Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 11

Question
The policy on this page regarding the use of upright imaging seems very straightforward. It reads, in part: "upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible." Yet, I now have an editor posting the exact opposite on my user page: "You don't need to upright images in MOST cases." The upright imaging employed certainly looks good on the pages where it is used. I'd appreciate some input on this given the hugely contrasting interpretations of upright use. Thanks very much. Keystone18 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify (as one of those editors mentioned above): insists that adding |upright=1| or similar (often 1.1 or higher) to every image is what this policy sates. However, myself,,  and  have all told him that this policy actually says that the default is just to ensure that images are thumbnails, and that adding additional sizing is generally unnecessary, BUT THAT IF NEEDED, using upright is the preference. Famartin (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While I think your intentions are good, I also think you need to read that bullet point in its full context. It reads as follows: "Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified. This ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible." It's the first part of that bullet point which is important. Users use various devices when reading Wikipedia and the software will adjust image size accordingly based upon a user's device or their user preferences; fixing to a set pixel width, however, defeats both of these things and forces everyone to see the same sized image regardless. Using the upright factor allows the size scaling in cases where an image is better seen at either a larger or smaller size that its default value, but it's not needed if the default value is fine. Of course, if you feel an image should be resized, it's OK to be WP:BOLD and do so; however, if others disagree, you should try and resolve things through article talk page discussion per WP:DR just like you would with respect to any content dispute. Perhaps in some cases scaling to 1.1 is an improvement and perhaps in some cases it's not. When there's a disagreement, you should try and resolve things on a per image basis. Finally, in general, when multiple editors are expressing concerns about some edits you're making, it's probably wise to stop entirely or at least slow down a bit until things get sorted out. Plowing full speed ahead as before could be eventually be seen as a case of WP:IDHT. It also could create lots of unnecessary cleanup if you're wrong on the matter. Most of the time, it's better to seek clarification earlier than not, unless they're some serious and clear policy/guideline violations that require immediate attention. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First, User:Famartin, stop stalking my posts on this site; your views, unclear as they are, have been made following every single attempt I have made to get additional input and clarification on this question, which is actually giving your position probably more credit than it warrants. And User:Marchjuly, your response, while appreciated, lacks an understanding of the underlying historical issues here. I have never stated that the use of upright=1.1 is suitable in all cases, and I have never consistently employed it. This policy does seem clear to me: "Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified. This ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible." In almost all of these cases, a fixed width in pixels was correctly not specified, and I employed the upright scaling, exactly as the policy suggests, "whenever possible." I would welcome additional and objective input on this question: In what possible cases should upright be used? In what possible cases, if any, should it not be used? Keystone18 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you scroll to the top of MOS:IMAGES, you'll find that it's a guideline, not a policy. I'm not making this distinction to try say you're wrong; I'm just doing so because someone else most likely will later on. I'm not sure what you mean by underlying historical issues, but to me any relevant historical issues regarding scaling are more likely to be find in the archives of this talk page than perhaps anywhere else. There are some examples of how and when to use scaling found in MOS:UPRIGHT and WP:THUMBSIZE; the latter might even provide some clue as what to do here as well since is also touches on the use of scaling. However, as I mentioned above, this might be something that needs to be discussed on a per image basis (possibly even including side by side comparisons) on an article's talk page. If you make such a change and nobody seems to disagree, then great per WP:SILENCE; on the other hand, if others start disagreeing, you may need to establish a consensus in favor of making the change in question. Finally, it's probably best to avoid referring to other editors as "stalkers" per things like WP:HA and WP:AOHA and keep comments focused on what's being discussed instead of who's doing the discussing. When discussions start on one page but then move to another page, it's not totally unexpected that those participating in the original discussion will also follow it to the new page. If you truly feel you're being stalked, then you probably should make your concerns known at one of the administrator noticeboards which are better venues for dealing with such things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m gonna add this comment just for Keystone18 to ponder: Wikipedia has certain defaults. The default with thumbnails, therefore, would naturally be the normal preference, would it not? You can change scaling if there’s a good reason, but using upright was never intended to be a blanket standard on all images. Why would you add upright=1 to every thumb when it just gives you the default? It’s a waste of space. And, if there’s a default for thumbs, why would you change scaling on every image (as you have previously done on quite a few articles) to something larger? Many articles have had all images set to upright=1.1 or greater by Keystone18. That’s absolutely not what should happen. It wastes space for text, and neglects the fact that you can click on any thumb and get a much larger version.Famartin (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A great example of this that I just reverted in New York City: 520 useless characters which comrpised |upright=1 on a bunch of images, all of which just set the images to do what the default is. If you compare the two versions side by side with the visual editor, you'll see they are IDENTICAL, but one version has 520 extra useless characters which did NOTHING. Famartin (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I just compared a few images using both default thumb and upright=1 and see no notable difference in their sizing or appearance. I suppose the discretionary use of upright is when photos need or should be modestly expanded or reduced. I'm comfortable on using the default thumb in most cases, including the ones we disagreed on in this interaction. I do think the wording of this guideline, like other guidelines and policies on here, is poorly written and not immediately clear, which contributes to these unnecessary disputes. I was once instructed pretty boldly by another editor to begin using upright imaging and to ensure images were at the top of the respective section, or I'd never have begun using it. If I can find that editor, I'll try to have him or her weigh in here in case I've missed anything, which is possible. But I think we're on the same page on this, especially now that I compared the images under both scenarios and see no notable difference. Keystone18 (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood the guideline. Maybe we should change the wording. "Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified. This ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor is preferred when an image must be scaled to something other than the default size." GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What's the guidance for colorized images?
... beyond the requirement to note major image edits in captions per MOS:IMAGE. E.g. if the colors aren't given in reliable sources or completed by reliable sources themselves, would user-colorized images violate WP:V? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a very, very lengthy discussion about a colorized image at Talk:Wright Flyer/Archive 1 from 2021, with a follow-up at Talk:Wright Flyer from 2022. The basic conclusion was that colorization is original research, and they shouldn't be used in that particular article. So yes, some firm guidance in the MOS would be greatly appreciated. BilCat (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a difference, though, between user-colorized images and images for which there is some historical provenance for the colorization. For instance, File:Mulberry Street NYC c1900 LOC 3g04637u edit.jpg, a photo colorized around 1900 (according to discussion at Featured picture candidates/Mulberry Street, New York City) is a featured picture here and on several other-language Wikipedias. There should be no guidance discouraging such images. So if we want to discourage user-colorized images, we need to be very careful how it is worded. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course. That's why I specified user-colored. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it could be relatively straightforward to provide guidance centered on the state of the photograph at the time of original publication. This could also apply to other potential OR issues such as digital restoration. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to the question of original research, I think the potential copyright implications of colorization probably should also be discussed and whether it would be appropriate to consider such images non-free content for Wikipedia's purposes. For example, many institutions seems to think that merely digitalizing an old image is sufficient to create a derivative work (i.e. a new copyright) even though US case law (and thus Commons and Wikipedia) tends to see that as c:COM:2D copying. Since colorization seems to involve more creativity than digitalization (this is just my non-expert opinion), it seems a credible claim could be made that a derivative work would be created, which could depending on various factors require it to be treated as non-free content for Wikipedia's purposes. This might be problematic per WP:FREER since all things considered equal, the original uncolorized freely licensed or public domain work would be preferable in most cases per Wikipedia's non-free use policy. When this was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 70 in 2020, most of the replies received seemed to that colorized photos are derivative works and thus eligible for their own copright protection, independent of the original; this in turn affected how they could be used under Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This has also come up at Titanic. I have taken a stab at adding some text to the MOS. I know it's not perfect, please tweak or discuss as needed. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I adjusted the text to cover all monochrome image types (sepia, etc.) rather than focusing specifically on black-and-white. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to change the default format of galleries
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Galleries. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Left-aligned images
There is a discussion at about apparent conflicts between MOS:IMAGELOC and MOS:ACCIM regarding left-aligned images.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 1 June 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)