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

On the project page it is stated "As an example in its simplest form..." followed by example image markup that includes |right, despite that right hand placement is a default parameter everywhere, as far as I am aware. Is there some reason this is included in this "simplest form" example? I have many times at the help desk/new contributors help page advised users that the "simplest form" (even serendipitously using that exact language independently) is [[File:example.png|thumb|caption description]] and gone on to describe the ability to change the right and size defaults using |left and |???px. So why is this in there? Is this possibly an artifact from a time when images did not automatically default to the right, or am I missing something?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 11:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made the change to the page reflecting that right it is the default, highlighting that right placement is preferred in most places, and describing how to override.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:K72ndst added a nice photo of Jim Steranko to Steranko's article, as seen here. I didn't think it made the best use of the available space, so I cropped it, and added the cropped version to the article, see here, which devotes more of the space to Steranko, as seen here.

K72ndst then left this message on my Talk Page: "Hello: I really do not like how you cropped and edited my photo of Jim Steranko, so I am changing it back. I am a photographer, and I made a serious and thought-out decision how I wanted to best present my image. I took more than 20 of Steranko at the con, and could have had a boring photo like you have cropped my photo down to be. The reason I presented it in this way was to show the con around him. I do not want it presented in this fashion. Or I will take the image down. I have contributed many many images to Wikipedia, and never has anyone just gone in and chopped up an image of mine this way."

I cropped the photo because the article is about Steranko, not the convention, and I think the cropped version shows him better. If I understand copyright law and WP policy correctly, K72 released the photo into the public domain, so he has no authority to determine how it's presented, he has no authority to "take it down", and to declare that the article MUST present the photo as he declares, simply because he's a photographer, without discussion, sounds like WP:OWN. I myself have had photos of mine cropped, as with the pic that currently serves as the main accompanying photo in the Richard Dreyfuss article, which was cropped from a more full shot that I took and added, and I did not react this way. I want to tell him this, and suggest a consensus discussion, but don't want to inflame the situation. What do you think? Nightscream ( talk) 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you asked several seemingly random people to comment on this, but since you asked me to, I will. I too am no expert on copyright law, but the license that this is released under seems to allow you to crop the photo. I personally think that the cropped version looks much better in his article, but also you should note that the photo is included in the New York Comic Con article, which is about the convention. Therefore, I recommend that you make a separate cropped image. I also recommend that you verify that the editor cannot in fact remove the image. Then the issue will just be an arbitration of which image should be included in the Jim Steranko article, which I think shouldn't be too hard to reach a consensus in your direction for, considering how much better the cropped image looks. Asmeurer ( talk ♬ contribs) 18:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The photographer chose the "by" (attribution-only) license restriction; it's therefore safe to modify (such as by cropping). If the photographer didn't want it modified, then s/he should have chosen a license that included "nd" (no derivatives) restriction.

CC licenses are irrevocable, so I suggest that the photographer consider this one a learning lesson. If you are interested in a reasonable compromise, it sounds like the author has plenty of other shots, and perhaps a different one would make a better head shot. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the original photographer does not have the authority to revoke the license or the image; but I also agree with him that the image as he originally presented it does a better job in the context of the article, showing that guy in a relevant situation. The image is not sharp enough to make a decent head shot, and the cropped one is too tight, and looks very awkward. I've also gone in and cropped or enhanced photos of others, but I do try to be respectful; in most cases, it's just amateurs who wouldn't know a good photo from a hole in their head, but in this case it's a photographer who cares, and I'd say respect his art. Just because we can legally change it doesn't mean we should. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How can there be a "no-derivatives restriction" on a free image? By definition, as a free image, anyone anywhere can modify the file as they please, as long as the author(s) or licensor(s) is attributed. Nightscream did not overwrite the original image – he created a second, derivative image and it's properly annotated as "other version" at Commons. As to which image should be used in the article's infobox, that should be decided by consensus on the article talk page. The original uploader gets one !vote, the same as any other editor.  JGHowes  ^talk 20:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because there isn't a "free/non-free" dichotomy with copyright. What WhatamIdoing is suggesting is that the author could have chosen a copyright license doesn't allow derivatives to be created from it. Such a license is still broadly "free" because it can still be used as you like, except that you can't modify it. I suspect such a license may not be acceptable at Commons, however. -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 14:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about licenses, not copyright. Of course, the original photographer retains the copyright to his work. But what free license will Wikipedia accept that doesn't allow derivatives? Such a restriction makes it a non-free image which could only be used with a justifiable Fair Use Rationale at en-wiki, i.e., "The license must not prevent commercial reuse or derivative works", re WP:ICTIC.  JGHowes  ^talk 20:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Legally Nightscream is correct, but I personally think he should act in good faith and respect the photographer's wishes. Timeshift ( talk) 00:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have also been asked to comment on this cropping, though I'm not sure why. It is legal and acceptable to crop the photo. I think it just has to be handled the same way as any other content dispute is handled... through discussion and consensus-building. The photo is out of focus and grayscale (sepia), so I don't have a strong opinion about which version looks better. They both look out of focus and colourless. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 02:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the image should be moved to another section (as in not in the infobox) and another image should be used. The current picture has good composition but I think a replacement can be found to better illustrate the subject. So basically, move the picture to another section and find a picture that better illustrates the subject, so, a close up picture of his face. Jerry teps ( talk) 06:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To Asmeurer: I did indeed create a separate image. As for why I asked random people to comment here, well, I needed info on the legality and policy concerning images, and since you were all in this Talk Page's History, I notified you. I do not see what Good Faith has to do with respecting a photographer's wishes, since consensus may decide that the cropped version is better. I do not think moving it to another section makes sense, since there is no other image available. Nightscream ( talk) 17:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, too. There's no issue for here; let's take the image choice question to the article talk page. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the photographer and I thank you all for your input. I asked that it not be cropped, because this is how I wanted it to be presented. I already stated my reasons for this. For this article to go from C class to B class it will need a photo of the subject, and this is the one I have taken the time to create for the article. This article is well-written and researched; my contribution will be this photo. That is really all I have to say on this. -- K72ndst ( talk) 23:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with several above - consensus is clear that a modified image may be used regardless of contributor's wishes - whether a particular image should be used in a particular article should be taken to the article discussion page. -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.}20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I like raster images they are cool. -- 98.162.148.46 ( talk) 00:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are images in the File namespace instead of the Image namespace now? -- Fangoriously ( talk) 02:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy, guideline, or style guide that excludes images in lists as referenced in this edit? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of in fact I use images in lists all the time. See these 2 for examples: List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima, List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients.-- Kumioko ( talk) 20:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline governing the number of images in articles? My understanding is that the more images in an article, the longer it will take to load on slower connections. Is that accurate? Would someone be so kind as to check out Whale tail, there are 6 images in the article but 2 of them essentially duplicate the same thing. I've tried to remove one but one of the article's more prolific contributors objects. Cheers. L0b0t ( talk) 13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I started a similar discussion here. SharkD ( talk) 11:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

According to fair use criteria, images must be more than decorative and serve an actual useful purpose in the article. I propose extending this to include allimages—not just copyrighted material. (Exceptions would include icons and so forth which exist to make site navigation easier.) SharkD ( talk) 22:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be preferable to have the discussion in one place or the other, but not both. This talk page is the better place, rather than the main WP:MOS talk page, because the question relates to the WP:Images guideline page. I posted the same suggestion at the other discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Large numbers of images. Finell (Talk) 22:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So, what would I need to do to go about translating the contents of this very useful page? Do I need special permissions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should move this to Wikipedia:Files. --— HK22 \ my contributions/ ^{( my talk)} 06:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but we'd have to copy-edit a lot of the WP pages that discuss images. The file/image thing is already confusing me beyond belief! :)-- Funandtrvl ( talk) 01:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not. There is nothing on the page about files (files other than images) other than in the sentence, "Wikipedia contains millions of illustrative images and other electronic media." The page only discusses images and how to use them. Naming it "WP:Files" would be completely counterproductive. The Image namespace was moved to File for the convenience of audio and video files, but should not result in the detriment of use of Image files, which in my opinion should still use the Image: format for purposes of clarity, even though the actual file they represent is of the namespace File. As it says,

The "File:" prefix may be used interchangeably with "Image:":

and there is nothing further that needs to be said. I would recommend keeping all of the examples of the format Image:, so that by implication users would tend to have a preference for using Image instead of File. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 04:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On three separate computers over the last few days I have noticed our images are sluggishly uploading, or not uploading at all in the articles. Is it just me? -->David Shankbone 14:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to use a non-free entity logo on an article, but can't figure out how to lower the resolution. Can somebody help me out? The image is for the Poker Hall of Fame?--- I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

figured out.--- I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!}16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Digitized photos scanned from printed sources often have a checkerboard pattern or rows of alternating light and dark spots which I presume to be due to the dot pattern of the scanner coming into and out of register with the dot pattern of the halftone in the printed source.

For instance see at right: Dankarl ( talk) 21:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me this should be removable with some mathematical filtering? Is there a way to get this done without buying expensive software or becoming an image processing expert?

Or would there be a better place to post this question? Dankarl ( talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Image rendering but you could go to sourceforge.net and download Gimp. Gimp is a freeware version of Photoshop and does most of the same things without the cost. You can also go to youtube and find tutorials that will teach you how to use it.-- Kumioko ( talk) 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I know this doesn't answer your question, but in terms of scanning antiquarian book images so that they don't show the moiré pattern, what I usually do is position the page so that it is at a slight angle (5–10°) to the scanning instrument, then scan at a higher than normal resolution. Once the picture is scanned, I use a graphics editor (PSP) to smoothly rotate the image back to the normal alignment, apply appropriate correction settings (contrast, &c.), scale it down to get a nice smooth tone, then crop it appropriately. This eliminates nearly all moiré pattern effects, except perhaps for slight gray intonations on a light background. For the latter I usually try again with slightly different modifications.— RJH ( talk) 16:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Worked on it a bit, was able to reduce the distortion only a little without losing too much detail. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that pywikipediabot has changed some images from File: to Image: and I was wondering if there was something that directed this or if it was just an error.-- Kumioko ( talk) 20:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

All the examples omit periods at the end of captions. Is this standard practice/policy for the project? SharkD ( talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Two editors have a dispute at WPMED over whether the other guy is unfairly promoting his private-practice cosmetic surgery business by (*gasp*) listing their websites on the File: pages (not in the articles, but in the "source" field of the description). The discussions are here and here. Since we can't very well knock heads together over the web, what's the right forum for resolving such disputes? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely confused over image rights at the moment. I am currently working on an article for the rapper Remo Conscious on a subpage in my user space, found here. I have spoken several times to Remo on Facebook (probably not the best place, but it was the easiest way to contact him) and he has provided me with some information about him which I have included in the page (with references). The problem I am having is finding an image of him. There are images of him on Facebook but I don't know if there is any copyright on them or if they have been released into the public domain. I also do not know who took the pictures.

Should I contact Remo himself and ask him to release one under CCA 2.0, or should I try to find out who took the picture and ask them for the copyright details? Or is it safe to upload it without asking? Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. - Itachi007 ( talk) 14:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Either "ask" approach will work, but if you don't know the copyright status, you should NOT upload the images. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is claimed (e.g. here) that image galleries are against WP policy. I doubt that's the case, but do we have any guidance on them?-- Kotniski ( talk) 07:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries. - Optigan13 ( talk) 17:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything anywhere about this, but for images such as File:FernandoTorres.jpg, according to the author the photo "must" be attributed to be used ("All usage must display the phrase 'Photo: Philip Gabrielsen' in the immediate vicinity of the image"). I thought I had read somewhere that we shouldn't put "Photo by [such and such]" directly underneath the image when used in an article. Can somebody help me by clarifying the rules there may be about this? Ksy92003 ( talk) 06:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

While you can doubtless find a couple of similar attributions somewhere on Wikipedia, we generally avoid using such images. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of the default thumbnail size of 180px has come to a head after many years. All input is welcome. Thanks. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, WP insists that in order to reach GA or FA level, an article must have images, but, on the other hand, its draconian enforcement of fair use means that locating an image that actually has anything to do with the topic at hand is virtually impossible. This leads to the ludicrous situation of people slapping images onto articles that have little or nothing to do with the topic being discussed, purely because they are images. Either relax the fair use policy or stop insisting that every high level article have images. Serendi ^pod ous 08:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I spotted this particular image that I want to put in the SAJ page.

[1]

However, it seems that the seemingly apostrophes are thinking that the word "ACUPAT" is being italicized. Help is appreciated since I want to put the image of an armed SAJ operative on illustrate its page since I removed its gallery, which is inappropriate IMO. Ominae ( talk)

I have renamed the file without the offending chars and you should be able to insert it now as needed. [2] MECU≈ talk 03:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I made two images as I always do in illustrator: it tells me they are malicious! File:NA hybrid.svg and File:Microarray exp horizontal.svg... what am I doing wrong? (it never gave me that before)-- Squidonius ( talk) 13:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The SVG files you uploaded appear to be corrupt in some way... Firefox doesn't want to open them. Did you uploadupdate Adobe Illustrator or the SVG export plugin recently? I'll have a look. Moxfyre ( ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I was able to get them to render properly by loading in Inkscape, and saving as "Plain SVG" rather than "Inkscape SVG". It seems the RSVG renderer, used both by MediaWiki and Firefox, doesn't understand some XML element in the Inkscape versions of the files. I am not sure whether this is an Inkscape bug or an RSVG bug. Can an SVG guru help???

UPDATE: It could be an Adobe Illustrator bug, since that's what Squidonius originally created his SVG images with. Any ideas?

Anyway, they should be working now. And they look like great, useful images. Thanks!!

Moxfyre ( ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's say I want to add a photo to an article on Joe Bloe, a baseball player from 1919. I visit Cooperstown and there is a display case showing his jersey and the baseball he used to pitch a perfect game, etc. If I take a photo of that display case, is that my property, so I can then upload and use it in an article, or is property of the museum? I know this question has probably been asked before, but I didn't know where to look for the answer. BashBrannigan ( talk) 22:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

1919 falls under the pre-1923 public domain window of US copyright law. So if what you say is correct there would be no competing copyright claim. Durova ³³² 22:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So the museum has no rights to photos you upload? If the material was more recent, like a sports figure from the 1960s, for example. Does subject matter not play a part? Does the museum have no rights to any photographs of their exhibits? BashBrannigan ( talk) 23:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The earlier reply is specific to the circumstances described. Most photographs from the 1960s are under copyright, in which case a photo of the photo would be a derivative work (that is, you the rephotographer wouldn't gain an entirely new set of rights to it). Additionally, some museums use contract law to assert control over patrons' reuse of images. That would be a civil contract between the museum and the patron, which means it wouldn't be binding on Wikipedia if the patron uploaded here, but you (as a patron) would assume a risk of civil court action if you broke a contract with the museum. You didn't ask about the latter in your previous query, but yes subject matter does play a part and yes museums sometimes assert rights. Durova ³³² 00:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So, in other words, let's say I took a photograph of an ancient Egyptian scroll a museum was exhibiting. The scroll itself has no artistic rights attached, but the museum would have rights to the exhibit. The museum has made an investment in the exhibit, whether it's a baseball jersey, or dinosaur bones, and would want to protect that investment. If photos of the exhibit became widely available to the public it might devalue the exhibit. But I think you're also saying the museum would sue me, not Wikipedia. Does this sum it up? BashBrannigan ( talk) 01:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. The museum may assert rights, which might or might not be valid depending upon the sort of rights asserted or the jurisdiction. If the type of rights asserted are contractual, then those would affect the patron only (if at all). These matters don't boil down quite as easily as that; one makes one's own decisions of what risks to assume (and for the record, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice). Durova ³³² 04:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a way to link to and use images from a foreign language wikipedia, like the Japanese version of wikipedia? I want to use some pictures from that wikipedia, but I couldn't link to it like normal. Is it even possible, or will I have to re-upload it to English wikipedia? Thanks. Quillaja ( talk) 10:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally, when an image is to be used by multiple Wikimedia projects, it's best to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. When an image is available on Wikimedia Commons, that same filename is accessible from any Wikimedia Project. For example, here's a file on Commons: commons:File:Processor_families_in_TOP500_supercomputers.svg. I can include it in a Wikipedia page via the regular syntax, [[File:Processor_families_in_TOP500_supercomputers.svg]]. Commons only accepts freely-licensed images (no fair use!!!). If you want to move an image from Wikipedia to Commons, so it can be used more widely, please read Wikipedia:COMMONS#How_to_move_an_image_from_Wikipedia_to_Wikimedia_Commons. Moxfyre ( ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 16:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly feel that an image should be used to illustrate information that is stated in the article, and should not be used to present information or as asource for information. Does anyone object to adding a statement along these lines? Blueboar ( talk) 14:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That is entirely too restrictive. Some information is much better presented as a graph or diagram than in text. Furthermore properly authenticated images can be primary or secondary sources on a par with text sources - maps for instance. Dankarl ( talk) 18:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I mispoke in using the word "presented"... perhaps I should have said tht I do not believe information should be introduced into an article in image form. I have a serious problem with using an image as a source for information... especially a user created image. There are frequently serious OR and reliability issues that crop up when information is drawn by a user from an image. However, these issues go away if you mearly use the image to illustrate information that is properly discussed in the text (and cited). Blueboar ( talk) 19:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a question for an admin, or maybe just someone familiar with the history of how images worked on Wikipedia. Any idea why the image on File:Fr unapproachable east.jpg is unrestorable? Might be interesting to know if it's because the file is older than ones I've successfully restored. It was created on 8 December 2004 and deleted on 22 November 2005, if that helps. BOZ ( talk) 15:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)