Help talk:Options to hide an image/Archive 1

Proposing a move
Do we need the long-winded title? I'd do it myself, but that may be a bit too bold, and I learned that the hard way when I mistakenly AfDed Master Control (Cartoon Network)...

Suggestions:
 * WP:Turn off images on your browser
 * WP:Prevent images from loading

Whichever one you choose, it should have the cut WP:NOIMAGE.

Thank'ee much, Two One Six Five Five  τʃ 01:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Experienced editors will cut and paste or use a short cut anyway. This page is for people who need things spelled out for them in plain language, so I choose a title that is as clear as possible for such a person. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, I'll go ahead and make your suggestions redirect here, so any of them can be used. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Modify the image in some way
Sometimes a modification of the image or its placement is optimal. Be creative. Make it smaller, crop it, move it to the bottom, make it a click away, replace it with an acceptable image that fulfills the same educational functions.WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Get it deleted

 * 1) Delete it yourself. (This only works if others mostly agree since edit warring is against Wikipedia rules.)
 * 2) Go to the talk page of the article the image is on and say why it should be deleted. Create a consensus to delete and it will be deleted.
 * 3) List the image at Images and media for deletion and create a consensus for it.
 * 4) Create or change a policy or guideline pageWAS 4.250 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fork Wikipedia
Fork Wikipedia. Wikipedia is copy left in both the software that runs it and the content that is displayed. You are legally permitted to copy the whole thing to another computer, change the content (but you may not legally change the copy left copyright licensing), and sell advertising on it to pay for the hosting and bandwidth costs. If you think there is a market for wikipedia without certain images, or with some other changes, then please fork Wikipedia. We want you to. That's why it is copy left in the first place.WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Scope/Requested move
This page is intended as advice to people who read Wikipedia, not editors who are involved in building articles. Advice on how to get images deleted or even changing policy are pointless. Also, by its nature, this should be in the Help: namespace.

dab (𒁳) 12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that the name should be as clear as possible and that "Image display configuration" does not clearly communicate that the page is about helping a reader to not see an image rather than helping the reader to make the images bigger/smaller/whatever. WAS 4.250 (talk)


 * I have no opinion on "Help: namespace". WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I created this page to be maximally helpful to anyone who is very upset about one or more images on wikipedia. I believe that encouraging readers to become more involved is useful. On the other hand, your rewording is indeed more appropriate for 99% of the intended audience. I am going to move the deleted material to this page, so the !% that feels inclined to look further and become involved have a better chance of being informed about the possibilities of becoming part of the free culture community. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. We have to face the fact that this page is really intended for the clueless. Any reader with an ounce of a clue who decides they don't want to see certain images will just silently sort it out for themselves and we'd never even hear from them. The people who come here and add their complaint to a talkpage already containing a few dozen identical complaints plus patient answers are either blissfully clueless or they just want to make noise, not be advised. Regarding the page title, we should note that this content filtering business does not just extend to images. People can also set up standard filters to ensure content is "child safe" by using commercial "Net Nanny" software. We need to make clear that Wikipedia is just part of the internet. You want to filter the internet, you do that on your end. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Well said. Thanks for helping. I am concerned though that we recognize people can be expected to be emotional when they arrive at this page and we need to be supportive emotionally. The page reads a bit cold and superior rather than warm and friendly at the moment. When you think you have the basic content about right, think about asking one of our better writers to give it a once over for tone. As for me, I'm a lazy SOB and I'm always happy when I can unload responsibility for a page off on some sucker. Ha! WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Content control HTTP Headers
We can introduce new custom HTTP header, for example, X-Wikipedia-Categories and include all of categories for concrete images and articles (for articles need some little modifying MediaWiki software, for images — web server software). Content control software will easily catch it and filter banned words.

We also can add self-censor HTTP-header, for example X-Censored-Content with community defined religious or parental content types. May be we should come to an agreement with W3C, IETF and Content control software suppliers about censored content types.--93.80.101.202 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with telling people to change it for everyone.
The article currently reads:

Modify the image in some way
Sometimes a modification of the image or its placement is optimal. Be creative. Make it smaller, crop it, move it to the bottom, make it a click away, replace it with an acceptable image that fulfills the same educational functions.

I have a bit of a problem with this; I think if an image is appropriate, then it's completely unproductive suggesting that people spend their time finding an "unobjectionable" substitute. Wikpedia is not censored, and I interpret that to mean that while users are free to not use Wikipedia, or to not display images etc. etc. etc., that it doesn't give them the right to change it for others.

I understand that another "acceptable" image would of course be in no way damaging, but I don't agree with the motive - I don't think that goes with the spirit of opposing censorship.

It's not intended, but I'm worried the suggestion could lead to a similar situation as in the edit history of Image:Lollapaloozaratm.jpg (contains male nudity). I don't think we should be advocating changing Wikipedia, only changing what a user does; my reasoning is that if Wikipedia's policy doesn't change its content should either.

Thanks for your time, and well done for your work on the article :) Drum guy (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that Anyone can edit. That goes for images as well as text. Of course, anyone can revert too. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think revert wars are helpful. And Drum guy has a point. What's the idea behind implementing a "safe picture" feature if the pictures are censored by prudish editors anyway? Makes no sense to me. I say, don't censor the pictures, as long as they are fitting for the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia, but give the people the choice if they want to see them or not! Gray62 (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Log in necessary to block adult pictures? Why?
Firstly, I don't see why this should be technically necessary. It should be no problem to implement this for IPs, without a login, just by using the cookie feature. And then, this "solution" doesn't help the parents! How shall they supervise their kids to check if they really log in? Impossible! No, sry, this isn't helpful, and is just a waste of time. Imho the blocking feature HAS to be implemented with cookies, avoiding the necessity to log in. And it should be discussed if the default shouldn't be the "kid friendly" view, with the adults wanting unrestricted access having to deliberately mark this up on an options page. Gray62 (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Found a better solution for parents! A Firefox Add-On
Took me only a simple google search to find this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4351?src=oftenusedwith If that fox filter works as advertised, that's the better solution for parents, filtering not only wikipedia, but also all pornographic content in the vast space of the internets. By adding this to Firefox, and removing all Internet Explorer links, parents may keep their kids from viewing adult content. However, of course any smart teenager will be able to overcome this hurdle, but that is also true for any blocking feature in Wikipedia. So, imho this still is a reasonable solution.Gray62 (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is not content filters on "the vast space of the internets", it is image preferences on Wikipedia.

Parents trying to enforce filters on kids must install a proxy and password protect that proxy. Anything else is futile. Also, why do a shoddy job if you can as well just do it properly. "Security through obscurity" is worthless. You don't need to be "a smart teenager" to discover you can just use an alternative browser, I expect kids from about the age of five can easily figure this out. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried both Adblock and Fox Filter. Adblock works properly for an adult man, but you have to choose the image first, this is not suitable for a teenager, he/she may not choose to hide a NSFW image. There should be a filter which automatically selects the image for her/him. (Yes, why does a teenager come here? But, this is not discussion here.) But, the FoxFilter filters everything, you cannot even see User Talk pages here with this filter. Gray62, I think we need a more intelligent filter. Kavas (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with adblock/filtering
Is it also possible to block the fullview of a picture out, for the example picture this for example. Because even when I block all the images, I can still click the date on the wikimedia page to view the full picture. Adelbrecht (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Directions To Block All Images On a Page Do Not Work
After placing body.page-Gangrene img {display: none;} on my vector.css page, I found that while the image next to the opening paragraph was hidden, the gallery at the bottom was not.Ziiv (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Directions to block an image don't work
The page said, "You can also disable specific images by filename. Also at Special:Mypage/skin.css, and add the following line: e.g. That blocked the name of the image from displaying in text, but didn't block the image itself.  Also, it only worked on images that didn't have a space in the name.  I tested it using MediaWiki:Bad image list.  On User:Banaticus/common.css I put in the "bad image list" images in that format, for example: The Anus one blocked the entire link.  When I looked at the Bad image list all I saw was a *.  For File:Autofellatio6.jpg I saw the following: The images still showed up on associated pages as well as their File page.  I tried selecting on the image itself, using href and src, but that also did nothing.  I cannot see that Talk:Muhammad/images/example css does anything.  What have I been doing wrong? Banaticus (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * body a[href="/wiki/File:2005 walking penis.jpg"] {display: none;} /* this did nothing */
 * body a[href="/wiki/File:Anus.jpg"] {display: none;} /* this blocked the link from appearing */
 * except on Autofellatio, Talk:Autofellatio/Archive 9
 * By experiment, it seems that any spaces in the file name have to be coded as underscores in the css file, to match the href that is actually sent to the browser. And yes, this hides both the picture itself and a text link to the file page. I'll post at WP:VPT, as I'm not sure whether it is the documentation or the software that needs to change. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The documentation was wrong. Wikipedia internally uses page names with underscores instead of spaces (including file names), so that's what has to be in the CSS. User&lt;Svick&gt;.Talk; 16:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If the problem is the lack of underscores instead of spaces, why wasn't the Anus image blocked? It's a single word, it shouldn't have either underscores or spaces.  This only blocks the word, the link to the image.  It doesn't block the actual image. Banaticus (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is currently blocked for me, using this css file. When I visit MediaWiki:Bad image list I see an entry containing only the bullet point, and no link or text. If I visit the File:Anus.jpg page itself then I still see the image there. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm trying to block the image itself. Otherwise, an image linked on the page will still be shown -- we rarely ever see lists of linked image names, you understand.  We usually see: Example.gif (which is what people, including me, would like to block) instead of File:Example.gif (the name of some images is offensive to me, but nothing like the image is offensive). Banaticus (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I now have two images hidden by my User:John of Reading/vector.css, one with spaces/underscores in its name and one without, and have edited User:John of Reading/Sandbox to display three links to images, three image thumbnails, and three images in a gallery. The coding in vector.css hides the names of the two blocked images in the first section, and the images themselves do not appear in the second and third sections. If I visit the file pages themselves then I do see the images there. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User script for Blurred images (experimental)
This was developed some time ago by a german user and presented on the foundation mailinglist and on de:Wikipedia:Kurier. As you can see on the screenshot (click for full size/ blurring), the user script blurs all the images (not the text, obviously) on the chosen wikimedia project, if the user enables it. The blurred image is revealed when the user hovers over the image (with his mouse). How does it work?

"To try this out you would have to copy or import this code into your own skin.js and skin.css files which are available e.g. under That is very easy. I (firefox 8.0) have tried it on both en.wikipedia and wikimedia.commons and it worked very, very well. For more information and some interesting observations on how this blurring affects the reading experience, read here and here. Some minor problems (like small logos or the little chess piece images on the chessboards in chess that are only revealed one at a time) could be easily fixed by blurring only images larger than 50x50. And it did not blur the Jimbo donation banner. But it really works well and it is very fast, just moving your mouse makes the image blurred again, no need to find a close-image button and click it. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlurredImages/vector.js
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlurredImages/vector.css
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/vector.js
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/vector.css"

Easy workaround: Go to "mobile Wikipedia site" and disable images
Every Wikipedia article has a link at the bottom of the page to "Mobile view". This brings you to the Wikipedia version optimized for mobile devices, you can also go there directly: http://en.mobile.wikipedia.org or http://en.m.wikipedia.org (other language versions too). At the bottom of all pages there you see a link to "Disable images on mobile site". Just click it. Done. You can enable images again at the same place at the bottom.

Try it out, go to our talk page on the mobile Wikipedia version: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Options_to_not_see_an_image and disable images. Enjoy! --Atlasowa (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Since this is a very easy workaround for normal readers, I suggest to put this on the help page as a paragraph between "Wikipedia user preferences" and "Configure your browser". Other opinions? --Atlasowa (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. --Atlasowa (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Explain this please
The essay says,

First, But, AFAIK, pages don't assume anything by themselves. So, if one user is not interested in Wikipedia then he should not view that page? We don't deal in assumptions. It seems here as if the intro is more inclined towards censorship/removal of offensive images as opposed to just telling people how to not see an image (which by the way is its subject and the best solution to random claims of "offensiveness").

Secondly, What if one editor did take part in discussions and failed to convince others, can he not view that page then? Why is this "how to not see an image" guide talking about "building consensus" for deletion of content? Is this a "HOW-TO-DELETE-AN-IMAGE" guide? Nope. Then what is it trying to achieve by assuming things before-hand? Moreover, the existence of the 2nd assumption is predicated upon another implicit assumption that present Wikipedia consensus may need to be changed or Wikipedia Policies don't reflect vast majority of consensus (and editors visiting this page ought to get involved in order to do that), which is a POV in itself. This could convert hundreds of moderate editors into edit-warriors working against the existence of images that offend. What does "consensus" have to do with verifiability? I thought Verifiability of a significant content is the threshold for inclusion (be it transcriptional, figurative or otherwise). Sounds to me as if Wikipedia is inciting people to work towards deleting images based on their nebulous offensiveness. This is implicit provocation. BTW, Skepticism or arguments for or against the significance of a content doesn't justify or necessitate such assumptions, because they are not relevant here. This page is a "HOW-to" guide not a "Why-other-pages-are-so-offensive" guide. When people come here, they are looking for "options to not see an image" as opposed to incitement to delete that image.

The article itself obviates the need for such incitement towards "building consensus",

I hereby propose that those two assumptions be deleted or changed to,

(if I don't get any objection to this proposal within days, I'll take it as a permission for me to do it myself) Please, leave a template on my talk page. Brendon is here  08:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't modify it much. And just partly reconstructed the sentence to make it clearer.
 * I hope this doesn't sound like an unacceptable change. Brendon is  here  10:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope this doesn't sound like an unacceptable change. Brendon is  here  10:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Unknown title ((was boxed numbers 26 61))
This issue came to my attention today when I ran across Is Wikipedia wicked porn? So I tracked down this statement:

"If you are unhappy with the configuration possibilities available at present, you may consider submitting a code change for the copy left Mediawiki (which displays the Wikipedia content). The Wikimedia Foundation, that provides the hosting and bandwidth for Wikipedia, lacks funds to implement many good and useful modifications to the software that displays the Wikipedia content. Such modifications can be created and submitted to the Foundation for addition to Mediawiki. An example of what could be created is a user option to not display images that are in certain categories."

Seems to me that any honest objections could be addressed by supplying the code to do this. If images could be faithfully and honestly categorized by subject matter, individual preferences could be used to display (or not). An intermediate option, such as a pixelization filter, would also be useful. Maybe such a pixelization would be the default for non-logged-in users. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) MOST people who have 'honest objections' are NOT capable of providing HTML/XML/CSS/JavaScript code to add some functionality which the highly-interested hard-core coders have not yet been able to supply. Plus the code change submitted may NOT be accepted.  (This is a canard.)
 * (2) creation of 'an intermediate option'... to be implemented how and where? As a code changed submitted to Wikimedia?  This folds into (1).
 * (3) as for pixelization, I think curtaining the image would be far better. ("Click to show image classified as {"sexaually explicit" or "anatomically explicit" or whatever}".) First because I hate seeing pixelated images, but also to avoid fights about how pixelated the image needs to be.  With &mdash; as you say &mdash; a user option to not automatically display selected classes of image, defaulting to no sexually explicit images. But I think this default should be both for non-logged-in users AND as the default when an account is created (so that sexually explicit images must be enabled by the user, who thereby attests that he/she is 18+).  (Of course the XXXists will argue that some images are "anatomically explicit" rather than "sexually"...)
 * Mwr0 (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Tag explicit images in order to be able to not seeing them
Idea of tagging explisit images in order to filter them. Now, the option "no images" - "all images" is not very sophisticated. Would be cool for parents to be able to only filter explicit images. --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 12:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of people raise that, but then even more people always raise NPOV issues in that different cultures have very different sensitivities: a statue of a nude little boy peeing in the center of some European capital? a topless 5 year old girl in the background of a historic photo? an oil painting of a semi-nude Christ on a cross? It is not workable. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you're right, a Moslem culture would not agree that a full-color close-up vulva image is sexually or anatomically explicit &mdash; No, wait! &mdash; They would.  The Japanese and Chinese and Indian cultures would also all agree with that.   Even European cultures.   What culture can you point to which would not find such an image explicit?   (You see, simply waving the "cultures are different" flag is often just "hand-waving", and some images and videos are out-of-bounds for everyone who does not explicitly include them.)   Should Wikipedia default to the standards used in the Western world and by most international organizations the world around?  Yes.   And in all cases strenuously demand that NPOV and NOCENSOR be applied much more stringently to images than to text?   NO.
 * &mdash; Mwr0 (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Collapsible images
I propose to make some images collapsible in the articles they appear through collapsible divs. See Talk:Masturbation. This has the advantage of helping non-registered users without affecting browser settings or having to set up a proxy. Of course the images should be set to be shown by default, as they are now, but they should have a link above them titled "show/hide" (default is show) which when clicked hides the image from the view of the user who clicked the link. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And parents shall patrol Wikipedia and hide all offensive pictures manually? Do you think that is possible, regarding the amount of content? No, all in all a good idea, but it would only be helpful if hiding is the default! Gray62 (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I could care less about parents censoring things for their kids. I do NOT think that wikipedia should censor words or text in any way. But I find it annoying to attempt to do research at my university library on how much ejaculate a man produces and be affronted by an  ejaculating penis and gobs and gobs of goo.  I'm pretty sure that should the girl seated next to me glance at my screen while I'm on that page I may end up in a situation like Alvin Greene.  I believe the image should be there.  I absolutely believe the image is useful for greater understanding and illustration of the topic.  But I would like to be able to view it on my own time, once I am ready.


 * I would rather not be forced to do research only in the privacy in my own home due to these appropriate, but undesired images. I know that images just like the one above are available in books in my library.  I know I would not get a second glance if I read a book about ejaculation and it flipped open to an image just like this one.  But when an image is posted on a computer screen, people take it in a different way than when it appears in a book, and they sometimes tend to freak out.


 * When I need a literary source on sexual arousal or masturbation for a research paper, I will go ahead and go through the trouble of finding that book. But when I'm looking for some general background on the subjects, I don't need to IMMEDIATELY see photos of these subjects.  It is kind of odd that threesomes, pornography, and bukkake have found a means of presenting the topic with less offensive images than these general topics. (Japanese bondage appears to have missed this move to using illustrative drawings or posterization of actual images but I digress.)  On scientific and medical topics I can understand a desire to use photographic illustrations, but I would like the opportunity to be forewarned.


 * It is a hassle to change my internet settings when visiting a page and change them back after I am done looking at that page. Likewise it is a pain to log-in when I just want to get a quick run-down on a subject or find some excellent primary sources.  It is also problematic when many topics on sexuality are actually work-safe but others are not so I cannot tell if it is going to be necessary to change my browser settings.  I would also like the opportunity to view an image after I have weighed the riskiness of taking a peek.  Therefore I think that it would be ideal to use collapsible divs for explicit images. And personally, I believe that the use of collapsible divs should be limited to just explicit, photographic images of genitals.68.90.233.235 (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I really hate to make myself a lightning rod for this, but your comments tell us that you DO NOT think that 'Wikipedia should not be censored IN ANY WAY'. Saying so is a knee-jerk response to a very childish interpretation of the word 'censorship', by people who think they're being insanely clever (they're only right about the insane part).
 * I AGREE with the above which objects to only having an after-the-fact way of hiding images &mdash; this waits until the damage has already been done, and burdens the average user with then searching around and mucking around and changing settings and so on in order to not be grossly offended by intentionally offensive and flagrantly pornographic images being thrown in their faces.
 * Is it really so important to present a front of WP:NOCENSOR that most people will be offended when browsing, and state and federal laws should be violated?
 * &mdash; Mwr0 (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, not anymore
So I have Mozilla Firefox, and I used the sample image to block images. I didn't know they would block all images. So now I want images back. Could someone help me? Gopal81 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really help does it! There might be a simpler solution but for now in firefox use the menu, select Tools, Options, Select the content tab, second option down is 'load images automatically' press the exceptions button next to it, highlight the upload.wikimedia.org and remove it, ok your way back to sanity! hope this makes sense LeeVJ (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

this page is mostly obsolete for Mozilla Firefox users. If you use Firefox, you just install Adblock and start blocking images you don't like. No magical computer skills required. I do this all the time, not for prudish or ideological reasons but just to get images out of my face that I find mildly annoying. --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't Adblock actually block ALL images from a domain? You advocate using Wikipedia without any pictures? Hmm.Gray62 (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You can build your own filter lists for adblock. This is what this page is trying to tell you. Try using it. Have a look at the "blockable items" view. --dab (𒁳) 17:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) 'After-the-fact.'
 * (2) Your 14-year-old daughter CANNOT 'simply choose to, and install' any particular additional software. School computers do not let the children install additional software at will.
 * &mdash; Mwr0 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Chrome
How to hide in chrome browser? - Jayanta Nath (Talk 11:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How insolent of you, being so impertinent as to ask for a browser-independent solution (or a browser-independent attitude) regarding this problem. &mdash; Mwr0 (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Only after the damage is done... and an alternative
The suggestions to block or blur ALL images on Wikipedia are absurd. They ignore the reasons for having images in the first place!! But all of the other image-blocking techniques described here seem to be ex post facto &mdash; you can only block the "offensive"/unsafe image after you or your child has already seen it &mdash; after the damage is done! This is also absurd.

I think there is a rough and approximate line that can be drawn between what is an elucidating photo/video and what is a pornographic photo/video. Clearly, items whose File: page include a Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act warning (such as the video in 'Ejaculation') qualify as pornography. And the people who added those images can't reasonably object to them being hidden by default.


 * Note: the '2257' for the 'Ejaculation video' is invalid, as it (1) does not identify the person making the statement, (2) lists only pseudonyms, not any person's legal name, and (3) does not provide a registrar address.

There are also some valid anatomical or medical descriptive pictures which can be shocking. I was quite shocked a year ago when I looked up 'labia minora' and had a full-color picture of the female external genitalia thrown in my face. (If you search for 'Genitalia, female', you get no such picture.)

I suggest that these controversial images should default to being hidden. (Classifying them as controversial avoids needing to label them as pornographic or obscene or medically explicit or shocking.)  Then parents can just trust their children to not [Show] those images, and I'll know what to expect if I [Show] them myself. Drawings of anatomy and of sex acts will usually not need to be hidden, but photos of them might. &mdash; Mwr0 (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is being appropriately handled (i.e. in a proper encyclopaedic manner).
 * Now the bottom line is, Wikipedia will host content that may be objectionable to others. Hence, if one is worried about accidental viewing of what [s]he regards as obscene or offensive material, then wikipedia is not really the perfect place for him/her to start looking for information about that subject. Brendon is  here  09:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why so complicated?
Just read Wikipedia in edit or view source mode 24.85.161.72 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Images not shown
Hello, I was looking at pictures on Wikipedia and the images we're not shown. I am running Opera and I want to know how to fix it!

--68.55.115.183 (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)68.55.115.183
 * Few people are watching this page. You'll probably have better luck at the Help Desk.  You should mention whether images are appearing correctly when you visit other websites. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Using Firefox? Just use Adblock Plus
I use Adblock Plus to filter out certain images I don't want to see. --  Denelson83  08:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 'After-the-fact'. &mdash; Mwr0 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a decent solution, but only if work is done to create an adblock subscription list specifically for wikipedia, so that one does not need the initial exposure to the offensive image. IMHO, wikipedia should try to accomodate people who wish to self censor, and provide a technical means for those users to do so. 137.73.20.197 (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Efforts to cut down on bandwidth
In an effort to cut down on bandwidth I want to get rid of the images. I have implemented the changes here, will this reduce bandwidth usage? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this simply loads the images but does not display them? If so we need a way to not load the images so that those on slow internet and with expensive data can still use / edit the text. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

[Problem solved] Use the m.wikipedia.org to block images and save Megabytes
The problem: Wikipedia has for some reason insisted to force its images onto users who cares only to read the texts. Writing "about:config" in the adress-field in Firefox and toggling the "permissions.default.image"-option, that works on most sites, does not work for Wikipedia for some reason. I tried to find many solutions, listening to all kinds of advice on the Internet, using add-ons, such as Adblock, Ublock, etc. Nothing worked for me.

The final solution: The m.wikipedia.org. Just klick the menu-button left of "Search wikipedia" and turn the images off. This also solves problems with Facebook (m.facebook.com, not that I use american spyware) and maybe more pages. The only add-on in Firefox worth any attention for me is NoScript. Very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.242.14 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

...and in Sweden it is se.m.wikipedia.org, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.242.14 (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

....Sorry. Problem NOT solved. Wikipedia somehow forces its images on me anyway. Anyone know how too solve this problem, exept not visiting wikipedia anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.247.88 (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect or outdated instructions in Section " Go to the mobile Wikipedia site (en.m.wikipedia.org) and disable all images"
Currently it is not possible to disable images using the method described in this section. Under settings in the mobile version there is no option to disable the all images. 2001:56A:F323:8E00:10D:ED63:AE2A:1EB7 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsolicited image hiding
I browse webpages via Google Chrome on an Android (pre-version 5) smartphone. When I browse Wikipedia pages, all images are automatically hidden with a gray "tap to view image" placeholder, as though I had enabled image hiding. But I haven't done that, and I'm tired of having to re-click those placeholders every time I refresh or return to a page. Alas, the content provided here does not show me an obvious way to remedy that problem. My wikipedia user has no common.css or common.js subpages from which the image-hiding script can be removed, and the Privacy tab of my Chrome settings includes no content-related options for image hiding. Has anybody here experienced the same problem? Does anyone know how it can be solved? Hobeewahn (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: My problem arose after my Chrome installation was reverted to the shipped version. I resolved it by restarting the device and updating Chrome. Hobeewahn (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
Proposing to add this in this help.page: == Use "hidden image" template based on no objection and/or consensus ==

If the editors have no objections and the editors agree, an offensive image can be initially hidden as a display using Template:Hidden image, which will hide the image as normal, and display the image by clicking on the arrow or "Show" option. === Example ===  This media may not be acceptable to some readers. Link of this media.

103.230.107.2 (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)