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.
Archive
Archives
  1. August 2002 – March 2003
  2. April 2003 – April 2003 (1)
  3. April 2003 – April 2003 (2)
  4. April 2003 – April 2003 (3)
  5. May 2003 – December 2003
  6. January 2004 – July 2004
  7. July 2004 – August 2006
  8. September 2006 – December 2006
  9. January 2007 – September 2007
  10. October 2007 – December 2007
  11. January 2008 – January 2009
  12. February 2009 –
  13. 2010 –


Wildcat Championship Belts[edit]

I've been having an image deletion discussion, and I'm a bit confused on some points. If someone's feeling explanatory, here's the situation (top two). Most importantly, what specific licence do I use to Wikiformally agree to our informal agreement? And, if there's no such licence to allow permission on the terms we agreed, could I upload them as Fair Use, without worrying about the extra restrictions that would seem unreasonable to apply, in light of the informal permission? Like "only if no lesser quality image would suffice" bits. Some of these images are fairly detailed, which was the reason I asked to use them. It would seem a bit pointless to have to scale them down or blur them up. And the bits about justifying how this won't hurt the owner's pocket are a moot point, right? So could I just upload a mostly blank fair use rationale, and make a note linking here? Same goes for the original work rationale, I'd hope.

Stefan2 is helping me understand, but an outside opinion or two would be appreciated. Here, not in the deletion discussion. I'm not canvassing. If those are deleted, that's OK. I'd just like to know how they could be used, without Wildcat totally signing away their rights. I'm sure they realize that Wikipedia is widely copied and pasted, printed and redistributed, and I assume they're fine with that. But on the offchance someone starts selling things with cropped belt pictures on them, and it takes off, they should reserve the right to stop it or ask for a cut, right?

Thanks for reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

The "Non-commercial use" archive sticky here answered a question or two (not sure how outdated it is after nine years, if at all), but still wondering about the fair use thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Artistic content[edit]

This change added a prohibition on artistic content by Wikipedians—I think—but I'm not really sure what the goal is.

User:Bluerasberry, can you tell me what you're after, maybe with a couple of examples? It feels a bit like "don't even try to use photos to illustrate abstract concepts or psychological issues" (e.g., grief or depression). Also, why here and not, say, at WP:PERTINENCE? If I'm on the right track, then the other page seems like it would be a more natural home. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I do not recall exactly why I put that here. I remember checking pertinence, or otherwise having some confusion about pertinence over something important to me. Anyway, the history of this addition is at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/Archive_14#Artistic_illustations. There is an example in the discussion linked in that thread, and so far as I know, the example there is the only case of restricting illustrative media in this way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
If it's only about a single image, then adding a rule about it is probably WP:CREEP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this gif within reasonable use?[edit]

This is similar to Prince's File:Prince logo.svg in use in lead sentence of Love Symbol Album, there's a A-like symbol used for "Ayu" on Japanese singer Ayumi Hamasaki's website http://avex.jp/ayu/index.php (actual text gif is http://www.avex.jp/upload/emoji/2.gif ). I'm wondering if it can be used at A Best 2 album in first sentence, like the Prince album. However the prince logo looks (?) as if a Wikipedia editor remade it (difficult to tell), wheras the "Ayu" symbol would be a straight lift from the artist's official website? Guidance please. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay to upload it in the absence of specific advice? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It is okay to use it once but I would state is as the secondary title or a second sentence to explain the symbol's use one time, and that's it. Note this is not like the Prince situation in that you actually have a way to spell out that symbol in roman characters ("ayu") whereas Prince, during that time, gave us nothing beyond "the artist formally known as Prince" , which we simply say "Prince" for simplity. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent large-scale edits[edit]

I have reverted all of the changes made today: it is a policy document, and I cannot find the discussion where these changes were agreed. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And I've put them back. These changes are intended to express the same ideas more clearly and effectively, such as this one [1] which simply reduced verbiage in saying the same thing; or this one [2] which removes the "rule of thumb" reminder to "use the image description page to describe an image and its copyright status", which is something like telling editors to "use the article page to write article text"; or this one [3] which explains that "if any image with the same title has already been uploaded, it will be replaced with your new one" -- a classic example of overloading the reader with information that is better given to him if and when he needs it (i.e. if he tries to upload an image with a filename already in use, the upload interface will tell him that).

It is apparent that you simply reflexively reverted without looking at the changes to see if they are improvements or not. If you don't have time to do that, let others do so. And if you do, build on them (by revising or reverting selected changes) instead of just throwing them away. EEng (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching EEng's edits and I have not found any that seem bad (save for removing the advice about "shocking" images, but that was resolved) and most of the rest just better wording of what was already there. I would recommend to Redrose that if there's anything that EEng changes specifically are bad, to spell those out to review. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright then. This one for instance, doesn't "simply reduced verbiage in saying the same thing" - it twists the fair-use policy, by removing the instruction not to use fair-use images outside of article space. Fair-use images are never permitted on on talk pages, whether also used in articles or not. This one might be stating the obvious, but we do get people who upload images with a completely blank image description page. If you are an admin, have a look at Special:Undelete/File:URB logo edited.png to see what has been in that particular image description page. The image was uploaded twice, both on 18 May 2014, both times without any description or licensing whatsoever. If you're not an admin, you'll just have to believe me when I say that it was totally blank (until I added a {{di-no source no license|date=18 May 2014}}). Finally: WP:TALKFIRST. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You're right about fair-use on talk pages. Good catch. Did you fix it?
  • I believe you that one editor seems to have managed to upload an image with an empty description page. How do you think he or she did that -- by somehow completely ignoring the upload wizard's instructions? Whatever way they managed that, do you think such a person will be reading this policy page and thereby corrected? How many other examples of this do you have?

    You see, we tend to always think of adding warning W or exception X, thinking of the nonzero increment of understanding that the reader will thereby be blessed with. But what's easy to overlook is that every additional word, whatever information it imparts, also reduces the ability of the rest of the document to impart its information, by dilution -- not to mention the inexorable ratcheting up of the probability that the reader will just quit reading because the document is too long. Every potential-to-be-added instruction needs to be evaluated in this way.

  • Anything else?
EEng (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't the only case of a blank file description page, it has happened several times. That was the most recent instance that I have come across; the first time that I found one was, IIRC, Special:Undelete/File:300px-Flag of the United Kingdom svg.png (14 April 2012), but I have certainly seen several others. Uploads don't necessarily occur through the File Upload Wizard, they might use Wikipedia:Upload/old. Uploads may also occur non-interactively, through the API; there may be a fourth route. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Looks like you didn't fix the point about fair-use images not being usable on talk pages, so I did that. If someone's uploading images via API without supplying image-page info, it's a mistake, not because they don't know image information should be supplied. EEng (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)