Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Clarification needed regarding WP:WATERMARK[edit]

An editor has been citing WP:WATERMARK as the reason for removing numerous UN-created maps from Wikipedia articles, as the maps include a small OCHA logo. This has, in some cases, led to edit warring,[1] so I would like to solicit other editors' opinions about whether or not WP:WATERMARK necessitates removal of these maps. My personal opinion is that small, unobtrusive credits in images should not necessitate removal of the images (although the credits/watermarks themselves should be removed when possible). See Cotinusa for another example. Kaldari (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion that there are several problems with OCHA maps. For one thing, they were uploaded to commons under the condition that they would be used either with the logo untouched (which is explicitly against WP:WATERMARK) or with attribution below the image in the caption (which is ignored even by those editors who decided to restore the map without the logo). Another thing is the graphics - OCHA maps come with place names included, with a country name in a blue bar above the map, in a font and style that cannot be changed, so there is little room for modification for our use. A third thing is that these are maps and as such we can safely assume that there are free alternatives without these problems out there. It's not like finding another map of Cape Verde or Spain is a problem. A fourth problem is that these were all added by User:Unocha.visual, which raised concerns over possible WP:COI, brought up by another editor at the relevant noticeboard. Timbouctou (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not see the issue when the map is good, especially when the UN map is allowed, even intended, to be used freely. I suppose the fine points of the Wikipedia policy elude me, when there is no copyright infringement. It is annoying when the OCHA map is removed, and the editor who removes it does not replace it with one of these other maps Timbouctou finds exactly suitable, leaving that task to someone else. That someone else sees the article without the good map, and may not know that such maps are so very easy to find. Instead, there is no map, a step down for the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, there are no free vector maps of this kind for many countries, particularly developing countries. Vector maps (SVGs) are more useful for our purposes because they can be modified and reused easily for other purposes, for example different thematic maps of the countries, and this makes the maps a particularly valuable free content donation. Modified thematic maps would simply be attributed on the Commons description page, it doesn't have to be in the article itself. The inclusion of the small logo is simply so that people are aware the map represents the UN view of borders, etc, and because it is vector it can be easily removed for modified thematic maps (unlike a watermark on a photograph). Myself and other volunteer NYC Wikipedians have been involved with the preparation of these maps, and trying to facilitate their use on the Wikimedia projects.--Pharos (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
re: "OCHA maps come with place names included, with a country name in a blue bar above the map, in a font and style that cannot be changed" : the uploaded maps are all SVG with style properties that can be changed as necessary. So, they're not watermarked in the traditional sense. GChriss (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prairieplant: There is also a fifth problem which I did not include in my original post, which is the issue of what the value of having two maps in country infoboxes really is. This was also brought up by yet another editor at Unocha.visual's talk page, and has not been addressed since. The user simply showed up on Wikipedia, added a series of additional watermarked maps to infoboxes between August 26 and September 4 and then left. The case had never been made that we needed those maps in the first place at all, so I don't see the need to insist on replacing them once they have been removed about two months later. Besides, the first six words of WP:WATERMARK are very clear - Free images should not be watermarked. Period. We wouldn't be having this discussion if instead of OCHA logo the maps contained the words "" or "Brought to you by Walmart" or "Drink Coca-Cola". Or if we used "free" maps of eastern Ukraine donated by the Russian government, or maps of the West Bank donated by an Israeli ministry, etc, etc. We have and we should continue to have a zero tolerance policy for this. Timbouctou (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
If you go by the whole first sentence, it's specifically about "anything else that would hamper their free use". The small logo here is informational and does not hamper free use (because it is vector and easily removable, as the maps themselves are vector). As GChriss says above, this is not a "watermark" in the ordinary sense.--Pharos (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Timbouctou: I disagree with many of your statements above. It is already very common for us to use maps that include credit within the maps themselves (virtually all historical maps have such "watermarks"). We are also fine with using maps created by the CIA, for example, so I don't think the fact that it came from a particular organization is problematic. Identifying that the map came from the UN is actually helpful, in my opinion, for the same reasons that Pharos mentioned. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I just find it interesting how nobody thought we needed additional maps in infoboxes until Ocha.visual came along in August. Now it seems to have become essential, because, you know, location maps are hard to find, or something. And btw I was referring to sources of maps when indicated in the image itself. I'm not sure you would have a huge consensus for the use of CIA maps if they actually had CIA logos in them. Timbouctou (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I will give my interpretation. The image attribution requirements say For use with alteration: remove the OCHA logo and disclaimer following any modification to the map, but keep the data sources as mentioned below the map. Credit the modified map as follows: "Based on OCHA map". You are responsible for the content of your map.

It does not say in the caption, it says below the image. I read that to mean below the image where we have licensing information. Notice it says to remove the disclaimer, that tells me they meant the image page and not an article caption.

Our image use policy says Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits or titles in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free and All photo credits should be in a summary on the image description page.

To me it is clear that Wikipedia policy is that images should be credited on their file page and not in the article. The attribution requirements say that we can remove the watermark and modify it as long as we give credit on the image page to the original source.

It seems to me that the current versions are incompatible but we can remove the watermark if we credit the new image to the original source which is what we would have to do anyways.

Rather than our usual process of replacing the watermarked images on the commons we should upload them under new names so that we can link to the original for proper credit. Chillum 19:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Since svgs are text based it might not be too difficult to automate the logo removal process. Chillum 19:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup, looks like you just need to remove everything inside the <g id="Globe"> tag. Very automatable. Chillum 19:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's the globe top right which shows where the country is in the world. The logo bottom right may be hidden by altering one line - from
<g id="logo">
<g id="logo" visibility="hidden">
The title at the top left may also be hidden easily - there's an element which might look like this
<text transform="matrix(1 0 0 1 7.001 16.3076)" fill="#FFFFFF" font-family="'Liberation Sans'" font-weight="bold" font-size="13">CAPE VERDE</text>
all you need to do is add the visibility="hidden" attribute to that. The blue stripe which that title is placed on is the <rect ... /> on the line immediately above; that may also be given the same attribute. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification and the idea of using visibility="hidden" instead of removing the tags, much simpler. I think it makes sense to remove the title from the image and use the wiki markup in the article to label it. I am downloading them as I write, though I will need a bit more consensus before I start uploading them, there are a lot. Chillum 21:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I was able to remove the label and rectangle and logo from 151 of them automatically, the others used different syntax. Have not uploaded anything yet. Chillum 22:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this Chillum. Your solution may provide a good compromise. I agree we should retain the original images separately. Kaldari (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I am unsure how the commons feels about mass uploads, there are over 150 files. I may have to poke about their policies regarding automation as I am not going to do this by hand. Chillum 23:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Chillum, for your helpful ideas here. I agree that another set of "stripped" modified maps would probably be a good long-term solution. But, as there is an important ongoing project we're working on with the UN at this moment, I am going to take the initiative of just stripping some of the original images of the logos for now (for high priority developing countries), in order to facilitate these being ok for articles this week. We'll follow up with you and other folks on a more permanent category solution and on the mass uploading process for Commons.--Pharos (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@Chillum: As long as the images are properly categorized (Category:Maps by United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (modified)?) and described, I don't think anyone on Commons is going to object to uploading 150 files at once. People commonly upload more than that at a time with tools like Commonist. You don't need a bot account or anything like that. Kaldari (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I will upload the 151 I have now tomorrow after visually reviewing each one and writing a script to upload and a template for the image pages. I will create a parallel category and leave it up to others to replace images in articles as needed on a case by case basis. Chillum 08:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Late to the party, but many thanks for that, Chillum. I had asked for a script solution to fix this at Graphics Labs' talkpage, but unfortunately nobody had a good idea for that. The OCHA-maps were clearly uploaded as part of their PR-activities (as evidenced by the usage of 2 involved single purpose accounts) and should not be displayed on Wikipedia as neutral encyclopedia. It's unfortunate, that even some administrators support such additions against our current policy. GermanJoe (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Update WP:THUMBSIZE[edit]

Many editors have been using ###px for thumbnail image displays, despite discouragement by policy. Somehow, the rule must be updated to allow what is currently common or prevalent among editors. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If anything we should be more strongly deprecating px and more strongly encouraging use of upright. The fact that px is still very prevalent (even dominant) is regrettable, but not worth e.g. some campaign to run through articles and convert over to upright. EEng (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Then stop discourage "px" and encouraging "upright". I didn't know how upright works until I realize it by reading the policy. But even almost no one knows how much percentage of the size an image must be. 220px doesn't mean 95% or 50%. It can be any percent. --George Ho (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the current text makes clear why upright is preferable to px, except in unusual circumstances. I have no idea what you're saying about the percentages. EEng (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll put it another way: id est upright=0.50, which represents 50%. --George Ho (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Your point is that 0.50 = 50%? Um... OK. What does that have to do with anything? EEng (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll rephrase: many average Joes and Janes know ###px, but what about upright=#.##? How does an average editor know how to scale the size by percentage and type out upright=#.##? --George Ho (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
For those who know how to use upright=, perhaps trying to calculate a typical thumbnail size (id est 250px) by percentage is... not convenient unless I'm wrong. --George Ho (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Upright=1 produces a thumb that is as wide as the user's thumb selection (or 250px if not logged in). "Upright =x" generates one that is that fraction of the width, so when you have vertical/portrait pictures, a parameter of 0.7 is suggested (and the default if you just use "upright"). Basically, it's avoiding pixel-perfect placement which only I've found needed when presenting multiple images in a single frame (ala the multiimage template). --MASEM (t) 03:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Why can't many use "upright" nowadays but use "px" instead? --George Ho (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm sorry, but what you're writing isn't even intelligible English. WP:THUMBSIZE explains how upright vs. px operate, and why upright is preferred. If you think THUMBSIZE should be changed somehow, then propose the specific change. EEng (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I propose it in a separate thread or in this section? --George Ho (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Here. EEng (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose scrapping out discouragement of px and also encouragement of upright. Change section into allowing either options, especially for horizontal images. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Given that we state, already "In general, do not use px without very good reason; upright=scaling factor is preferred wherever sensible." what is the proposed change needed? If editors are just being lazy with px vs upright, that's not really anything enforcable. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
What? We can't ignore WP:IUP and poorly enforce it. Perhaps move the section to either Help:Images or just mark the section as "historically inactive". --George Ho (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It is a MOS thing, not anything that is going to get WP in trouble like BLP or NFC. It is certainly something that during a GA/FA or similar review should be checked and changed, but enforcing MOS bluntly is never appropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You are an administrator. You shall be aware that WP:THUMBSIZE is part of WP:IUP policy, not a MOS guideline or a guideline like MOS. (Off-topic, I've contacted you about the other article.) --George Ho (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it is more linked to image MOS policies. And we never enforce any policy (save for things like BLP, NFC, and copyvio) with a heavy hand. Also keep in mind: "upright" is relatively new to the MediaWiki software, so we are also talking legacy issues with the parameters. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? MOS is tagged as a guideline, not a policy like WP:NOT. --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The point is that while we do ask editors to use upright over pixel size, it is not a requirement, it is a legacy issue due to the newness of "upright", and it's mostly a style thing that has very little direct impact on how WP functions for the most part. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:POLICY: Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. Or how about WP:PAG#Enforcement? --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • George Ho, you've really jumped the gun by issuing an RFC so quickly. Can you explain why you think px should be on an equal footing with upright? Do you not understand THUMBSIZE's explanation for why px is undesirable? EEng (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to enforce the policy's section; neither does Masem. If I do, I have to edit all thumbnails in all articles just to enforce it. You can argue NOTBUREAUCRACY, but the policy must be enforced. I can ignore it if the rule prevents me from improving a reader's viewership on images. --George Ho (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
This is crazy. You don't "have to" edit all thumbnails. Just change things from px to upright when the mood strikes you. If that's never, then leave it to others. We're not going to change the guideline/policy just to relieve your obsessive feelings. EEng (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
More than feelings and prevalence, what should be other reasons to change policy? --George Ho (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Again I have no idea what you're saying or asking. You've proposed a change based, apparently, only on your desire to not have to do something which we've explained you don't have to do anyway. I won't be responding further. Maybe others can understand you better than I. EEng (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine. I will just enforce the policy on 4.6 million article if that suits you. --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Wait, I misinterpret. I don't have to use "upright" as long as "px" is normally discouraged. I'm told that "thumb" does the job, but thumb varies by people's preferences, like 220px or 250px. --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
|thumb does vary by people's preferences, and that is exactly why a forced image size in px should not be used. For logged-out users (and those who have not altered their prefs), |thumb gives a width of 220px; |thumb|upright gives a width of 165px, that being 220 x 0.75 (n.b. not 0.7); and |thumb|upright=1.2 gives a width of 264px (220 x 1.2). But for some users, 220px images are too small, and so they set a larger size in their prefs - perhaps 300px. Doing this means that all images with |thumb are now 300px wide; all those with |thumb|upright are now 225px wide; and all those with |thumb|upright=1.2 are now 360px wide - but any image with a size that is explicitly given in px will not be altered, and may well be smaller than all the other images on the page. It's covered at MOS:IMAGES#Size and WP:IMGSIZE. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been using "px" for a long while without being aware of this policy (or "thumb" without "px"). I haven't liked using |upright= because characters are longer than |###px. Why is that? --George Ho (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know if AWB (or a bot that's editing articles anyway) could be set to remove the least helpful px-based image sizes? I don't see these very often any more, but the ones that are most annoying are the ones that hard-code the size to be exactly the default size. Perhaps if the default is 250 px, then we could remove any that set the size as 200 to 290 px (not 300 px, I think, because some lead images have been deliberately set to 300). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Some kind of debate[edit]

From my talk page: "I don't remember who told me to avoid an image size over 300px, because of how it show on small devices. (...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)" ... " (...) answer: better don't use fixed "px" at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)"

I disagree with Gerda Arendt on several levels:

  • "avoid an image size over 300px" is not what the guideline says;
  • "don't use fixed 'px' at all" is not what the guideline says;
  • The matter is currently under discussion: seen the simplifications some editors make of the guidance, I agree it would be better to discard ambiguous guidance that leads to incorrect oversimplification.
  • My view is that examples with music notes and text shouldn't be so small that it is impossible to read/understand them (unless when clicking away from the page where they are displayed...).
  • I have my doubts regarding "upright": what if someone updates an image to the same image in a higher resolution? Wouldn't that mess with intended page layouts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you, Francis, for placing my question here where I think it doesn't belong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Calm down, everyone.

  • Guideline says that lead images should usually not be over 300px (whether that's achieved with px or with upright -- in the case of upright, 300px would nominally be upright=1.4 or so).
  • Uploading a new version of an image has no effect on the displayed size of thumbnails, and that's true whether the thumbnail size is set using px or using upright.

EEng (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


Skeezix1000 removed this a couple of months ago, saying that it might benefit from some discussion:

Occasionally, gallery formatting is used to force multiple images to display in the correct section. This is most common if the article begins with an unusually long infobox that pushes all right-aligned images out of the section they are intended to illustrate. In this circumstance, a gallery may be considered if left-alignment is not sufficient to keep images in or near the relevant section.

I don't see any discussion, so let's talk about this.

The main point behind our gallery-related advice is this: "Don't cram a whole bunch of images into an article." The main point is not "Feel free to cram as many images in as you would like, so long as you can do that without using the <gallery> tag."

Let us assume that we are talking about an article that truly benefits from a relatively large number of images. An article that contains technical or scientific diagrams might be one such type; for example, most anatomy-related articles will have several. (We aren't talking about Baby or Bride, where more images probably means more spammy images.) The question is how to arrange those desirable images.

(NB that I reject the rather silly minority view that, even if everyone agrees that a good article on that subject would contain six images, you're not allowed to put all six of those images in unless and until you've written three screenfuls of text first.)

An article that (on a desktop system with a moderately large screen) has one screenful of text and infobox, followed by two screenfuls of a mostly-blank screen with images stringing vertically down the right margin suffers from bad layout. It does a disservice to readers by making less of the content immediately visible.

The same article, with the same text and the same infobox and the same images, is much better presented as text, infobox, and some images set horizontally across the screen, which, as a practical matter, means using a gallery tag.

This is especially important if, as this tag says, the images stringing down the page are likely to end up separated from their actual content. If you have an early ==section== in the article that compares and contrasts various artwork, then you really want those images to display directly in that section, which means not leaving their location to float around and to depend on how long the infobox turns out to be on someone's screen. If you need one image to appear in a section, then you might be able to set it |left (depending on whether the previous section also has a left-aligned image), but if you have multiple images that really ought to appear in a section, then you should use a gallery to make sure that this material is presented in the correct place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You were kind enough to ping me in your comments above, and then somehow I lost track of this discussion. So apologies for my delay in responding. I don't necessarily disagree, but using a gallery in the circumstances described above isn't necessarily open season to shoehorn images into the article that were being shoehorned in previously without a gallery. The section in question seems more like a helpful formatting tip that belongs more at Help:Gallery tag than here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Location included in captions of animal articles is unnecessary[edit]

I would like to raise the issue of including the location of animals in image captions when this is unnecessary. I disagree with simply adding the location for several reasons.

1) Understanding. The location does not add anything to a reader's understanding of the animal. The fact the animal is in that location is usually covered by a section of text on "Distribution" or similar.

2) Notability. The inclusion of the location implies there is something notable about the animals at that location. If this is the case, it should be stated in the caption, e.g. "...showing the darker pelage than normal"

3) Interest Some editor's have claimed the location adds interest, but reading "Animal x in back yard, California, USA" is not interesting in itself, unless why this location is interesting is stated in the caption. I have some extremely good photos of my domestic cats, but I doubt many editors would accept captions suach as "Domestic cat in bedroom, Bristol, UK", "Domestic cat in bathroom, Bristol, UK".

4) Necessary. Why is the location deemed to be necessary in a caption? There is much more information that could be included such as sex of the animal, age, season of year, etc. I know some of these details will be difficult to determine, expecially for wild animals, but why then is the location necessary? If it is necessary, then there shoould be a policy stating this. We then get into the arguement of which image should be included, based only on location.

5) Advertising. Stating the location might be considered as intentional or unintentional advertising, e.g. Zoos, Museums, Wildlife Parks. Again, there might be a good reason for including the location (perhaps it is a very rare species) but this should be justified in the caption.

All comments welcome.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To leave out the location like you did here [2] is just weird. There are two pictures of Antelopes in their native country, but nothing stating where. It was a couple of words, just a small caption. Obviously there was no problem with the length. I don't understand your hangup about this. Bhny (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You have just answered your own question. It is the fact that the animals are in their native country which makes the location suitable for the caption - but this is not stated in the caption leaving the reader uneducated about this. I suggest you edit the caption to reflect this__DrChrissy (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
So you are now saying that we should put more information in the caption? Obviously we put the location if the location is relevant (as it is in Antelope). If the location is irrelevant then sure, we leave it out. Also, obviously a caption should be small, so it is not going explain everything (that's why we have hyperlinks). Bhny (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DrChrissy. In general, unless there is some significant motivating factor, the location should be left off of the caption. The closest exception example I can think of where the location might be reasonable is when showing an animal in a different clime; but then again, the caption should include the clime, not necessarily the specific location. (One reason for this is that some animals express a differeing morphology in one clime but not in others. All of the rest of the data that doesn't "fit" the caption, should be on the image's own page. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This is pretty much the same discussion as at the article talk page. There are lots of images on wiki that have unnecessary detail in captions (not just animals, look at the celebrity articles...some seem to have a zillion "My selfie with famous person foo on specific m/d/y at location X" photos...sheesh...!). I suggest that first, we look at WP:NOTSCRAPBOOK to trim out images that aren't needed for the actual article, then ask "why is THIS image still in - i.e. "Photo of foo demonstrating anatomical feature X" doesn't need a location. "Photo of foo in its native habitat in place X" is suitable for a location tag. It's all just common sense. Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is this absurdly specific question being debated here? Discuss it on the talk pages of the articles in question. This is not something for the high-level image-use policy. EEng (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Bhny: I am not suggesting that captions automatically include more information to justify having the location in the caption. I am suggesting that editors think "Is the location relevant?", and if it is, indicate why it is relevant in the caption. Careful editing will result in succinct captions that may only be one or two words longer, but much more informative.
  • @EEng: I'm not sure what is a "high-level" policy page? Perhaps you would like to explain what other "lower-level" page this discussion should be on? There are dozens, probably hundreds of animal related pages which this policy would affect. It would be impossible to discuss this on seperate Talk pages. I have deliberately made the objections above, general, so that an overall policy can be agreed upon.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The captions appearing in particular articles should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles. In some cases locations will be appropriate, in some not. I don't see any need to have a Wikipedia-wide policy on captions for animal images, or for people-in-bathing-suit images, or for bridge images, or aircraft images, or any other specific kind of image. These kinds of issues are best discussed in the context in which they arise, by editors with a genuine interest in the article involved. EEng (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)