably not feasible without some sort of special equipment AdamBiswanger1 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You would probably need to capture the video via a computer with an anolog-compatible video capture card, then export a frame from the captured video using a video editing program like Adobe Premiere. Then, ideally, run a de-interlace filter on the resulting image such as the one in Photoshop.-- Daveswagon 08:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that images defy all other precedents of neutrality and factual accuracy demanded of text. This is true especially in articles of cities, where even in the poorest areas of the world slums are very rarely shown, and only the highlights of a city are granted article space. For example, the article Ethiopia presents images of an alive and mirthful populace, without any images of the starvation or drought that run rampant there. Also, Kolkata, which is rather well-known for its slums has as its visual representation of this sector a rather handsome image of the roof of an impoverished household, which I feel is not nearly indicative enough of the poverty going on there.

Also, certain images go slightly overboard in their beautification of national landmarks, as in the image of the perfectly illuminated Eiffel Tower in the Paris article.

There are no images of flood-tossed cars in Bangladesh, no war in Sudan, no boring streets in St. Louis, no littered streets in New York, no bombed buildings in Baghdad, no smog in Mexico City, no welfare lines in Moscow, no overcrowding in Tokyo, no smokestacks in Warsaw, and the list goes on. I'm beginning to get tired of all of the glamour shots. We need to have more images that capture the essence of the entity, instead of its highlights. AdamBiswanger1 03:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:NPOV can be applied to the choice of images; the problem is that the set of available images is generally quite limited. If all we have are glamor shots, then glamor shots are the only images that will end up in the article. I think there is a natural tendency for people to avoid uploading more "commonplace" but informative pictures; perhaps someone should write an essay to encourage a different approach. -- Visviva 17:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy that requires or encourages contacting the creator of an image before replacing it on a page (not replacing the image file, but rather the image displayed on the page)? I tried to replace the image in the paper mill article with what I thought was an improved image, but was rebuked by the image's creator for being "rude" and deleting someone else's work. I was under the impression that all work on Wikipedia was the result of someone's work. What is the proper policy for this? Furthermore, are there general guidelines for how many images should be placed on a page? My reason for replacing rather than adding the image was reduce clutter and prevent from distracting from the (rather short) article itself.-- Daveswagon 08:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such policy requiring notification of the creator. After all, you aren't deleting the work, simply removing it from the article. Ultimately, such conflicts over image selection and placement must be resolved through establishing a consensus among active editors on the page. You might consider posting a notice at WP:RfC if you think this specific matter (in Paper mill) requires more input from the general community of Wikipedes.

For your other question, consult Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement. In general, images should inform but not overwhelm the associated article text. I think there may be a more extensive treatment of the issue somewhere, but can't find it just now. -- Visviva 17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What happens if there's a promotional image of a show that was cancelled, so no official source can be found? -- DrBat 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, i am a new user so i have a question gow do you put an image in an article?Please reply on my discussion page.-- Stlbabe 53 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like this for my user page. Mjk2357 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to know the best way to get images from video games that I own

Try http://images.google.com -- Zanimum 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at Image:Hand_with_Reflecting_Sphere.jpg and wanted to see an older version of it. Clicked a bit off and hit "rev" instead which reverted the image. No "are you sure" message, no confirmation of any sort. This is inconsistent with article reversions and I could see how someone might revert and not even realize they were doing it. Is there a reason for the current method? Is it difficult to change? *Sparkhead 20:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the best way to get an image from a book?

With a scanner... but only if the image is old enough to be in the public domain. -- Visviva 03:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So I can't take a book a few years old and put a picture here for reference or an explanation?-- Herb-Sewell 04:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:Fair use, there are some cases where that is permissible. However, these are rather limited; for the most part, fair use only applyies if the image is illustrating a discussion of the book itself. For example, you could scan the dust jacket of a recent book in order to illustrate an article or section about that book -- although most recent dust jackets can be found online anyway, so you could dispense with the scanner. After uploading, such images should be labeled with {{ bookcover}}. -- Visviva 07:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I was curious regarding the kind of page this is; is it a {{Essay}}, a {{Style-guideline}}, a {{Guideline}} or even {{Policy}}? I believe that there should be a tag at the top. -- Oden 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems {{ Descriptive}} to me. -- Visviva 05:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is "what links here" different for images? Image description pages have the "File Links" section, but the "what links here" is not the same as any other item on WP. Is there a technical reason for this? Is there a way to get a "what links here" page for an Image that contains the information in the file links section? *Spark* 14:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The reason is that image and media files are stored outside the database, while the image description page is stored in the database just like any other text page; in this sense the images aren't really part of the wiki at all. The "file links" point directly to the actual image; the "whatlinkshere" links point only to the image description page. -- Visviva 05:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I allowed to upload an image of a video game taken via print screen under the GDFL? -- VGF11 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Would have to be under fair use rationale. See also: Wikipedia:Fair use & Template:Game-screenshot. -- Van helsing 09:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. -- VGF11 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to create images representing logos such as the Rebel Alliance logo and the Galactic Empire logo, and release them under a free license? (see Image:RebelAllianceLogo.png for an example). — Canderous Ordo 22:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(I changed ref to be a link and not the image). Isn't that a copyrighted image from Lucas and friends? -- *Spark* 23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I made that image using MS-paint, and it is based on the logo of the Rebel Alliance ( image:Rebel_Alliance_logo.png, which is copyrighted by Lucas and used under the fair-use policy on en.wiki). I created the image to avoid the restriction of the fair-use policy (which has been banned on the italian wiki). What i wanted to know is: if i create a drawing from scratch modeled after a copyrighted file (in this case the Rebel Alliance logo), can that drawing be released under a free license, since it was created by me? — Canderous Ordo 23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would think if you redrew the IBM or Microsoft logo and attempted to distribute it as free license you might have a problem. You might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. -- *Spark* 01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts... but IMO, it's a great stretch to consider something like that to be anything but a derivative work. And unfortunately, derivative works are protected by copyright just as much as outright copies. -- Visviva 05:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, this was absoultely no help. I've got images on Wikipedia Commons I want to move into an article. How do I? Trekphiler 06:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You should be able to link directly to the image in the usual way, i.e. [[Image:Imagename.jpg]]. That will include the image directly, unless there is an image on Wikipedia with the same name... -- Visviva 10:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The same as with the first image on your userpage (Apollo 11 first step), that’s a common’s picture ( [3]). -- Van helsing 10:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bright_Icon.svg was deleted and try as I might, I cannot find any log or history of the image. Log shows nothing, history shows nothing. Of course clicking on a deleted image link ( File:Bright Icon.svg - note the link above has a colon at the front, this one does not) brings me to the upload page instead of the image page itself which I have to type in manually to get to. But that's another issue. Why can't I see history of either revisions or deletions for this image? -- *Spark* 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It was on Commons: commons log. Mike Dillon 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why non commercial images such {{ cc-by-nc-2.0}} arent allowed on wiki ( Gnevin 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Because Wikipedia must remain free for both commercian and non-commercial reuse. The issue here is similar to fair use; while Wikipedia itself is not commercial, many downstream users are. -- Visviva 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Down stream ? surely wiki doesn't allow people to make a profit from our efforts ( Gnevin 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

Why does Wikipedia allow extensions (.png, .gif, .jpg, .jpeg etc.) on images when referenced by Wikipedia pages? If you want to replace an image uploaded as a jpeg with .jpeg extension, to replace that image in situ requires that you also upload a .jpeg - otherwise you're creating a new file with a new name, and have to implement a redirect from the name with the old extension.

The web has supported content specification (the Content-Type: http header) since the beginning. What this means is that if you have say http://www.foo.com/image.jpeg, a request for http://www.foo.com/image will return that very image. (Similarly, if there's a file called bar.html, http://www.foo.com/bar will return the same as http://www.foo.com/bar.html - and you don't see .html or .shtml on Wiki pages.) Requiring filename extensions is very DOS/Unix, and can be abstracted away from in a web environment, making updating/replacing images (or editing them and changing format) much easier.

Wikipedia should imo remove all filename extensions from Wikipedia pages, and let the page references for images be independent of the format the image is in. (Yes, there'll be some initial pain if say Dog.png and Dog.jpg exist and are different images used in different contexts, as both could be called by Dog -- but this is a one-off problem, easily resolved in a cleanup of the few collisions that result.) Lloyd Wood 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To illustrate a television character, which is preferable: a fair use photograph, or an interpretive illustration? -- Zanimum 17:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please contribute to the centralised discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. Please add comments over there, not here. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphan Bot kindly pointed out that Image:Leaving Rivendell cover.png didn't have the right license, so I added one based on the other pics in that series of albums. NB. I didn't upload the original picture, but can confirm that this is a picture of the front of the album in question. The one thing I haven't been able to address is the question of whether it should be a lower resolution (I think it should be). Compare all five images here:

• Image:Tolkienensemble.jpg
• Image:Leaving Rivendell cover.png
• Image:At Dawn In Rivendell Albumcover.jpg
• Image:A Night In Rivendell Albumcover.jpg
• Image:An evening in rivendell albumcover.jpg

Any advice on how to standardise the resolutions? Carcharoth 12:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no standard or anything in place. Just use your best judgment. I agree the image should be lower res.-- Jeff 14:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll try to find the time to deal with it. I'll download the original, tweak to a lower-res, upload under a new name, and nominate the old one for deletion. Simply over-writing the old one feels wrong (though I know that is maybe how it should be done). Carcharoth 14:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The defacto standard is that the "Download high-resolution version" notice should not appear on "fair use" images. Geni 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I agree. I hadn't seen that this "Download high-resolution version" link only appeared on two of the image description pages I linked to above. How do I get rid of it? Does it automatically appear if the uploaded version is above a certain size? Carcharoth 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

yes. I don't know exactly what that size is though. Geni 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that depends on the settings in your preferences (under Files). For most fair use images, I upload them at 250px width, since they usually won't be displayed larger in any article anyway. -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 14:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How does one rename (or move) an image? Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV 16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Download, re-upload under the new name, put {{duplicate|"new name"}} on the old one (and list on WP:IFD), change all links coming in on the old to the new name. -- Van helsing 12:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am working on trying to cleanup an article on Bully Kutta. The bottom of the page has links to several external pictures. I have not seen this before and cannot find policy for or against it? It seems as though it would be frowned upon or prohibited but I would like somebody a little more familiar with image policy to help out here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think Image policy applies here, they are external links, so can be treated as WP:EL describes.-- Van helsing 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I have an image at the Psychology Wiki that I would like to put in the article, Tree of Knowledge System. I have permission via e-mail by the creator of the image, Gregg Henriques, to use the image on Wikipedia. Could someone instruct me as to what I need to do here exactly? EPM 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a specific disagreement over image choice at Wikipedia talk:Taxobox usage and was hoping that members here would take a look and comment. Depending on the outcome, I wanted to get some input from the community as to how to choose between two similar pictures with slightly different pros and cons. This page is not helpful in setting any kind of standard. -- RM 18:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Department of Records just did an incredible thing and digitized the city's photo archives and made them available online:

http://www.phillyhistory.org/PhotoArchive/FAQ.aspx

Can I get someone to clarify the license? They're selling reprints, but it looks like they don't mind low res redistribution:

If I want to use an image found on PhillyHistory.org, to whom should I give credit? Please find the appropriate language on the Linking Standards page. In general, the appropriate credit should be "PhillyHistory.org, a project of the Philadelphia Department of Records".

Thanks. ccwaters 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like {{ cc-by}} to me... -- Visviva 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I've encountered a user who has created several categories for images as analogues to categories on the Commons based on the idea that then linking those categories to the Commons makes locating images easier, even though there is far less image content on WP and so the result is many categories for a few images; they have even begun categorising Commons media that are not even used on WP ( 1, 2, 3, 4) so as to populate the hierarchy of categories created ( 1, 2). My understanding was that we were actively in the process of moving all free images to the Commons, and so it followed that if not reducing image infrastructure on WP, we shouldn't be increasing it. After an inquiry to an admin working on image categorisation that recommended that I transwiki to the Commons any images that were on WP, and which led to deletion of one of the images, this user promptly created a page for the Commons image and again categorised it on WP. According to that sort of convention, wouldn't we have every image from the Commons categorised by their WP pages on WP, thus pretty much negating the utility of separate projects? Please advise, Tewfik ^Talk 05:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)