# Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

 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.

## What is the recommended way of referencing images inside the same article

Wikipedia articles mostly contain informative images. However, there seems to be no common-practise in referring to images inside the same article. A vast majority of scientific journals and books apply the technique of numbering images by preceding "Figure N:" to the caption. A later reference than uses a phrase like "as shown in Figure N".

LaTeX (another markup language for typesetting) makes this kind of referencing and labeling very easy by using keywords like \label{name} and \ref{name} to reference an image without the need of manually numbering it.

To my knowledge, a system like this does not exist in Wikipedia. This leads to most images not being mentioned in the text, so readers have to use a lot of context to interprete the figures. Referencing a figure at the beginning of an article at a section far towards the end is very clumsy. Users would have to write something like: "cf. the second picture from the top in section X".

So to sum it up and since I did not find it anywhere in the style guides or the FAQ: What is the recommended practise here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethur2 (talkcontribs) 14:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sethur2,
The answer is that we don't have a perfect solution. Don't use "on the right" or other positional things, because images display in different places on different screen sizes/font sizes. "Figure N" is sometimes used, and it might be the best one. However, it doesn't help you find the image on the screen (without using Command+F). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Assuming images are numbered top to bottom (maybe with some left-right scattering woven in) then having them labeled "Fig. 1", "Fig. 2" etc. certainly helps the reader locate them easily, without needing a text search. EEng (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Just as a note, additional anchors in form of {{Anchor}} templates placed inside image captions could be used to make clickable "figure N" links, though I've never seen that used in articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

## Image Rights

Is there a way to give wikipedia, and wikipedia exclusively the rights to use an image? FrozenMan (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No, WP doesn't accept material on this basis. See WP:IUP#Copyright_and_licensing: "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable." EEng (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
We should really start accepting CC BY SA NC. But yes this is another discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

## Clarification needed regarding WP:WATERMARK

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 "MapShop.com" 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)
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">

to
<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

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)