Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

AI upscaling
Is the AI upscaling of a blurry or historical portrait considered to be unremarkable (serving to improve the presentation without materially altering the content) or something to avoid or flag (where a reader needs to know about them to properly interpret the image)?

As the technology becomes cheaper, I've been seeing an increasing amount of this on Commons, where a user thinks that running a low res portrait through a free upscaler like MyHeritage to add some convincing but semi-imaginary detail to the eyes, nose and mouth is a helpful thing to do. I don't know if we're yet at the tipping point where this needs an explicit clarification in Wikipedia's MOS.

The example that led me here was the Raj Kapoor article, where the low res 1959 film still File:Raj Kapoor in Anari.jpg is being replaced with an AI's upscaled interpretation File:Raj Kapoor in Anari enhanced.jpg. Belbury (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, positively needs to be noted on the img description page and in captions. EEng 10:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue that we should not accept AI upscale images, save for specific demonstrations of the techniques, due to the questions on copyright of the process. Its not mechanical like image reduction, but instead adding info that wasn't there before, like colorization. Which means that that new information may have been gleaned from one or more additional sources of which copyright is uncertain. M asem (t) 13:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that image reduction is not mechanical and results do differ based on the chosen algorithm. In addition, image reduction takes away info that was there before. So at the risk of pointing out that other stuff exists, if these are the things that we are worried about, then there's a lot more to look at than AI upscaling, considering that image reduction happens on nearly every page with an image. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * AI alterations of an image should always be in a separate upload and clearly marked on both captions and image description page. A colorized version of an original black and white is not an improved version of the same image, it is something new and completely different. In your example, the AI made nicer looking eyebrows but the ear is now worse than before if you ask me. Misleading images like this should be avoided. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Are there any objections to updating Manual of Style/Images to explicitly say that AI upscaled images "should not usually" be used on Wikipedia, in the same phrasing as for colorisation? The guideline currently cautions against colorisation on the grounds that it is WP:OR, but AI upscaling is as much if not more of a problem.

(I've just found a new behaviour on Commons where a user takes a freely licenced but low resolution celebrity photo, crops it to a close-up portrait and asks an AI to have a guess at what that person might look like at a higher resolution, to use in a Wikipedia infobox.) --Belbury (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Trying for a wording on this, does AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption. seem reasonable, as a paragraph after the one on colorisation? --Belbury (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That reads well to me, and is good advice. This isn't FakedImagePedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now added this paragraph to the page. Belbury (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The correct way to do resolution reduction is well known in the Digital signal processing world. That said, less correct algorithms are often used, as they are faster. The correct process for upscaling is Deconvolution. The algorithms aren't quite as well defined as downscaling, though, but they also don't use AI. It is often used on scientific data, such as in spectroscopy. It was also used in the early Hubble Space Telescope images. Gah4 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The correct way to do resolution reduction is well known in the Digital signal processing world. That said, less correct algorithms are often used, as they are faster. The correct process for upscaling is Deconvolution. The algorithms aren't quite as well defined as downscaling, though, but they also don't use AI. It is often used on scientific data, such as in spectroscopy. It was also used in the early Hubble Space Telescope images. Gah4 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Add disclaimer/note about different screen settings
Lately I've seen a lot of disruptive drive-by edits to articles with long-standing image layouts, based on this or that reading of image placement guidelines. But what appears to be happening is that some editors assume that what they see, for example specific instances of WP:image sandwiching and white space, is what everyone else sees, even though this is not always the case. Could we have some guideline that says that before changing the current/long standing image layout of an article, an editor who wants to do this should propose it on the talk page so that the main editors of said articles and others can evaluate the proposed changes to see if they are even a problem for anyone else? This seems to have particularly become an issue after the new extremely narrow text layout has become standard (which I have personally disabled because it looks awful to me). FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems like a pretty reasonable idea, along with additional advice to test at multiple browser widths and on different devices.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

thumbnails rendering at 170px by default, not 220px?
Does anyone know why, for me at least, the thumbnails at Dundas station (Toronto) are rendering at 170px and not 220px when both upright and thumb are set? Isn't the default for upright = 1? —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the default is .75. See the warning in the Size section: "But upright alone, with no =scaling factor ... is equivalent to upright=0.75". This has caused confusion before, see the "Question" section above. I'm going to add some text. GA-RT-22 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I question the need for the upright tag on those photos in that article. They are not large photos. BilCat (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Except for very tall and narrow images, we should avoid fixing below the 220 px default, which is what using "upright" without a number achieves. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect whoever added the "upright" tags was confused in the same way that OP in the "Question" section was, and assumed that "whenever possible" meant "always" and not "when an image must be scaled to something other than the default size". I hope my edit to the MOS has cleared this up. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it make more sense to have a bot go through and change existing plain "upright" to "upright=0.75" and then make upright with no value = 1? I don't understand why it would default to 0.75. I am clearly not the first person to not know this weird default value.
 * If 0.75 was some magic value that would fix all potentially large images, then sure. But it's not. Sometimes 0.75 will be too much and sometimes it won't be enough, so shouldn't it just do nothing by default someone has actually picked a value that has the intended effect? —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It actually is some magic number that fixes the majority of images. 4:3 is the most common aspect ratio for still photos. Take one of these and turn it on its side, and you will need to multiply the width by .75 to get an image of the same area as the original. I would be opposed to changing the default, because I don't want to have to remember that .75 is the right number to use. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And if it were changed, all the extant uses of it would have be bot-replaced to specify .75, because for many of them this size was chosen on purpose (or rather the upright was used because it had this particular result). I know I only use it when the image is vertically too large, and using it produces an image of reasonable height in relation to the rest of the images on the page usually without further adjustment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Getting the behaviour of plain upright changed isn't something that we can do here, it would require a change to the MediaWiki software, and would affect all wikis using that software - almost a thousand WMF wikis, and then there are all the non-WMF wikis as well. You could try filing a ticket at and see what they say. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks but yeah, no: sounds pretty hopeless. I'll just adjust. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Syntax style
I want to discuss the style of content that readers don't see: the syntax or coding style.

The 'Syntax' section gives this as an example:

I would say that this is easier to read:

For the same reason that

A Siberian Husky used as a pack animal

is easier to read than

ASiberianHuskyusedasapackanimal

additionally,

is more difficult to read than the aforementioned, for the same reason that

lA lSiberian lHusky lused las la lpack lanimal

is more difficult to read than the aforementioned.

I often see people following the example on this page and eschewing any space that is not between two words. Not only that, but many editors see spaces used in code and remove them. I'm not sure what is being improved. Do they quickly read the content, decide it doesn't need to be read again, and want it to take up less space?

To be sure, some parts of computer code do not need spaces between them (series of rote tags that everyone ignores anyways). But some code can slightly differ from use to use, and it needs to be easy to read.

It isn't just image tags with this problem, to be sure. But this page must be fairly popular and get a lot of different viewers, so I figured I'd bring it up here. Wizmut (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I wish we had some kind of rule discouraging changing white space. Not outright prohibiting it. When someone makes a 500 line change, with 499 lines of white space changes and one line of hard-to-see typo, that's not an improvement. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we don't, and a general one would run afoul of WP:EDITING, WP:CITE, etc. The most common spacing-cleanup case is making citations consistent and more readable. It often  a genuine improvement for other editors (has no effect on readers, of course), especially when someone has injected vertical citations (which are really appropriate only in WP:LDR) into the middle of a paragraph, making it hard to understand the paragraphization, or when people do daft things like    — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Our documentation should reflect what editors typically do (especially since people tend to copy-paste from the doc and change the details). And, well,  is not it. The prevalent styles are   and , to mirror typical formatting of templates. And "File: Name" is just weird. No one does that, any more than they refer to "Wikipedia: Administrator's noticeboard" or "MOS: IMAGES".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Image stacking
We really ought to add guidance that you shouldn't stack images.





etc...

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit...

This displays on mobile as a centered continuous stack of images, and not a neatly cascading set of images beside the text. I've seen articles where on mobile, you had to scroll through like five screens of images to get to the text. This is covered a bit in Help:Pictures, but not in the MOS and not specific to mobile. G M G talk  11:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - it is in there but should be strengthened. Mind you, in my experience most high-traffic articles have now been converted. I'd also like to see discouragement of "mosaic" multiple images, especially large ones. These are bad both on mobile and desktop. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the current guidance? EEng 15:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What we should say is that there shouldn't be more than "a few" images in a row stack like that. There are plenty of cases where 2 or 3 or 4 in a row  stack makes perfect sense (especially if some are left and some are right -- and please, I don't need to hear about SANDWICHing), and there may be places where even more (small?) images in a row  stack might makes sense. Explain the reason and leave it to editor judgment. Please let's not have one more absolutist rule giving self-appointed roving enforcers another excuse for making pests of themselves. EEng 15:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh well, maybe it isn't there - I can't find it, & if you can't, it probably isn't. We're not talking about "row"s here, but stacks or columns - let's not confuse ourselves. It should be in there - at the minimum all we need to say is to move images lower down to break up a stack. It used to be a sensible and very common tactic to stack all the images at the top of the article, so that there would be a continuous flow of images at the right of the screen, whatever the screen size or settings. With mobiles this doesn't work at all, as you get Pinterest before any text. We should advise against this. With the multiple images syntax you don't even get captions (there is an ongoing discussion re this at Talk:Prodigy_house). Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously stacking all of an article's images at the start of the article is no good. But stacking two images, relevant to a give section, at the start of that section is often better than having one image at the start, floated next to text, then a few whispy lines of text with no image floated next to them, then another image floated next to text. This usually looks awful.I'll say again: the important thing is to warn against big stacks. Modest stacks are OK. EEng</b> 18:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Images should be inserted at the point in the source that they belong to (that way they make sense in mobile). To avoid stacking, alternate images right and left and ignore all sandwiches (which are rarely a problem on desktop and never a problem on mobile). —Kusma (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I find sandwitching to be a problem on desktop. I also find overly rigid staggering that ignores article layout (especially left first - right, irrespective of headers) to worsen readability.—Alalch E. 17:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I use larger than default images on a wide screen, which almost guarantees that sandwiching will happen whenever there are any left-aligned images. It is nearly impossible to illustrate an article well without sacrificing something: the gallery and multiple images options do not support automatic resizing to larger thumbnail sizes. I personally prefer sandwiching to having to use fixed image sizes. —Kusma (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "It is nearly impossible to illustrate an article well without sacrificing something" - Agreed. "the gallery and multiple images options do not support automatic resizing to larger thumbnail sizes." That will probably be fixed some day, and those layout tools still make sense in various cases (e.g. gallery at Regimental tartan, where the list isn't even complete yet, and where using a table with regular  markup would waste a lot of space).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "I also find overly rigid staggering that ignores article layout (especially left first - right, irrespective of headers) to worsen readability." Definitely. It can make it hard to tell where sections/subsections start and what the heading depth is. As for "I find sandwitching to be a problem on desktop." What kind of problem? Can you link to an example? Are you on some really tiny monitor or something?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are we ready for a draft? I think we are boadly in agreement, but I think there are still a good number of editors for whom "stacking all of an article's images at the start of the article is no good" is not yet obvious. I'm ok with two or more in a stack, if there is a good reason, but usually there isn't. Otherwise there's no reason not to space them out a bit, and we should say so in a non-absolutist way. I used to stagger left & right, but now I generally only put images that strongly "face into the page" on the left. That's enough for now, but one day we should update WP:GALLERY, which has hardly changed for 15 years, and doesn't even mention the use of "mini-galleries" placed around the article in visual subjects. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The "good reason" is actually quite common, and it's a long lead and/or ToC, producing a huge block of whitespace on the right (in a regular browser view; not sure about on mobile).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's a long lead the images for that should be spaced out, between paragraphs. For those still on the old desktop default, a long TOC is a reason to stack, but what proportion of our readers are still viewing like that? You had to be registered, and to override the new default. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Dragable image comparisons
In Fleetwood Park Racetrack, I've got two maps showing the same area in 1885 and today. Is there some way to build a composite image which lets you drag a slider to expose one or the other, in the style of https://web-toolbox.dev/en/tools/image-compare-slider? RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this exists. We're just now starting to even have interactive maps. Wiki is always 5-10 years behind the rest of the internet in technological capabilities, unfortunately. ɱ  (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Flags
We have a problem, highlighted at Talk:Ulster Scots people (now an RfC at Talk:Ulster Scots people), in which people do not understand that the majority of the material at MOS:FLAGS pertains to use of flag images at all; in the few places it is limited to flag in particular, it says so explicitly. We need to do a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE section at MOS:IMAGES that encapsulates the guidance about flag images here. Maybe even move most of it here and retarget MOS:FLAGS to this section, and have MOS:FLAGICONS go to the section at MOS:ICONS and reduce that material there to just the icon-specific concerns (use in infoboxes, tables, etc.). PS: I think I may even be to blame at least in part for this confusion; I think I had a lot to do with consolidation of the flag-related material in one place, back when MOS:ICONS was in its infancy (and when most of the concerns originally raised were about icons, so it seemed to make sense at the time). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 06:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Dispute over censoring an image
At Talk:Anna Krauss we have a dispute over inclusion of this image of the biography’s subject. Per WP:OM, WP:NOTCENSORED and, of course, this page, I believe that the encyclopedic value of the image, which has no suitable substitutes, outweighs its potential for shock and offense. I would appreciate input from editors there, as it is just my opinion against that of at this point. I have left a similar note at Wikipedia talk:Offensive material. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am a believer in WP:OM and WP:NOTCENSORED, and so believe it should stay. Gah4 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am a believer in WP:OM and WP:NOTCENSORED, and so believe it should stay. Gah4 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

How to put image in the correct section?
I added an image to the "History" section of an article, but it appears in the next section. How do I get the image to appear in the correct section? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That one's got me stumped. I have no idea why it's moving down to the section below that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's easy to explain. The article begins with a immediately followed by a, and these are both floated boxes. Images are also floated boxes; and the top edges of all floated boxes must occur in sequence down the page. So because the image is after the , the top edge of the image cannot be any higher than that of the second infobox. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I guess there's no way to fix this with these two infoboxes. I don't think can be emedded with, which lacks a "module" parameter like Template:Infobox person has. Cunard (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an issue described at Extended image syntax. You can use, as I did . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing this, ! Cunard (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

edit request
Please change
 * ... can create a distasteful text sandwich
 * Wide images opposite one another...

to
 * Wide images opposite one another...
 * ... can create a distasteful text sandwich

from View source:

Thanks. 173.67.42.107 (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . The images are now in the proper order to both display the intended effect, and render sensibly in text-only or text-to-speech mode.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"Mos:LEADIMAGE" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mos:LEADIMAGE&redirect=no Mos:LEADIMAGE] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Value of a color vs. black and white infobox portrait
I'm in the process of prepping a few hundred 1980s U.S. government photos for upload to Commons for use in biographies, mostly as infobox photos. While most of the photos are black and white, about 15% of the subjects have both a single color portrait and a set of black and white portraits to choose from. With a few exceptions, the subjects with a color portrait have a visibly higher-quality black and white alternative (file size doesn't necessarily mean much, but fwiw, the color portraits are mostly in the 25-40kb range, as opposed to 50-100kb for the black and white portraits). Is there some sort of guideline to follow on choosing one over the other, or is this simply a judgment call? Bios almost never need two portraits from the same portrait session, so is having a higher-quality image worth the cost of not having a color image of the individual on their page? Star Garnet (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Might be helpful to see examples, to get an idea of the relative image qualities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A pretty representative example would be for Michael W. Grebe: color vs. b&w Star Garnet (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, since they're otherwise essentially identical, I would use the color one, but crop it a whole lot so it's just a bust image.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Assuming that all options are freely licensed I would look to which photo does the best job of putting the person in a respectable pose. Black and white portraits are often aimed for this capacity, but otherwise we don't place any extra value for color over b&w M asem (t) 19:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:SANDWICH
I'm writing this on mobile so any oddities can be brought down to that While in a discussion over on the Discord, MOS:SANDWICH got brought up, and when I took another look I noticed that it doesnt really state why sandwiching should be avoided other than it being "distasteful" which is something that is subjective and a thought not everyone shares. Is there a specific reason why sandwiching should be avoided? ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze&#95;&#95;wolf 11:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My guess is because it makes paragraphs pretty narrow on monitors that aren't wide screen. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it's that. I've never heard anyone support "heavy" sandwiching, though mild partial sandwiches are not the end of the world for most screens. Mobiles avoid it completely, no? Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But Blaze Wolf's question was a good one. So often there are other reasons that aren't obvious. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes mobiles avoid sandwiching completely. But that wasn't why it was brought up. Someone had said they were proud of an article in which there was sandwiching issues. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze&#95;&#95;wolf 18:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well "sandwiching issues" are in the eye of the beholder, and their screen. I'm certainly proud of some articles where some have moved images around to avoid sandwiches, but in more extremwe cases I'll edit to resolve them myself. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And it is good to peridiocally review this sort of claim, anyway. Mobile browsers have come a very long way in a few years, the average monitor size on desktops has gotten larger, and so on. See also discussions at WT:LENGTH about revising/removing various obsolete technical-considerations claims that were being made.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I certainly don't think this is obselete, nor will it be until they pry my keyboard from my cold, dead hands .... Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Text fragmentation is a big concern for those with disabilities. Size of paragraphs would be the next concern. As for length of articles.... at minimum we should fallow academic recommendations. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's long past time to retire MOS:SANDWICH, at least for images opposite infoboxes. It's a relic of a time when screens were much smaller, browsers didn't handle differing widths well, and mobile devices didn't even exist. It's particularly a problem with infoboxes, because it effectively prohibits any inline image in shorter articles (stubs and most start-class) that have infoboxes. 40% of articles have infoboxes; 80% of articles are stub or start class. It does our readers a massive disservice to say we can't have inline images in ~30% of articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The average monitor size on desktops has gotten larger – maybe, but I'm not alone in regularly viewing Wikipedia articles on tablets not using the mobile site, when sandwiching is a real problem. The screen size on laptops has not increased. My solution for small articles is to use " " to place images centrally. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Pi.1415926535's central point is correct, that it is better to have a short article illustrated at all than to avoid illustrating it because the layout isn't perfect for every class of user. The resolution of laptops and tablets has increased, which amounts to an increase in screen size. But this centering idea might be worth integrating into the guidance if it is useful without negative side effects for other users. I.e., let's get to a compromise, work-around solution.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Myself, I don't think centering helps at all. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"horrifying"
A recent edit changed to now read "vulgar, horrifying, or obscence". I'm skeptical that there is a consensus for this, primilarily because with the rise of "trigger warning culture", anything that might offend or shock anyone for any reason could be PoV-pushingly mischaracterized as "horrifying" and be subject to editwarring to remove it, even if it would not be of concern to most readers. Medical articles in particular are already subject to frequent attempts to censor images from them of injury types and disease results, and I can certainly see such a broad concept as "horrifying" also being abused to censor material on sexuality; religious ideas like depictions of Hell; historical material on wars and weapons, medieval torture, etc; blood sports; the entire subject area of the horror genre; among others. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm inclined to see how it plays out, registering that there is no established consensus for the change. I don't really edit this sort of stuff, but I think there is a case for boxes or whatever with a "show" button. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 'a case for boxes or whatever with a "show" button' is something very few editors would support, so using that as a rationale for why to keep this change seems rather dubious. Is there something about it, on it's own merits, or is it just because it aligns with a "show box" scenario that isn't likely to ever happen?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the addition, but I think most of the potential objections to images you mention could already occur under the banners of vulgar and obscene (and as you note, attempts to censor images already occur). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on removal of image collages from Year articles.
There is an ongoing RfC that may be of interest to editors here regarding the removal of image collages from individual year articles at. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Photo of a tombstone
Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Morristown, Tennessee, where there is a content dispute regarding a photo of a tombstone. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Updating permanent link
Requesting that the link to Special:PermanentLink/460749801 in Manual of Style/Images be changed to Special:PermanentLink/1192743397 (or any such recent version). The currently linked version has a redirect template redlink and what is now a navbox at the top of the article, making it less obvious which image is being referenced. hinnk (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:USERG portraits
I know I've seen discussions on the theme "No, we don't want your artistic vision in WP-biographies", but is there something written on that in a guideline somewhere? Should something be mentioned at Manual_of_Style/Images? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems more like a WP:IMAGEPOL (specifically WP:IUPC) question than a MOS:IMAGES one. The "Making images yourself" section here is basically a summary, with some style input, of the IUPC subsection "User-created images" (which we were not cross-referencing; I fixed that). But yes, this should be addressed more clearly somewhere. What the policy ssys in short is that it's fine to add one's own charts and diagrams, including maps (and of course one's own photos are permissible). But it doesn't very directly address other user-generated graphics. All it says is "Additionally, user-made images may be wholly original. In such cases, the image should be primarily serving an educational purpose, and not as a means of self-promotion of the user's artistic skills. The subject to be illustrated should be clearly identifiable in context, and should not be overly stylized." The example provided is actually another diagram. It doesn't get at things like artistic portraits, still lifes, landscapes, animal depictions, and so on, but it probably should. There's a bit of a wrinkle when it comes to things that are not possible to photograph, such as interstellar phenomena or mythical creatures. The overal question may have particular pertinence these days and into the future, since AI image generators can be used to cobble together "new" portraits based on pre-existing portrait data, and this would be WP:OR and then some, well beyond what WP:IUPC was intended to permit. Just yesterday (not on WP or on Commons) I saw a huge series of fanciful AI portraits of Mädchen Amick (zero of which would be appropriate here), and that was just one example in a long stream of such AI-enabled fan "art" I've run into on social media; the prevalance of it is increasing rapidly.  I think this question is worth raising, with regard to portraits, landscapes, and other non-diagrammatic art (human- or AI-generated), at WT:IMAGEPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Drawing instead of photo in the image section
Would there be a problem if, out of lack of an available picture, but as in a photography of a person, to use a drawing of this person in the image section? Kayy kay (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See above. There have been similar questions in the past, and IIRC the answer was always "no thanks". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Could someone let me know whether it would be ok, if we are talking about a cyberoffensor, potentially dangerous, over 40 years old, free, who is not yet posted on Wikipedia? 188.146.110.234 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Upright"?
Whatever the original reasons there were for the image width parameter to be called "upright", it's a poor name for that feature (either nonsensical or counterintuitive) and likely yet another small issue in WP:RETENTION, WP:NEWBIES &c. — <span style="border:1px solid #004705;background:#168c1d;padding:2px;color:#e9ede9;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack 15:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The original reason seems to be that it was intended for 'upright', i.e. portrait-oriented, images to reduce the size when the user's default width was used. But I agree that it's a poor name now; "scale" might be better. (Note that "upright" is used elsewhere, e.g. image_upright in taxoboxes.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The n feature isn't like a template parameter where we would discuss and then just amend the template code. It's part of the MediaWiki software, and hence is not just outside the scope of this page, it's also not something that English Wikipedia can decide without involving all the other wikis that use MediaWiki (more than a thousand different websites). You need to file s change request at, but be warned, they may throw it out as being years too late. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What about an alias, then? — <span style="border:1px solid #004705;background:#168c1d;padding:2px;color:#e9ede9;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack 22:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't, the image format is part of the MediaWiki software so the change would have to be made there. M asem (t) 03:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the list of unacceptable image uses
The following is copied from my inquiry at WT:NFC/Archive 74:

I'd like to propose a new addition to WP:NFC: "An album/single cover art to illustrate an album/song, if the label on a physically-released disc is ineligible for copyright." This is because I have noticed over the past few years that single cover art in the infoboxes for many song articles is being replaced with a copyright-ineligible label. Examples include "Incense and Peppermints", "Lean on Me" and "There's a Place." JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure about other markets, but at one time in the UK it was rare for a single to have its own particular sleeve (whether picture and text or text-only); until the 1970s most singles were sold in a paper (not card) sleeve having a circular hole for the label to be seen through - the sleeve itself was either plain white, or a generic design of the record company - Decca's orange-and-white sleeves are an example. The Beatles released 22 singles between 1962 and 1970 - of these, 16 came in a generic Parlophone sleeve, five in a generic Apple sleeve (black with green lettering), and only one ("Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever") had its own dedicated picture sleeve. Indeed, in the early 1980s many singles were sold in two forms in parallel: plain sleeve or picture sleeve, the latter having a higher price and often a limited print run (early copies of "Golden Brown" had gold lettering, later copies had white lettering). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Count me opposed to throwing out a picture sleeve with artwork or photographs in favor of a simple textual record label. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
 * I believe that simple textual record labels could be used for the same encyclopedic purpose as the main use of official picture sleeves (identification in infoboxes without critical commentary). If an article were to include critical commentary on a single cover itself (and not the song), that would be a different case. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not this again...: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 25  Tkbrett  (✉)  16:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Mezzelune
Hi. I don't know where to place the "Mezzelune with seafood and pesto" image; according to the Manual of Style's rules, which is the most suitable place? JacktheBrown (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on use of palaeoart
FAC discussion which could be relevant to editors here, and perhaps the MOS for images should have a note on how to deal with palaeoart once consensus emerges. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Images in navboxes
Would anyone like to comment about the appropriateness of images in navboxes at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates? -- wooden superman  07:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Reword
The MOS:SANDWICH bit could be slightly reworded I think. Propose deleting "that face each other" from How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er. "Face each other" doesn't make sense in this context I think; both images are facing the reader. Still not in love with this new wording, so open to suggestions. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done – was replaced by "images horizontally opposite each other", which looks fine to me. Tollens (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup looks good to me too! 104.232.119.107 (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Paintings by nonnotable artists to illustrate mythology and folklore
(moved out of my talk page for broader participation)

Background: following Articles for deletion/Andrey Shishkin I removed a large number of his paintings that illustrated Slavic mythology and folklore per WP:UNDUE: I found no evidence that Andrey Shishkin is a recognized as a person who is faithfully representing the views of ancient Slavs or at the very least of Slavic neopagans, and therefore his paintings, especially in the infoboxes, may create a skewed view on Slavic mythology. User:Sławobóg contests my edits. - Altenmann >talk 16:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Since when do we need "authority" for pictures? It's literally vandalism. Sławobóg (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We need authority to any content in Wikipedia. You cannot illustrate encyclopedic articles with paintings for which we cannot ensure authenticity. The article about the artist was deleted from wikipedia meaning the visions of this person are not notable and are of undue weight in wikipedia .BTW please learn what the word "vandalism" means in enwiki: WP:VANDAL and dont misuse the term. - Altenmann >talk 20:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What does "authenticity" mean here? Why does it matter if author has article on WP or not? None of the painters are scholars/scientists on the topic, why not remove picture from Thor for example? His paintings look good, they usually fit scholar or popular interpretation of deity and if not, image is placed somewhere at the bottom. You are removing it without any discussion so I can call it vandalism. Sławobóg (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, DONT use the word 'vandalism' until you read and understand our policy WP:VANDAL. "Authenticity": sorry: I probably used a wrong word. I meant correspondence with the commonly accepted interpretations. In addition, illustrations by famous painters are OK because they have historical value by themselves. Paintings of this guy dont have historical value and there is no attested agreement that they properly represent some common views on the subject. Therefore his massive presense in wikipedia is in fact pushing his individual artictic view into brains of readers without justification acceptable in wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 20:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant correspondence with the commonly accepted interpretations - please explain how his paintings of Svarog, Perun, Veles or Zorya (and all others you removed) are different from commonly accepted interpretations or historical sources. Sławobóg (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you have in vice versa: it is the person who adds information into wikipedia must prove its validity. - Altenmann >talk 22:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You removed content that was there for years, you should explain yourself, not me. But fine: Svarog is blacksmith - he's portrayed as god with hammer and fire. Perun is god of thunder and war - he's portrayed as god in armor. Veles is god of underworld, associated with cattle - he's portrayed as god with animals, pretty generic. Zorya is goddes/personification/being releted with dawn - she's portrayed as generic goddess with warm colors. Khors is often interpreted as god of sun - he's portrayed with sun behind his back. Dazhbog is also interpreted as god of sun - he's portrayed as god in the grain and the sun. And so on. Literally nothing here is constroversial. You either removed these pictures before even looking at them or because you don't know about Slavic mythology. Other users also didn't have any problem with that. @Alcaios can you help? Nonsense in Slavic topics is happening again. Sławobóg (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "For years" is not an argument. It seems you fail to understand my principal argument: this artist is a nobody, as demonstrated by the wikipedia community during the AfD, and your opinion about his paintings is irrelevant. - Altenmann >talk 16:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So you wanted "correspondence with the commonly accepted interpretations", I gave it, and you change argument. And now you just made up rule about not using "nobody's" art. Nice job, but Wikipedia is full of pictures made by "nobodies". A person never had to have an article on WP in order for Wikipedians to be able to use their art for article decoration. Sławobóg (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And those images should be purged. Artistic interpretations of article subjects should be either notable themselves (or, at least, be well known), or by notable artists. Random fancy by random persons, unrecognized by reliable sources for their value in the context of the subject, has no place in articles. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not change the argument. the "correspondence" which was given by you is a non-argument: in wikipedia, wikipedian's opinions are irrelevant: they must come from reliable sources. WP:RS is the most fundamental wikipedia policy and I am thhoroughly surprized you fail to recognize it. - Altenmann >talk 20:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So you did not even check any of the articles you removed pictures from. Sławobóg (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, half of them are on my watchlist and I am periodically cleaning/updating them. But this is not the point. Please understand that continued ad hominem attacks do not help you to win the argument, just vice versa. If you think I missed something related to Andrey Shishkin, please be specific. - Altenmann >talk 23:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Theres no ad hominem, you are just switching arguments and contradict yourself. You asked me to explain that these paintings are "correspondence with the commonly accepted interpretations". I did. Then you said "hes nobody so idk". Then you say it's just my opinion, even tho articles already have scholarship sources that say just that, atleast articles created by me. This is why I think you don't know what are you doing. Pictures are corresponding with scholarship, and anyone can read article to check that. Simply saying "no" doesn't change that. Sławobóg (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictures are corresponding with scholarship, and anyone can read article to check that -- this is called "original research", inadmissible in wikipedia. Pictures are supposed to illustrate article content, and to ensure that we need reliable sources, not just Wikipedian's eyeballs. - Altenmann >talk 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I already said that the content is in the articles. At this point I think you are actively not understanding what I'm saying. Sławobóg (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand what you are saying. And you fail to accept two basic things (1) Wikipedia is not a valid reference to anything, hence the content of a wikipedia article cannot confirm the validity of an image and (2) informative images are to support article text, not vice versa. - Altenmann >talk 17:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) What you wrote basically contradicts the second point. Additionaly Wikipedia says: Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic, so you should excatly specify why each painting should not be used. This is what happens pretty often I believe: someone notes that map or picture of plant is wrong, they start discussion explaining why it's wrong (that usually include giving reliable sources for the statement), then picture is modified or removed/replaced. You did nothing like that because (2) this picture is not informative, it is, like a lot pictures in deities articles, decorative, WP states: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. We cannot have any "informative" images here, because there are no clear ancient descriptions of appearance for most (Slavic) deities. The paintings are pretty significant, relevant in the topic's content, and WP doesn't state that decorative pictures can't be used (having too much might be distracting). Additionaly, all the paintings, besides these actually made in ancient Rome/Greece etc., are artistic visions, noone pushes any views with them. That happens pretty rarely, for example Shishkin painting of Semargl might be misleading, that's why I didn't put it the infobox. The paintings are pretty generic, artistic, and it's obvious for all editors and readers. (3) So TLDR: there is no "notable artists" rule, paintings are relevant to the topic's context, articles' topic allows artistic visions unless misleading, you can't prove they are not authentic (but if so, look point 1), paintings look good and respectful, they make Slavic articles look consistent, and we don't have any better images for Slavic mythology. Additionally (4) you yourself broke this rule: When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. (note again: none of these paitings are even close to being poor or inappropriate ones). If you don't want his paintings (or any others) on ru.wikit, don't use them, but don't push ru.wiki agenda here. Breaking that rule allows me reverting all your removals, which will happen later. Sławobóg (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into the background of this particular case, but in general: whether someone is notable is a different thing from whether their interpretations are reliable/authoritative/authentic/whatever. Notability is a red herring wrt whether these are appropriate representations of these topics. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, this is hair-splitting; I assumed that if someone's interpretations are reliable/authoritative/authentic/whatever, then this person is most likely notable, i.e., has reasonable coverage in WP:RS. After all, how do we know that their interpretations are reliable/whatever? But even we assume this difference is important, I am ready to recognize a theoretically weaker criterion: the person must be recognized as having reliable/../whatever interpretations to be trusted for wikipedia purposes. And surprize! yet again we need reliable sources to say that, not some J. Random Wikipedian. - Altenmann >talk 05:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the relevant thing is whether there exists some pictorial tradition that the painting is part of. If for example Svarog has never been illustrated before Andrey Shishkin made his painting, then such a novel illustration does seem a bit dubious (how did the artist come up with the picture of the god, is it just some fantasy genre painting?), and not very relevant for the encyclopedia. Also, the best way to illustrate the lack of pictorial tradition might be to not include any direct depictions the god. But I don't know if this is truly the case with Slavic mythology. At least many of those articles are lacking good images. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:PORTRAIT
With this change to an infobox image, editor's rational is MOS:PORTRAIT, my query (since its not stated in the guideline) does this guideline include infoboxes? My assumption, is no.  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. The old image was rather better per se, the new one facing the page. The guideline is fairly mildly worded, so the old one can certainly be defended. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)