Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 6

Three questions
Question 1: What's the policy on using publicity/promotional photos? I have a large number of promo photos for punk bands that I'm more than willing to scan in. The photos were made to be reproduced everywhere, and none were distributed with any kind of copyright info or license, so is it really a problem to use them in the wikipedia? (I think it would be fine, but best to check).
 * I'm no expert at this sort of stuff, but I'll try to answer your questions. tb


 * Since they're publicity photos, and intended to be published in as many places as possible, they're probably okay. (But don't quote me on that.) Make sure you mention on the image description page that they're publicity photos, so they're not used as public domain or GFDL pics.

Question 2: What about photos that are unattributed? I have a number of photos (originals) that aren't attributed, and I have no idea who took them. Would it be acceptable to use them or not? (I think not...)
 * Probably not. If someone else took them, especially (but not only) if they were taken to make money, we'd have to assume they don't want them on the net, looking as though they're public domain.

Question 3: Is there some kind of official wikipedia page on fair use for images?
 * There's Image use policy, but I suppose you know that. If they turn on full text searching try to look for "fair use" in the Wikipedia namespace. BTW if you post stuff like this at the Village Pump, it'll probably get seen by more people. tb 05:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

When to use photos?
I'm still very new here and apologize if the answer to this question is somewhere else. I understand issues about copyright, size and content concerning photos but my question is very basic: when should a photo be used? I was reading PowerPC and though maybe I could add an original photo of a PowerPC 601 chip (one of the first designs). The photo would be useful in showing the reader how to identify one of them. So, is a photo desired here? Is wikipedia looking to add photos or avoid them? Thanks for reading and in advance for replies. BTW, wikipedia is an incredible project.

bb47 2004-01-21 2207 UTC


 * As far as I'm aware photos/other pics are always welcome (within reason). Personally I think it's great when wikipedia gets its own pictures (i.e. not borrowed from another site). So go for it! As people always say "disk space is cheap". tb 05:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

animated gif
I had thought that animated gifs weren't permitted, until I ran across one on Flag terminology. So I whipped up a neat one (a flyweight too at 21.4KB) to fill the gaping hole in Central limit theorem, only to discover that gif files get bounced after all. Is there an acceptable animated file format that I can use? If not, can a developer let me upload it to the talk page so that people can see it and decide if they like it? -- Cyan 03:35, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I don't think the example you pointed us to is a good use of an animated gif, it would be much more useful if the seven images were laid out and captioned side by side. Fabiform 05:27, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Amen to that. The example on the Flag terminology page is annoying. I can see valid uses for an animated GIF, e.g. in displaying mechanical motions, but, please, let's not start using trendy Web stuff just for the purpose of being k00l. Wikipedia is not PowerPoint. Dpbsmith 13:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Animated GIFs aren't not allowed, they're not recommended.


 * As far as your upload problem; the latest software update included stricter upload checking, with a default setting even stricter than we actually want on Wikipedia. You should now be able to override it for such files.


 * However, animated GIFs really, really aren't a good idea in most cases. Particularly not for "slideshows" which won't work on a printout, for instance. --Brion 07:23, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * "Slideshows" are a REALLY REALLY bad idea. You can't know at what speed another person wants to take in information. I am currently remaking that dreadful flag types one as a flat image. -- Tarquin 13:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I will post it to Talk:Central limit theorem on Monday so people can render judgment. Thanks for the replies! -- Cyan 04:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Images across different language wikipedias. Is it possible to use an FR or DE image on the EN wikipedia? If it isn't, when will this be possible? Sennheiser! 23:35, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

SWF picture format
(discussion moved here from the Village pump)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am a newcommer and am very impressed with this fantastic collective Free Encyclopedia. I would be honnored to make contributions to it, graphics wise, but first I need to now if the format I use and specialize in is suitable for your programm scince I have not seen it in the list of requested formats.

I work with SWF format, wich is a open format. My original technical illustrations and animations uses vectors wich produces very light weight files for fast downloads.

Here is an example showing the innerworkings of a Manual Transmission. It is fully interactive and make only 37K. A single picture (still) would be at around only 2K. http://www3.lino.sympatico.ca/geebee/custom/transmis.htm

I also produce JPGs and PNGs, but mostly I do in SWF because of vectors been so light.

If you find the format acceptable, then I would be happy to contribute as much as I can. I have many already done and some of the requests I see here I can produce quite easily and to top quality.

Best regards, and bravo for this wonderfull project that is, in my opinion, totally in tune with the real nature and purpose of the Internet.

geebee@lino.sympatico.ca


 * Have you looked at Image use policy, especially the section on "Format"? I think that's our policy for now.  If you have questions, please post them at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy.  Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 21:10, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for others, but I would not be averse to including flash animations as links. I'd prefer they not be in-line in the articles, and normal still images be there instead.  This may need to wait a bit for some technical issues, as currently the Media: links do not set a proper content-type header, so linking to SWF files that way won't work correctly in most browsers. --Delirium 23:49, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Until there's a high-quality non-proprietary player/viewer/plugin, forget it. Steven G. Johnson


 * I am strongly opposed to allowing SWF in Wikipedia. Maybe it is technically an open format, but it looks and feels proprietary. I am suspicious that there is some kind of copy-restriction built in, as I, at least, running Safari, can view the animation, but the contextual menu commands that would normally allow me to save an image to the disk seem to be disabled (I wanted to save it and find out whether GraphicConverter, which handles umpteen gazillion formats, could make sense of it). I don't intend to spend a half-an-hour researching this: I tried to extract the file and I couldn't, that's enough for me to raise an objection, and I'm not that interested in hearing "Oh, just install this gizmo and type in these command line settings and a new menu item will appear" or "Oh, that's because Safari is lame, my browser lets me do it" or whatever... The GFDL says we can use the information. This is hard to do if we can't extract the information out of the web page in the first place.


 * Furthermore, Macromedia says, and this is a direct quote from their web page, "Almost 95% of web users can view SWF content without having to install a new plug-in, and over 300 million people have downloaded the Flash player." Even if you accept these figures, and I for one believe they are grossly inflated, that means that 5% of web users are excluded. (I had an argument with someone once who didn't believe that I couldn't view Flash animations in, I believe it was Netscape 4.78. I insisted that I had never installed the plugin&mdash;deliberately, as I had been subjected to innumerable quasi-stealth inducements to install it&mdash;and therefore couldn't view them. It is very typical of the computer community that when penetration of some kind of feature, HTML tables or whatever, reaches around "95%," the people who have access to the feature basically disbelieve in the existence of people who lack access.) Dpbsmith 13:21, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Image Usage
I'm tired of people posting fotos using the  tag. This format is extremely hostile to older browsers, and results in people who use older systems to explore wikipedia finding it unpleasant and unusable and not coming back. The tag is perfectly adequate for the wikipedia and is friendly to just about every browser out there. Myself, I usually use Netscape 4.7, but I can no longer use it on graphics-containing wikipedia pages, forcing me to open Mozilla 1.6, which badly bogs down my antiquated computer and forces me to spend about three times as much time on-line to do the same thing. BTW, the Bomis Browser version I have won't handle the  stuff very well, either. jaknouse 18:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Presumably the new wiki image up uses these tags "behind the scenes" making the situation even worse for Jaknouse and others with Netscape 4.x i.e. people are being made to use div whether they want to or not. Should wiki mark up translate to different HTML code for different browsers? Does it already? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO we still need a simpler syntax for normal use than either the new or old ones we have. I've said this before. The issue of older browsers is another reason for this. Andrewa 20:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd always been under the impression (partly from first-hand experience, at least with Netscape 4.x and older MSIE versions) that browsers not supporting the DIV element simply ignored it and rendered whatever was in it as though it were defined in-line. What happens when you try to view a DIV-enclosed image on your browser? Could you post a screenshot? Maybe I could come up with a workaround. No offense to you or anyone else using an older browser, but our general guideline has always been to try and make the majority of Wikipedia's viewers happy - using simple inline images without any formatting can look pretty awful, with lots of empty space to the right of the image. Most browsers nowadays either support the DIV element or degrade gracefully and ignore it completely. -- Wapcaplet 00:16, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem is not with browsers that don't support DIVs at all -- it's with browsers that think they support DIVs and basic CSS but in fact screw them up completely. I say good riddance to them, but in some cases it may be enough to add appropriate 'width' settings to the styles. If someone who cares about broken browsers could point to a specific case and a specific fix, we'd be happy to incorporate it. --Brion 00:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit this and just get a blank window, so not sure how this will post. I just uploaded: as examples of what happens when viewing div tags on Netscape 4.7 (the page shown is Oak). In fact, the pump grafik at the top of the Village Pump page floats ON TOP of much of the text! jaknouse 01:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * image:divshot1.jpg
 * image:divshot2.jpg
 * image:divshot3.jpg


 * Comment moved (from below) and reformatted by IMSoP 01:26, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've installed Netscape 4.7 and now I see what you mean. Yuck! Brion - one easy fix that I know of, as far as the generated HTML code, is to use the  statement for bringing in any CSS stuff that Netscape does not understand. NS 4.7 doesn't know about, so any CSS referenced in that manner will be ignored by that browser. I'm fairly sure it applies to other versions too - haven't tried it. I don't know how it'll deal with inline CSS such as we use in our floating-image-divs; it might also be necessary to simply use a CSS class for floating divs, and define the actual CSS attributes in the @imported stylesheet:



and in the stylesheet, something like:



I wish I could give you a more specific fix; I'll play around and see if I can come up with something. -- Wapcaplet 02:26, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To Brion or any other developer that is following the discussion: I've come up with a relatively simple fix that works for at least some of the image pages. It doesn't look great in NS4.7, but it looks way better than it did before. See User:Wapcaplet/Sandbox for implementation details. -- Wapcaplet 05:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Images and personal data
I recently uploaded an image of my iris to illustrate Sectorial Heterochromia Iridis (see Iris_(anatomy). This got me thinking - currently (and more so in the future, given the USA's push of biometric passports) irises are being used to access important data, cross borders, and even in replacement of a PIN. Given that publishing my PIN on Wiki would be a bit insane, would anyone consider the publishing of iris images that can be associated with authors inappropriate? Personally I have no major problem, because at the moment images are of a low resolution (and in my iris's case, have had a flash reflection airbrushed out and the contrast messed about with) - what do other people think?

GIF and patents
Shouldn't the GIF format be avoided until 2006? There's still a patent on the format... Guaka 21:21, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * GIFs are already deprecated in favor of PNGs, which are better than GIFs (smaller, truecolor support) in any case. If you see GIF images, you might want to convert them to PNG. (I think you can use "move this page" to preserve description and history when you change foo.gif to foo.png. Experimentation will be required.) Grendelkhan 23:57, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

Viewing the images already uploaded to Wikipedia?
[imported from Village pump by IMSoP 00:13, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)] (only problem is, now this page needs archiving too. Can anyone think of a better destination?)

What is the easiest way to view the images available for use in articles? - Bevo 22:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Click on Image List in the sidebar. Jor 22:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You can get to that link by clicking on "upload file" or "Special pages". I wish all the images were organised into categories for browsing... you can't imagine how long it took me to find good pictures of people in hats with the current system.  (Not that "people with hats" would be a very likely category of course)  :)  fabiform | talk 23:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Such a project (organizing Wikipedia's images by category) would be worth undertaking, I think. I would like to volunteer to help in this project, if anyone were to start it. One problem, though, is that the list doesn't seem to show ALL images... just up to the last 500... Garrett Albright 00:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually if you could do a search on the Image List page based on the image description pages (which I spent a good hour trying to figure out how to do in *any* search mode--including tweaking my pref's--the other day and gave up), that would avoid having to manually sort and group them. Elf | Talk 00:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you can search the image namespace if you set this as an option in full text searching, but this is turned off at the moment anyway. And this wouldn't serve the same purpose as categorising images.  Imagine you want to see what images of women we have uploaded, there's no appropriate keyword to search for (unless I've misunderstood and you're proposing to add keywords to the image description pages?).  fabiform | talk 03:02, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Now you're talking a project! ;-) ....Nah, I was just thinking that if the photo were described as "woman in a hat", it would show up under both categories.  Of course, now, thinking about it, I don't think I used the word "dog" to describe any of the dog photos that I uploaded--hmmm--   Elf | Talk 03:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * However, that does bring to mind this public domain community-indexed photo site--click on 32 Random Unindexed Images and go to work.  If we had a tool like that for our images...  Elf | Talk 03:57, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You could conceivably search the images using Google. A search string such as "image dog site:en.wikipedia.org" doesn't directly bring me to any picture pages with dogs (Google isn't indexing those?), but it does return articles that link to them... so it's not a flawless solution.


 * But personally, I think it would be really nice if there was some image catalog of some sort... You'd click on Animals, then Mammals, then Dogs, and you're presented with a list of pictures of dogs. Or, if you wanted pictures of Mars, you'd click Science: Astronomy: The Solar System: Mars or something like that... just like how the normal articles are now, more or less. (Image Catalog/Science/Astronomy/The Solar System/Mars?)


 * By the way, thanks for that image archive link, Elf. That is cool. Garrett Albright 09:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually found it on Wikipedia Public_domain_image_resources. (And you thought I was just clever.) Elf | Talk 00:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * In principle it might be possible to automate the cataloguing by working backwards, starting from the pages on which the images appear and listing them under the sections these pages fall into in the "browse by subject" index. Washington Irving | Talk 09:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It just occurred to me that this would be really great if images were shared between languages/wikimedia projects: there could be a central image library that was categorised and browsable as a public resource, and which also served as the clearinghouse for images used in articles. (see also Wikimagery) - IMSoP 01:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Using the images on other languages Wikipedias?
Hi, Anyone know how to link images existant on English version into articles in other language version? It's possible or you have to re-upload the pictures on every site? Baloo rch 15:21, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you gotta download and reupload. It's so that we can have descriptions in the proper languages, I'm told. Grendelkhan 00:02, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Is there some way to provide inter-language links, the way articles do?


 * Yes, as usual, see e.g. Image:Light rail train Alphen aan den Rijn 2003.jpg.--Patrick 12:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * They could also be used if it is not the same image, but an other image of the same object, or location, etc.--Patrick 12:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Poetic license
Is there any kind of policy on the relevance of images used on articles? For example, on the page Volterra-Lotka equations, also known as the predator-prey equations, I would like to add a picture of a predator and a prey in action (assuming I can find one). The article is not strictly about predator and prey interactions, but it is the most common interpretation of the equations' dynamics. Is this kind of visual intepretation OK? Similarly for the page on excitable media, a picture of, say, a Mexican wave (an example of an excitable medium) would spruce it up a little. I think that such images could make mathematical articles less dry, and more welcoming than simply a bunch of equations for someone not already interested in the topic. Any thoughts? Chopchopwhitey 08:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No policy, this is still an area where you can simply use your own judgement. I personally don't think that adding a picture of a lion chasing a springbok would add much to that particular article... but if you tihnk otherwise... prove me wrong. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I think it may detract a little from an appearance of professionalism. Perhaps if they're done right and tastefully, they could work well. One must identify what our readership is - whether they're users who are expecting a reference source, or users coming to the wp in order to learn more, in order to move a bit forward on the matter, perhaps... Dysprosia 08:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think it's a definite no. A picture of a pair of animals doesn't fit an article on maths, not even to lighten up the page. Apart from a curve or surface or graph or a mathematicians photo, I don't see how maths articles could be illustrated.
 * Adrian Pingstone 13:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Not even a conch shell or the Parthenon in Golden ratio? - jredmond 14:30, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Or a fern in fractal, a pinecone in spiral, a hanging chain in catenary, a stop-motion photograph of a thrown ball in parabola, a turbulent stream in chaos? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:10, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't thinking clearly!
 * Adrian Pingstone 18:28, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, those are along the lines of what I was thinking. Personally, even as a big fan of maths myself, it is not always particularly inspiring to see a page solely full of equations. A link to something in the natural world can often pique one's interest a little more. But, I can understand, maybe this is not under the remit of an encyclopaedia. Chopchopwhitey 15:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems to me the most appropriate "illustration" would be an example of a graph of the populations of a real predator-prey system that approximately fits the model. I seem to recall that there's a textbook example that involves, um, the lynx and the snowshoe hare? Given such a graph, I don't think it would be unreasonable to tart it up a little bit with small, iconic pictures of a lynx and a snowshoe hare.


 * In encyclopedia articles, as in computer user interfaces, I do think that pictures should be visual explanations of concepts, not just puns (or the mechanical conversion of a word into a picture). A random picture of a particular predator and prey does not illustrate the concept that the article discusses. Dpbsmith 16:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * P. S. See http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/predation/predation.html for the data I had in mind&mdash;including a photo of a lynx chasing a snowshoe hare! Dpbsmith 16:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think there's definitely room for illustrative improvement on math articles, as long as the illustrations help to explain the topic or are directly related to the subject somehow. The Volterra-Lotka equations don't really describe how a fox gets its paws on a rabbit; it's about the populations in general, and should be illustrated with examples that help to explain that concept. The fractal, spiral, and Golden ratio examples above are much more appropriate---they are real-world occurrences of abstract math concepts. Perhaps the prey-predator equations would benefit from comparison with a chart or graph of real-world prey-predator populations? "Here's what the equations predict, and here's some empirical observation." That'd help give the reader a grasp on why the equations are significant. -- Wapcaplet 16:23, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting debate. I recently picked up a history book I had as a child with virtually every illustration being made in this way.  Although I now understand and appreciate the metaphor or pun used in each case, I found them offputting as a child.  Even the way that adults picture the world and associate words is very diverse and I think that all reference sources should be more literal than lateral. Dainamo 11:26, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I would agree now that the best use of pictures on Wikipedia is when they directly illustrate a concept in the article. Chopchopwhitey 10:25, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Review Size Requirements
This page states that images should be less than 250 pixels. Yet, Featured picture candidates often receive the complaint that the resolution is too small. Should we rewrite the section about the picture size to say that the picture should be less than 200kb, and thumbnailed in the article? My first submitted pictures were pretty small, because i tried to follow the guidelines, and did not know the  thumb|Text  options. Now i generally submit larger pictures around 100kb, and thumbnail them. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:08, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Addition of unncessary text to images - credit / copyright tags
I think there really ought to be some image-use policy regarding the addition of unnecessary text to images, for purposes such as to claim authorship.

A specific example is those images uploaded by User:Flyingbird, for example Image:Gibraltar en.jpg (or Image:Harissa.jpg).

Of course we should be grateful to Flyingbird for the effort involved in producing a number of useful images. I do not want to diminish his/her contribution.

However, there are many other contributors who also devote a great deal of effort, in writing good prose. Consider what would happen if one of them were to sign the text of an article. The signature would be pretty swiftly removed by others as being inappropriate (even if it was in a small font). The edit history already shows who contributed what, and there is no need for it in the article space.

There is no fundamental reason why people contributing images rather than text are worthy of a greater level of recognition. The only real reason why these signed images remain on Wikipedia is not that there is general consensus that authorship should be recognised in this way, but that it is not readily possible to remove the signature cleanly.

This is contrary to the spirit of the GFDL. As with the GPL, which has a strong emphasis on the availability of source code, the GFDL defines the concept of a Transparent copy of a document which must be provided, and specifically excludes anything which "has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification" from being classed as Transparent. In this case, what is effectively the Transparent copy in the spirit of the GFDL (namely, the unedited image) is being deliberately withheld, even if the letter of the GFDL is being obeyed.

This is not merely some pedantic little niggle. The freedom to copy and make arbitary modifications is an essential basis for Wikipedia, and we cannot afford to see it eroded at the edges.

I therefore suggest an image policy along the following lines:


 * Editing of images such as to add text which does not need to be part of the image itself is strongly discouraged. This includes not only stamps of authorship etc but also captions.  (Even the word "Wikipedia" is unhelpful because it should be possible to incorporate the image in another GFDL-ed work.)


 * If someone uploads an image edited in this way, then it is fair game for others to replace it with a modified version which has the text blanked out.

I argue the above from an eventualist approach:


 * In the short term, of course, it could lead to messy images with areas blanked out, and possibly discouraging some users from contributing photos.


 * But I believe that in the long term, it is ultimately good for the community if everyone respects the spirit of the GFDL. If the policy becomes well-established, people will not edit images to add unnecessary text in the first place, because they know that it will only be messily edited out later.  If any image contributors are lost because they are unwilling to contribute images without strings attached, then that is a shame, but there will be plenty more contributors to replace them (particularly as ownership of digital cameras continues to increase).

Comments, anyone?

--Trainspotter 15:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I think a major difference here is that images such as photos are always made by 1 person only. If they are descriptive or artistic photos they have very, very little chance of being modified or amended by others (have you ever "added" or "contributed" to an already existing photo?). Therefore, I think it's very reasonable to view photographs as being "standalone" documents that may as well have a small credit or copyright tag on the bottom.

Personally, I make a lot of photos which I publish on my website and for some I frequently find a target article here on Wikipedia. What I usually have is just my website browser window open (at work, for example) from which I save my own photos locally and then subsequently upload them to Wikipedia. Because I incorporate my copyright tag on the bottom in the surrounding border, this is just how they get uploaded. I don't quite see why this is a problem specifically since in the thumbnail version that is usually viewed in the actual target article, this copyright notice is almost too small to even notice.

Of course, Wikipedia flourishes on the fact that anyone can edit everyone else's data, but it was my impression that there was still room to publish certain data like photographs which might not be licensed under the GFDL. What if I would say: you can use my photos anywhere on Wikipedia but you cannot alter them. Would that be in complete violation of Wikipedia policies? Would the photo become completely worthless? If it would be worthless, delete it by all means, but if 8 out of 10 people say this photo still illustrates this or that subject in some article pretty well, I don't see how it is useless in that case.

Again, I think the overwhelming abount of photographs are static documents that require or undergo no change. This point is strenghtened by the fact that I have not be able to find any functionality to actually _change_ or _derive_ from already existing (including my own) photos on Wikipedia. The comparison between text and photos simply isn't very fair, as you put it.

--Neep 07:20, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that the difference here is that copyright messages in Neep's pictures are small and don't intrude the picture, they could even be removed without leaving a trace (not that I'm encouraging that). On the other hand, Flyingbird ones, disrupt the picture and make, in my opinion, Wikipedia look unprofessional. I have left a message in Flyingbird's talkpage kindly asking him/her to remove the copyright messages, and reupload high resolution versions of his pictures of Gibraltar. xDCDx 01:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

-

What about photos you get from someone else who is doing us a favor to let us use it? Not everyone is uploading photos they took themselves. Some articles contain photos owned by other people whose work we sought permission to use, including such things as professional pictures for bios. Sometimes photographers embed a small name or initials at the bottom right corner. Should I really give up being able to have a good quality photo for us where they give us promophoto or GNU permission just because they have a tiny little embedded name at the bottom right? I cannot figure out what to do. I feel rude asking someone serious about their photographs to take their tiny embedded initials at the bottom right out. They can decide to just skip giving us one because it makes it harder for them to get credit.

You have forgotten that GNU requires these people be given credit and they're just trying to make sure of it. I have already seen someone have their photo placed in an article in another site using part of my text and a photo I uploaded from a photographer who gave us GNU licensing, and he was not given a credit so i contacted these people and asked them to remove it, which they did. I am now putting tiny photo credits in the caption (such as one admin showed me she does sometimes) but I think the little tiny right hand corner embedded signature isn't such a bad idea and hate to ask the photographer to give me one without it for fear he will decide not to give us one. Am happy to learn more about people's thoughts on the subject for future reference here or at my talk page. Emerman 03:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image source files
Is there a policy on uploading image source files? --Smack 00:27, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I've done it in the past for SVG images (rasterised to PNG for display, obviously). I think it should be encouraged, generally; but there is the 2-megabyte file size limit and high-quality 5-megapixel JPEGs from my digital camera are typically about 3 megabytes :(  --Robert Merkel 01:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Policy updates in light of new MediaWiki features
This policy needs updating to deal with our new image markup to reexamine the question "at what size should images be uploaded", rather than what size they should be displayed. My view is that it would be desirable for people to upload images at large, print-quality sizes; the only problem that this poses is that if images are very large, downloading and viewing them at their native resolution gets very inconvenient for bandwidth-constricted and software-constricted users (ah, pity those without high-bandwidth connections...).

I wonder whether an enhancement to MediaWiki that scales images to a suitable "screen" size on the image description page, and has a "view/download at full resolution" button, and then a policy that images are to be uploaded at full size, is the best option? --Robert Merkel 01:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Feature requests to Sourceforge, please - see feature requests. Martin 21:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even without the proposed enhancement I believe that it would make sense to ask people to upload images at print resolution and resize in the article with the new wiki syntax. After all, there already are print projects with Wikipedia content, like the WikiReaders, and I'm sure there will be many more in the future. And if the images are scaled in the articles to that size at which they would have been uploaded until now, there should really be no reason for bandwidth-constricted users to view the full size images (if they want to see the image description page, they can just disable image loading). – "Remember me" 09:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In some cases all the important information can be seen in the thumb, so the resolution of the image is relatively unimportant to most viewers. In other cases, the thumb is not sufficient to present all the information, but if clicked upon an enormous image is presented, not suitable for viewing (see Three Gorges Dam - look soon for I plan to change it as outlined following). I believe that in these cases it is best to thumb to an intermediate size which presents all information needed for screen viewing, with a further link on that page to a larger image (see Shay locomotive and the article's two overview pictures (not the annotated images, which are only single depth) Leonard G. 02:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Excessive numbers of photos in articles
I think that adding a photo to an article or biography is beneficial, but isn't eight (8) of them in Madonna (entertainer) a bit over the top? Jill


 * Longer articles can support more images. In the Madonna article, the images are numerous but widely spaced. I don't see an aesthetic problem with it. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 20:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If you want to see the counterexample - Tiger Temple has "only" six photos, but needs much more text to make the article look less crowded. andy 20:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On pages where we are blessed with too many pictures, the excess pictures should be put on the talk page in a queue until the text is expanded to allow for them all. Someone pioneered this neat idea at one the Bryce Canyon pages. Pcb21| Pete 22:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I have implemented this for Tiger Temple. I would like to add it as a policy.  Does anyone have any comments or objections before I do so?  &mdash; Chameleon My page/My talk 12:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)