Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

Archives
August 2002 – March 2003 April 2003 – April 2003 (1) April 2003 – April 2003 (2) April 2003 – April 2003 (3) May 2003 – December 2003 January 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – August 2006
Noncommercial-use Discussion of image sizes Specific image-related copyright issues
Sound help Image markup

Displayed image size

I have amended the first sentence, as there was a contradiction here. It recommended using the "thumb" option for setting image size, and then said that if it is done manually it should be 200-250 pixels. This is not a manual equivalent to the thumb setting and is not recommended as it will then prevent preference image default settings from working (as is stated in the following paragraph). Tyrenius 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"You cannot legally edit Fair Use images."

I'm not sure about this recent addition. I'm fairly sure it's perfectly ok to at least crop, color ajust and otherwise enhance fair use images without any kind of legal problem as long as it's done within the fair use factors. I'm all for simplicity, but simply saying "it's illegal to edit fair use images" seems to be a bit too blanket a statement. Next thing you know people start running around deleting cropped rezised screenshots in favour of full sized ones because the smaller ones where edited... --Sherool (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly fine to crop them, at least; in fact, cropping them should be encouraged, as the less of the copyrighted work we use, the better. Cropping an image to show only the relevant part, instead of using the entire copyrighted image, is equivalent to using a quotation from a novel instead of an entire paragraph. —Bkell (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Identifiable individuals in explicit photos

I added the second sentence (in italics for clarity below) but it was deleted on the basis "This is far from accepted, how proof is to be determined is not even agreed one, we cannot reqwuire something till clear policy is in place".

Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article. Permission proof is required if identifiable individuals are shown in such pictures

The Publicgirluk debate has already demonstrated that such proof is mandatory. Her pictures were "approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article", but this turned out to be not enough. It is therefore misleading to leave this without the second sentence, and risks someone else being pilloried for doing the same thing in the future.

Tyrenius 19:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but no policy is in place to explain what is required. As it stands, a policy is being considered that requires identifiable models to identify themselves. But this is not policy yet, for reasons including not yet having a standard procedure for identifing models. HighInBC 21:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Publicgirluk was banned indefinitely as a troll because she chose not to provide proof of identification (but preferred to ask for the withdrawal of the images), so I think it is policy already. The fact of not having a set procedure for proving identity is a secondary issue. People uploading images need to have a clear warning about this. Tyrenius 01:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Did Jimbo respond to those queries? As far as I know he called her a troll but never explained why. As for as I can tell she was banned without consensus, I don't see how this automatically becomes policy. Jimbo never really made his opinion on the specifics clear. HighInBC 03:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's basically the situation, but policy follows practice and that is what the practice was. I think it was not challenged because there was a general assumption that Jimbo was making a command, but he has since communicated he was not, although by then it was a bit too late in the day. The fact remains that users uploading such images are clearly putting themselves in danger — from wikipedia. Tyrenius 00:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I saw happen: Jimbo calls her a troll, another admin bans her claiming that this statement by Jimbo is enough. Jimbo refused to elaborate. The action of the admin to ban her, which has his decision as Jimbo made no such order, was against consensus.

If anything this is precedent that trolling is grounds for banning. Many attempts were made to get Jimbo to dicuss his reasoning for calling her a troll, but he made no response. It was challenged, it was not a command but a comment. HighInBC 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that's what I'd just said. :) Tyrenius 03:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Modifying tags and Implied commercial activity?

Wile editing pages I have come along the following modifications/custom wording added to image pages:

Image:Telescope and night sky.jpg

Aka

According to one user many photographers are using this modified language on the image pages for photographs they have uploaded. The part I have a question about is the wording:

If you want a license with the conditions of your choice, please email me to negotiate terms.

and

If you are a (commercial) publisher and you want me to write you an email or paper mail giving you an authorization to use my works in your products or a license with the terms of your choice, please [email me] to negotiate terms.

I am not sure what these contributors mean in this language. It seems to me they could be offering to sell the rights to their image (a commercial transaction that I assume violates Wikipedia policy re: no advertising.... since the uploaded image becomes one big fat ad for the photographer in question). They could also be offering to give the "commercial" users in question a more usable free license than GFDL... and I am simply miss reading their intent.

I am bringing this up as something that hits me as odd... maybe it is just a question of wording --- unclear language that needs to be re-worded. Maybe it has already been discussed and a consensus decision has been reached... if so could someone link me to that decision? Halfblue 18:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't consider the following legal advice (IANAL), but I'm fairly sure it's accurate. As long as the image we host is available under a free license (that include commercial use, modifications etc) there is nothing wrong with the photographer saying he offer other non-free images or higher resolution versions for sale. There is absolutely no legal problem with offering one version of an image under the GFDL and then saying that those who do not wish to be "burdened" by the GFDL requirements can buy or otherwise negotiate an alternative license for the image (or a high-res copy thereof).

Wether or not we want to allow photographers to "advertise" the fact that not all theyr photos are available under a free license, or that they are open to negotiating alternative licensing schemes is a different matter seperate from the copyright issues. However I for one don't have any problems with it (as long as the images are not watermarked, and the articles don't get spammed with offers by the photographer and such). It simply creates an incentive for professionals (and amatures alike) to donate at least some free licensed works to us (and just to be clear, even if an uploader agree to allow a company to print postcards with theyr image on it without attaching the full GFDL text in exchange for a monetary compensation that will in no way affect the GFDL status of the copy of the image we host (even if they buy the copyright outright I think the GFDL is "non-revokable" once given anyway)). --Sherool (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Image*After free enough?

Image*After.com terms of use states:

• WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH IMAGE*AFTER IMAGES AND TEXTURES?

you CAN modify our images and textures in any way you see fit

you CAN use our images and textures in your own work, wether it be for personal or commercial use

you CAN redistribtue or sell our images and textures ALTERED OR UNALTERED as part of printed work (e.g. posters, cd-covers, postcards etc)

• WHAT CAN'T YOU DO WITH IMAGE*AFTER IMAGES AND TEXTURES?

you CANNOT REDISTRIBUTE our images and textures as part of an online resource site like our own, i.e. use them to directly compete with us.

Is that free enough for Wikipedia? -Nv8200p talk 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No. To be compatable with wikipedia the image needs to be free of any distribution restriction, including commercial use. HighInBC 04:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And including something as vague and legally indistinct as "direct competition". --Fastfission 23:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Do screenshots need additional source information?

Per User talk:Shannernanner#Copyright status of Image:Gabriel damon pd.jpg, is there a need to further identify the source of screenshots beyond tagging them as screenshots? It seems to me that tagging something as a film screenshot and identifying the film does identify the source. Should we be tagging images clearly identified as screenshots as "no source" (and potentially deleting them)? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

our policy says "The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from", unless there is evidence of editing by the maker of the screenshot then the only copyright holder we should have to worry about is the studio that made the movie and they are already well identified. Plugwash 19:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless the screenshot identify what it is a screenshot of (as in what movie, game, tv-show etc) then I'd say yes, "no source" is entierly apropriate. They are usualy easy to identify based on the articles they are used in, but they should still mention it on the actual image page, I rely don't think that's asking too much, and it will keep the images from getting picked up by bots sniffing for unsourced images as well. --Sherool (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you would have no problem with Image:Gabriel damon pd.jpg? I'm trying to figure out whether user:Shannernanner is being a little overzealous or if I'm not understanding something about our policy. The uploader of this particular image is not around (at the moment) to comment on this. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this one in particular is being challenged because it doesn't actually look like a screenshot at all. It looks like a promotional photograph or an on-set photo. --Fastfission 23:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The original issue was source. Given the attention on this particular image, there's a reasonable question about whether this image actually is a screenshot. Regardless of this particular image, I'd still like us to clarify the general question of whether we should be treating images identified as screenshots as "sourceless" (and, hence, speediable after 7 days). My opinion on this is "no", but I think there may be other opinions about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not support a blanket policy of saying that anything tagged wtih a screenshot tag does not require a source. Sure your average Simpsons screenshot is easy enough to identify for most people, but what about that cropped tv-screenshot of some obscure Burmese politician? How "self sourced" would you say that is? I agree that admins should spend a couple of seconds trying to identify the source based on article(s) an image was used in and such. Many are obvious/easy, but rely it is the responsibility of the uploader to spesify where his images came from, the upload page is very clear on this. Besides the more info we have on each image the better. Saying that "anyting tagged with 'screenshot' does not require any source info" would be a very very bad idea. Though maybe mentioning that identifying the show, movie, programme or game the screenshot is from is generaly enough might be a good idea, just to keep the most over-zealous "no source hunters" from getting carried away. Pretty much the same goes for logos and the variuos cover art tags. There rely is no reason not to add source info to such images though, sourcing all images is required by policy, and people who neglect it should be given a gentle poke, rather than an exception to policy to cater to theyr lazynes (though I'm not saying we should nessesarily delete such images with predudice if they are easy to fix). --Sherool (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. Let's go through some hypothetical examples:

1. a recently uploaded image labeled as a screenshot, clearly identifying the TV show or movie
2. an image uploaded some time ago (>6 months), clearly identifying the TV show or movie
3. a recently uploaded image labeled as a screenshot with nothing about what TV show or movie it came from
4. an image uploaded some time ago (arbitrarily, > 6 months) identified as a screenshot not identifying the TV show or movie

It seems to me cases 1 and 2 identify the source, whether or not the words "I created this screenshot from the following <broadcast, DVD, whatever> on <date>" are included. In case 3, the uploader is presumably available to contact and should be aware of current rules and their enforcement policies. The case that really troubles me is case 4. As far as I know the rules have always been "identify the source", however we've stepped up enforcement in the not too distant past which I contend has effectively changed the rules. The folks who uploaded images some time ago and simply labeled them as screenshots were probably acting in good faith, and were complying with the rules as they were enforced at the time. Slapping a "no source" tag on these, waiting 7 days, and speedying them seems a tad bit rude, especially given that most contributors are not contributors for life so there's a good chance the original uploader won't even notice a message posted on their talk page requesting source information. I'm not sure it's worth annotating the rules about this, but it seems more consistent with WP:AGF to make an effort in these cases to verify the image really is a screenshot and annotate the image description page than to tag them as "no source".

So, yes the policy is identify the source. However, saying something is a screenshot and identifying what it is a screenshot of does identify the source (right? - and if so, how about if we state this on the policy page). Uploading a screenshot and not identifying its source (I mean, not identifying what it is a screenshot of) in today's enforcement climate should lead to a "no source" tag and a warning to the uploader. However, I'd prefer if we treated images uploaded some time ago more gently, and before tagging them as "no source" tried to verify what they're a screenshot of. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify a bit, I think you may be confusing "description" with "source." If you use Template:Information for uploading an image, as listed on Wikipedia:Uploading images#Mini HowTo, "Description" is "What can you see/hear?", i.e., the television show/episode. "Source" is "self-made or URL," i.e., where you got it from. This is clarified also on the main upload file page; the first required item listed is:

"The source of the file.

• If you made it yourself, say so.
• If the file is available online, include a link. [emphasis in original]"

Hope that helps. Shannernanner 07:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not confusing description with source. Template:Information was created in October of 2005. Certainly no image uploaded before then would be expected to use it. The upload instructions from that time were this version of MediaWiki:Uploadtext, which told users to include source information in the description field but did not request users to identify self-made images (only the URL an image came from if it came from elsewhere). I think it might be reasonable to assume a description entered before October 2005 that says "this is a screenshot of XYZ" (not including a URL) should be interpreted to mean the image was self-made. My point is that just because the description does not include a tidy little "source: blarg" line does not mean the source is not identified. Tagging images uploaded before about Jan 2006 as "no source" and giving the uploader (who may not even be an active user anymore) 7 days to respond before the image is zapped seems like a gross violation of WP:AGF. -- Rick Block (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Providing a link to where a screenshot was found online is wholly irelevant and useless as a source. We need to know what movie, show, game a screenshot was taken from, not that you found it on some random website that likely have no connection to the copyright holder. Something like "Screenshot from The Simpsons" is IMHO an "adequate" source (while something like "Screenshot from The Simpsons episode Homer: Bad Man Production code: 2F06, copyright Fox Network 1994" would be near perfect). I do not agree that simply saying "screenshot" qualify as a source by any stretch of the word though. However I do agree that any screenshot where at least an adequate source can be identifyed simply by looking at the article it's used in should not be deleted as unsourced (leaving aside the question on wether or not it's used in acordance with our fair use criterea for the moment), but have the source info explicitly added instead. If you can not identify the source however, I do think it should still be deleted as unsourced, screenshot or not. --Sherool (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but I think Shannernanner is saying "Screenshot from The Simpsons" (or "Screenshot from The Simpsons episode Homer: Bad Man Production code: 2F06, copyright Fox Network 1994") is not sufficient if it does not also include "self made" or "obtained from http://screenshotsrus.org/whatever" (and would tag an image with such a description as "unsourced", wait 7 days, and get it deleted). I think I'm in complete agreement with Sherool, with the proviso that we should try to identify images identified as simply "screenshot" if the user who uploaded the image is no longer active (rather than delete after tagging as "no source" and waiting 7 days). If we can't identify the source (in the Sherool sense), then we have no choice but to delete. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not instigating any kind of plot against certain images. The current policy, as it reads, requires a source, even if you don't "find it necessary" for copyright status. If you would like to change it to read "Please state your source unless the source is irrelevant to copyright," then you may propose such, but I'm guessing there are precedents for the guideline. Shannernanner 15:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes source is required, but if I take a screenshot from a tv-series them I'm not the source, the series is. Knowing who pressed the "print screen" button is next to irrelevant in this case since the copyright belong with the producer, and the point of the source is to make it possible for others to verify the copyright status. So what we need to know is what show it was and who made it, usualy linking to the show's article will answer those questions, though it is naturaly always better to spell it out plainly. So saying "screenshot from [whatever]" is a source declaration. Description would be more like "Homer spilling beer all over the controlls at the nuclear power plant" (to stick with the Simpsons examples). --Sherool (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sherool. If a screenshot is taken from an unofficial website, that website has no claim of ownwership (I usually cite them out of courtesy). However, it would have tekn very little creative effort and time to capture, and probably zero expense. The source is the text, as accurate as possible, with a dsecription of its contents... linking back to the artcles would be good. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of identifying the source is for investigation of potential copyright problems. For screenshots, the relevant source is the broadcaster or production company. The particular person who made the screencap or the web site it came from is not really relevant, just as the copyright to a Robert Frost poem belongs to the Frost estate no matter whether I found it on a web site or typed it in myself. Provided the screenshot identifies the TV program in the upload summary with show name, episode title or air date, and network, that should be sufficient source information (i.e. "This is a screenshot from Lost epidose "Down the Hatch" broadcast on ABC). Just an opinion. Thatcher131 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the Thatcher131, I also think this extends to magazine/book/video cover scans. Could someone enlighten me over why I should credit Amazon when they have nothing at all to do with the copyright holder? We literally have thousands of outgoing links to Amazon on DVD, game and book covers, that's a handy piece of advertising. For example, look at Image:Brokensword2screen1.jpg. The copyright holder is Revolution Software, the source is Broken Sword 2, why are we crediting the print-screen guy? Take a look at Image:ZeldaMMbox.jpg, the copyright holder here is Nintendo, the source is Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. Why is an editor worried over who scanned the thing? Surely, the box art can be verfied by anyone else with a copy of the game. - Hahnchen 23:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal related to above discussion

I think the consensus is that source for screenshots means source the screenshot is taken from (i.e. what the screenshot is of) rather than source of the screenshot file (e.g. self-made or from URL xyz). I suggest we clarify this in the policy page. Specifically, under "Rules of thumb" #2, add For screenshots, identify the original the screenshot is taken from. and under "Adding images" add an example of a fair-use screenshot with a description accurately identifying what it is a screenshot of. If there are no objections by Monday, I'll make this change. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made this change, using Image:TB-Patricia-Fearing.jpg as an "exemplary" screenshot. If anyone can find a better one, feel free to update the example. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Even though we strictly speaking don't demand fair use rationales from screenshots (yet anyway) I think it would ge good to pick an image that actualy has one if we are going to hold up an "exemplary" image as an example. Like Image:Leia Organa Ep5 DVD.jpg or Image:Scooby-gang-1969.jpg (aside from the fact that it's used in a bunch of other articles with no rationale too) or whatever. --Sherool (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Image source is a password protected access website

This may have been asked before, but... . I've recently run into some images whose source info are urls to password protected sites. Some of these sites simply require a free registration, others have a free registration but subject to site's approval, and others are even paid sites. I'm concerned on how it is possible to verify the source info in each of theses cases. Are password protected websites acceptable as images sources? Thanks in advance, --Abu Badali 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Just like a book that not everybody owns is an acceptable source, or a journal that only exists in a few libraries. Providing a source doesn't require that access to the source be effortless for everybody any time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

PNG format for maps

Is it acceptable to generate map images (using curved lines and colour blocks) in PNG, rather than SVG? I have access to drawing software but it doesn't output as SVG. Would such PNG images compromise later promotion of the articles in which they were used to Good/FA ? Espresso Addict 12:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I very much doubht it, if you can'd output SVG a PNG image is leaps and bounds better than no map. Effort should be made to use the "prefeered" formats, but I very much doubht it would affect the status of the article they are used it as long as the map itself is good. Someone might convert it to - or base a SVG map on it at a later time. --Sherool (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and use PNG for maps, I prefer maps to be in PNG anyways due to the sheer size maps are (and SVG maps can make things a lot harder). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sherool & Zscout370, that's useful to know before I start tracing... Espresso Addict 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What to do when photographer recently deceased

I want to upload some photographs of a few bands that were taken by Dixon Coulbourn (see this site). However, he passed away last year, so what kind of permission would I need to get to upload these files? I already e-mailed the person who runs the site (Ryan Richardson) and he says it's cool as long as we credit Dixon and the site, so is that sufficient enough? Paulcleveland 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Coulbourn's inheritors presumably own the copyright to his work. They would need to confirm that the images can be modified and used commercially. Otherwise a Wikipedia:Fair use claim would need to be made. Jkelly 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What kind of fair use tag would I have to use without a confirmation from Coulbourn's inheritors? I haven't uploaded any photographs (besides album covers) so I'm unfamiliar with how to properly tag. Paulcleveland 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot of open-source software

Can someone adivse as to the accetpability of using screenshots of open source software taken from the developer's website? See links & discussion here User_talk:Ocarbone#Image_copyrights. The uploader believes that since it is open-source, the screenshots are in the public domain, and I don't know if that's true. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

IANAL but I would assume that a screenshot would be a derivative work. Some free software licenses explicitely define what kind of licency applies to derivative works (e.g. the same as the one under which the software was published). There is also the issue that while the software may in some case be free, the screenshot may depict the software editing data, which in turn may or may not be freely available. Shinobu 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

An SVG file containing encoded pixel image data

Sorry for the header that may have sounded like jibberish. It makes sense, to me atleast.

I found this image, Image:MISTEEQ.svg, it is an SVG which is a text format that allows you to give mathematical shapes describing an image. The expected result from a SVG file is a small file that describes how to create an image at any resolution.

All well and good. But this image that uses an SVG feature I did not know about(In the image tag: xlink:href="data:;base64,...) that allows you to embed a pixel based image(an image where every pixel is given a color as opposed to a vectored image) into an SVG file.

This is a waste of resources, SVG stands for Scalable vector graphic. If it contains only an imbedded pixel based image then there is no point in it being a SVG.

So, for those of you who all that made sense too, thank you, and what I want to know is, what method can I use to replace this image with a lossless convertion to an appropriate format, and is there a template to label such images.

Sorry for the message that may have sounded like jibberish. HighInBC 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Image allowed by copyright holder

Fine, I am giving up [almost] of getting an answer to this problem. Where do I go for full guidance. I have one particular image, that is copyrighted, and [mirabile dictum] the copyrignt holder has given me full use on Wikipedia as long as the image is ta a website, not publishable, resolution, and has attached to the e-mail to me such a version. But, there used to be a tag, release by 'x', for a Wikipedian to upload. I can't find this, and it seems to me to be very subject to misuse, so I feel it is not a good way to go even if I could find the tag. But what must I do? Send the e-mail from the copyright holder to Wiki? ask them to directly contact Wiki? Help and understanding is urgently needed. I have the subject image, and at least two more in the same category. And multiple posts in user talk in several places and on discussion on several sites have taken me absolutely nowhere in my quest for a final answer. --Dumarest 16:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't accept "Wikipedia-only" images, any more than we would accept "Wikipedia-only" text. They're not free content. Low resolution versions that can be used commercially and allow derivatives are absolutely fine, but we need a specific license (GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, etc.). Once we have that, you would add the license template to the image description page. Note that the email indicating the license release should go to permissions AT wikimedia.org, not to you. I hope that this clears everything up. Jkelly 16:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, that is what I sort of thought. The permission is full, except that the image I upload must be the low resolution item [with the copyrigtt holder identified so that if a full resolution version is wanted, the 'owner' can be contacted. But I gather the e-mail MUST be from the copyright holder to Wiki, not fron copyrignt holder to me and I forward it to Wiki. --Dumarest 16:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Need Help with image licenses

Hi, I would like to use some images of infrastructure in Mumbai and Delhi and have found some pics of the Mumbai-Pune Expressway and the AIIMS Flyover in New Delhi.However, I am unsure of the licenses and would like some help in figuring out if it is allowed for me to upload them to wikipedia. The image url's are below:

1. [1] Tribune India (News Source)
2. [2] Image Shack
3. [3] Image Shack
4. [4] Businessworld India (News Source)

This appears to be the rules page of imageshack.us (where other users upload images):

http://reg.imageshack.us/content.php?page=rules

I find it a bit confusing and was wondering if somebody could explain the rules more clearly so that we could figure out if they are compatible with wikipedia policy of image copyrights or not?

Also, are google earth captures allowed on wikipedia? Thanks.Hkelkar 02:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Scanning

Many public domain historical images are scanned from printed copies. The guideline has been updated to tell editors to say if they scanned the image. Rjensen 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Digital camera

I took some pictures on my digital camera for an article and uploaded them to my computer. Can I use them? User:Kochdude388 18:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Pick a free license from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Free_licenses that applies to your picture, or release it into the public domain using Template:PD-self. I like to use Template:cc-by-sa-2.5 for my pictures. -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 22:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion needed

I would like it if someone could take a look at The Psalters. There was an uncropped 500 x 647 px image (with a caption, but no frame so the caption didn't show) taking up this big blob in the article. The page format looked terrible when I resized my window down to 800 x 600. So I added the thumb parameter to get the caption to show, and to allow the user to adjust the thumbnail size per preferance. I was reverted. I have a history of conflict with this particular user, and would like an objective third opinion to please review the image and see if anything needs to be resized. The reason I was reverted was big fat picture looks more awesome in such a small article IMO :) Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 04:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the discussion page on that article has yet to be used. Before seeking help in a disupute from other editors, perhaps you should try to discuss the matter on the talk page.

Regardless I have resized the image to a reasonable size and if the other editor disagrees I will attempt to discuss this on the talk page. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am just scared of conflict. I cared enough about this issue to come here, but not enough to do anything myself. Like I said, because of the history between me and the editor, I felt like it would be better if someone else got involved, if that was even necessary (I wasn't even sure of my position). Thanks for your involvement.--Andrew c 05:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I see, no worries. I know it is a real distraction when when someone does that kind of thing. I will watch that page for a while. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Forced image size

From MediaWiki 1.5 the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so it is recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences).

This policy document contains a reference to the use (or non-use) of forced image sizes when using the "thumb" option. I have seen this come up a number of times recently, most recently in a discussion between User:Van helsing, User:Will Beback, and User:El C. If this is a policy, it needs to be followed. Specifically, people should not be reverting changes that remove the "px" settings from thumbs where it is not done for a specific purpose (e.g. the panoramic image at Los Angeles, California).

If this policy is going to change, it should be discussed. I tried to find the discussion of that section's introduction to this document, but was not able to. Perhaps it wasn't discussed before being added, which makes it a little more tenuous. In any case, the document should not be changed to say that you should force image sizes without a discussion.

Personally, I think that the policy is correct. Forcing image sizes leads to inconsistency of style across multiple articles and forces dial-up users to choke down larger images than necessary. Mike Dillon 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposal was added without discussion here. Needless to say, it is not followed anywhere and for good reason, since the vast majority of our readership are not logged-in. It simply appears not to have been widely noticed, or we'd have seen it being followed by now. El_C 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that this would be better in the MOS than as policy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an example of page that a non-logged-in user will have a problem with if image size isn't specified? It seems there is a default "preference" for users not logged in. *Spark* 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because this July 2006 addition was unnoticed, does not mean that long-standing practices needs to be changed —through the back door— without gaining the consensus for a proposal of such potential implications. Thx. El_C 17:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not pertinent as I presume most readers simply read the articles, per se. (without touching the prefernces, if applicable) El_C 17:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It is pertinent, as if there is a default preference already set for the anon user, you reason for specifying a size (since anons have no "preference") goes away. If you don't have an example where lack of setting a size leads to a problem with the display, then the reason for your change becomes irrelevant. *Spark* 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

At any case, the default preference set for anons appears to still be no preference. El_C 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You want a "customer" actually complaining before you think how to serve him/here best? Please don’t go in sales. --Van helsing 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What a useful comment. What I'm saying is the software already has defaults in place to handle the anon user. I don't consider forcing image sizes serving the customer best. *Spark* 18:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide an example of what these defaults are? El_C 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You can check it yourself. Log in with your account and preferences, and start another browser as anon. Anon seems to default to 180px for thumbnails. *Spark* 19:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks the same. El_C 23:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking at, but it is possible that your browser is caching the logged-in version. Mike Dillon 23:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I anticipated that; I picked articles that were not cached. El_C 23:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

<bewildered looking> ...the software already has defaults in place to handle the anon user...</bewildered looking>. I think you don’t get the point. There are some of us editors/people who think they can do it better than a default setting. --Van helsing 18:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind we're still talking thumbnails here. If I've set my thumbnail prefs, and you decide to override them, you're deliberately ignoring my preferences. Bad idea. Now, if the preference was "use my preferred size always" (which, AFAIK, it isn't now, it allows the size to be overridden), I wouldn't have a problem with forced sizes. That's more of a technical question than a style one. *Spark* 19:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not policy. This is a recommendation in a policy page, a suggestion not a rule. Even stating an escape that you don’t have to apply it when you think the image requires another size! If there shouldn’t be suggestions in a policy page, then get rid of it. If you interpreted it as a rule to be followed, see how it came in there, and why it shouldn’t be compulsory. --Van helsing 18:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether that passage is included in a policy page or a guideline, support for the notion needs to be backed up by consensus (not slipped through the back door, with few editors noticing), as it is likely to be interpreted in ways which effectively disrupt the project. El_C 18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your change didn't happen unnoticed, what makes you think the one in July 06 went unnoticed? Perhaps it wasn't reverted because people agreed with it. I don't see any consensus supporting your change, which means the wording should stay as it was before you changed it - if, and until, you can get consensus for your change. *Spark* 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It went largely unoticed; no one attempted to enforce it as policy until a few days ago. El_C 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If people agreed with it, as you perhaps claim, we'd have seen widespread usage applied much earlier than a few days ago. El_C 19:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's going to be interpreted as a "rule"! Just as all suggestions for infoboxes immediately become "rules" in so many people's minds, and disruptive steamrolling of article design follows. Here's an example of a user currently in the process of implementing across many articles what are to him "the rules" against forcing image size, rules which there's no need to discuss:

"Someone reverted my slightly bold application of the wikipedia manual of style to thumbnail images, with the comment that it wasn't discussed. I'm a bit surprised by this, as I wouldn't have guessed discussion was warranted to follow the rules. [My italics] The reverter's summary indicates my edit makes most of the images too tiny to be discerned at a normal screen resolution. Well, yes: a thumbnail isn't meant to show detail. One is supposed to click on the thumbnail to see it at higher resolution. Also, it could be that your thumbnail size setting is too small."

Apparently we're now expecting our readers to be logged in, and to fiddle with their personal settings, before they read our articles. This is what happens with policy suggestions, honestly. They get enforced, as El C saysBishonen | talk 18:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

I use thumbnail if I don't need it a specific size. I often use a specific size to make it flow with the text, other images, and infoboxes in a better fashion. I don't see the need for a policy on this, it should be left to the consensus of the editors. It seems to be a solution waiting for a problem. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Then out with it. -Van helsing 19:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would be my instinct too, lets wait a bit and see what the consensus is though. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No objection, either way. I only object to the original. El_C 19:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So what is wrong with inconsistency? If there is an issue with a printed version of Wikipedia, then that is a matter for the version to solve, as it will already have to deal with innumerable issues of tables and page forms and mixed fonts. Wikipedia articles are not all about the same thing, and image size is the author's preference to help readers. One simply doesn't need a large picture of Einstein, when one might need a very large image of a map. An artwork with detail discussed in the text should be large, while a photo of "city X today, 700 years later" will be merely ornamental. Authors know what the images are for, and guidelines don't. Maximum information is the goal, not consistency. The imagined versions of this or that are irrelevant, and the potential settings used by a minority are irrelevant. "Consistency" has never been a Wikipedia goal, nor a possibility, so long as it remains a peer edited encyclopedia. Geogre 19:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. A monolithic approach to image sizes works against the particular needs/quality of articles. El_C 19:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple points:

1. If you are not logged in or haven't customized, the size is 180 pixels.
2. If you specify a fixed "px" size, it overrides user preferences for thumbnails when they have been customized.

Also, as I mentioned, and the now re-reverted text on this page used to say, sizes should be used when it matters. The problem is that people use the size because they have some vague notion that all images in an article are "too small". The size thing is a problem no matter which way you cut it, since people have different screen sizes, browser widths, and font DPIs on the one hand (making fixed sizes a problem), and the ability to customize thumbnail size means that editors are making aesthetic judgements about their own setup that don't necessarily translate to other people's setups (making the lack of a fixed size a problem). I really think that the big images detract from the articles when viewed at 800x600 or 1024x768 (the latter of which is the "most common" size, the former of which is still around on many, many crappy computers in public libraries, grandmas' houses, etc).

As I said before, I personally think that the software-level default of 180px should be allowed to work and those who know/care can get an account and customize the setting to their liking. If the default of 180px is determined by concensus to be too small, we should ask the Wikimedia foundation to change the server setting. None of this obviously applies to cases where an image needs to be a minimum size to serve its purpose in the article. Mike Dillon 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Some guide is needed, but I don't think a policy place is the place, mabye the manual of style would be a better location? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. I especially feel such a style guideline should be clear about when forced image sizes should be used so that it isn't done on the individual editor's whim. Mike Dillon 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Gee Spark, we are still talking about this, perhaps you can stop reverting until we come to a conclusion? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The text as it stood was not only in dispute, it was flat out wrong (it wasn't a quote of the WikiMedia 1.5 text). I did one revert on each, to what it was before the changes were made, which as it should be until settled. *Spark* 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, good point. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The user's default thumbnail size should be respected, and not overridden with arbitrary sizes that happen to look good on your screen. Not everyone has your screen or resolution. The default size for anons is set to the smallest to save on bandwidth for both us and them, and look good even on low-res screens. If they have a higher-res screen and want to view larger thumbs (like me), they can get an account and set it in their preferences.

As for the "edit without discussion", there's nothing wrong with editing policies or guidelines without discussion if it's not a controversial change. I made the change to Extended image syntax on January 27, 2006 copying from meta, as per Patrick on June 16, 2005 and here. I haven't seen any complaints until 1 1/2 years later. I don't know why anyone would oppose this, anyway... — Omegatron 21:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If they have a higher-res screen and want to view larger thumbs (like me), they can get an account and set it in their preferences. That's a real stretch. Among the readers (not editors) of our encyclopedia, I wager upwards of 99% of them are anonymous and upward of 99% of those have no interest (nor should they, really) in creating an account. Nor would it be even vaguely apparent to the typical reader that this is something they could control if only they got an account and signed in every time they wanted to read something. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

For clarity, I asked Patrick what his intentions where back then on meta, suggestion or obligatory. --Van helsing 21:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also invited a few editors who have been involved in this issue recently to the discussion.

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to this changing from a "policy" to a "guideline"; what I'm opposed to is the policy being changed from saying that that people shouldn't specify image sizes for thumbs unless necessary to saying that they always should specify image sizes. If the default size is really a problem, it should be changed in the Mediawiki software settings, not overridden in every article on a per-image basis. Mike Dillon 21:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The text on Meta is a suggestion, every wiki can have its own policies and guidelines. I am in favor of adopting the suggestion as a guideline; if 180px is too small as default, that should be increased in the software.--Patrick 23:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. — Omegatron 04:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the people involved in the original reverts a few days ago. I took, uploaded and forced the size on the image in question on the K&N Air Filter article. I believe that a contributor/author should be allowed (but not required) to force an image size to allow viewers to see better detail on a detail image. I looked at the image before reversion at its default 180px thumbnail size and thought that it is way too small on a 1024 x 768 resolution. I deliberately keep my preferences at the default setting so that I can see what an anon user will see.

I strongly believe that someone should not be able sneak in the back door to create ANY policy or guideline without discussion. The responsibility for making changes needs to be taken by the community, not by individuals. Even if everyone gives it a rubber stamp.

A huge topic that hasn't been discussed yet is that many images have been cropped from their original dimensions. Uncropped images at 200px often look significantly different than cropped 200px images with their left and right sides cropped off. Contributors need to be able to be able to control how the images display to control this effect. I won't be here for the next day, so don't expect a response from me until then. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 22:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I hid the passage/section to avoid any revert wars in articles. El_C 23:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for a revert war. As stated above, the text belongs as it was before you started changing it. You've changed it again by removing it. Please put it back as it was. Thanks. *Spark* 00:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly prepared to revert in one page to avoid reverts over many pages. Please do not heighten the tension between editors who write and editors who preform maintnance tasks, because this is exactly what you are doing by reverting to the version largely opposed by the former and supported by the latter (from a cursory glance). El_C 00:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, it's somehow my fault. You introduced an undiscussed change. It's proper to discuss changes on policy pages *before* making them. See the note at the top of the page. You chose not to do that and were reverted multiple times (by someone other than me). There's no consensus for either of your changes. Removing something from a policy without discussion is just as much a problem as adding/changing something without discussion. Again, I'll ask you read the note at the top of the page, put both pages back as they were, let the discussion continue, and see where it goes. *Spark* 00:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude here appears to have become incresingly disruptive and unresponsive. El_C 01:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting take. Completely unfounded, but interesting. A revert war would have been disruptive. Asking you to conform to established editing guidelines isn't. I'll try to WP:AGF for your actions, remember to do the same. Thanks. *Spark* 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A distorted recitation of the rules does not exempt one from common sense. El_C 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Spark, while I think you're right in the general case, it seems that the developing concensus is that whatever the outcome of this discussion, it should be a guideline and not a policy. I personally don't have a problem with User:El_C suppressing suggestions in either direction until the discussion concludes, given that the suggestion was added based on technical considerations in the first place and was not discussed as an "official" addition to the policy document. Suppressing the text only prevents someone from citing it as a justification and does not encourage people to act in either direction. Mike Dillon 01:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case I could see putting a note into the body of the article statings "this portion of the article is currently under review, see talk", but not removing it whole. Could even attract more editors to the discussion. Is there a template for that? *Spark* 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There's {{Policy-change-warning}}, but it is not section specific. El_C 02:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There was {{Disputedpolicy}}, but it too was not section specific. So I created {{Disputedpolicy-section}}. Any issue with restoring the text with that template preceding it? *Spark* 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No objection. El_C 02:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We who oppose this proposal are, above all other things, against en mass unforcing of image sizes, not while this discussion is ongoing, not after; neither as a policy, nor as a guideline. This likelihood for misinterpretation is out. Until this is addressed, there's simply not much to discuss. And unresponsive innunedo hinders any meaningful discussion. El_C 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The edits you cite by User:EncMstr are removing "forced" image sizes, so you seem to be contradicting yourself. I didn't examine every edit to see if there were cases where he removed override sizes that made sense from a content perspective, but I personally removed a bunch of forced sizes a couple days before he did and only found one case where it made sense to the article (the panoramic image I mentioned in Los Angeles, California). It still doesn't seem that anyone has made a case why image sizes should be forced to a particular size in general instead of allowing the server-specified or user-specified preference to apply. Mike Dillon 01:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not contradicting myself, except syntaxically (now fixed). The case has been made above by multiple users. El_C 02:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting into all of this back and forth is probably endless. It seems like we have big problems with some users who write in very large sizes for thumbnails. Fine. Some users do that. The answer is for those people to be more intelligent and/or readers to make changes when the pictures seem to overwhelm the text, with discussion on the talk page. It's not a guideline or policy matter, particularly because anything like a guideline or policy will no doubt embolden some fiend or other to unleash three or four -bots to go rip out all image sizes. That would be immeasurably destructive and would be a way of trying to cure a pimple with an amputation. Uniformity is not a goal. If we remember that, we can address the naive and belligerant "this is too small" people as needed. (They are a problem. I can think of two users who make it a habit to edit war over the images not looking right on the public access terminal of their high school library computers.) We must not deal with annoying user behavior by blanket pronouncements, because no blanket is large enough for 1,500,000 articles. Geogre 02:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, you made the best edit I've ever seen in Wikipedia! This is an open source encyclopedia, so contributors should be the ones deciding what is the proper image size, not some boilerplate policy or guideline that can't possibly fit 1.5+ million articles. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Note: a revised poll has been set up below; please add your “vote” to that one, not this one.

Can we come to a conclusion on this one? I get the feeling we can agree on not having it in the policy page, but that it should be mentioned somewhere else as a guidance to consider. Informing, not demanding; Patrick's proposal:

Specifying the size of a thumb image is in general not required: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified as preference, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article.

In short

Delete forced image size "rule" in:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy#Forced image size
• Wikipedia:Images#Forced image size (already hidden)

Introduce suggestion to not force image size unless you think it’s an improvement in:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images

This currently says: In most cases the size of images should not be hardcoded.

But also: The current image markup language is more or less this:[[Image:picture.jpg|120px|right|thumb|Insert caption here]]

• Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnailing

Okay, not okay or wait for more input? --Van helsing 13:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Support

• Support per Van Helsing nomination. Royalbroil ^T : C 13:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Patrick's amendment to the proposal. Thanks for the heads up! Royalbroil ^T : C 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Patrick's version, this makes more sense in the MOS. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, with possible change to "without specifying a size, the width will default to what the reader has specified in preferences (usually 180px)." -- nae'blis 15:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not true, the reader usually specifies nothing, in which case 180px applies.--Patrick 15:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If we're being technical, most users haven't set anything in preferences, either. I want the wording to encompass the facts that a) most users are not logged in, and hence have no preferences at all beyond the default 180px, b) most logged-in users haven't changed their preferences from the default 180px, and c) we should respect preferences when they have been set. The current wording is a little clunky, I was just taking a stab at streamlining it. -- nae'blis 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, obviously.--Patrick 15:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I think we'll need some good examples of when they should and shouldn't be forced, but that can be worked out later. Mike Dillon 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support – with the note that I consider this to be intended for MOS, not this image policy page (where this subject shouldn’t be dealt with). --Van helsing 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Will compromise to "in general not recommended" if necessary to go forward with this.--Van helsing 08:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose the term "not required". That makes it sound like "you don't have to, but if you do, it would be helpful". The current wording is much better: "it is recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences". The problem is that people don't know about the default size option in the software and put 300px on everything because they think the default image size is too small. This is destructive and these hardcoded image sizes should be removed and people who do this should be told to change their user prefs. This feature needs to be presented clearly on all appropriate pages to prevent this. We already had this discussion a year ago. — Omegatron 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  One thing that has changed over the past year is that many people now have high speed internet instead of dialup. Downloading an image is a lot easier now. Royalbroil ^T : C 03:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  This hasn't changed over the past year at all. Most people have been able to download large images with no problem for several years. What does this have to do with default thumbnail sizes? — Omegatron 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  I'm confused. You oppose, but you are saying the same thing all of the people who support the proposal are saying. You think "thumb" should be preferred over fixed. Shouldn't you be voting in support, or for a change in wording? Atom 12:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  That's not what the proposal is about. Maybe you should re-read what you're voting for, and then re-read my objection. The page already says to prefer a bare thumb to a fixed px size; "it is recommended not to specify "px". This proposal is to change the wording to "Specifying the size of a thumb image is in general not required", which sounds more like "it's helpful to use a specific px size, but not necessary". In most cases it is not helpful, though. We should use thumb without explicit px sizes unless necessary for some reason. Therefore, we should just keep the current wording. — Omegatron 15:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  Response to Omegatron: The discussion from a year ago is dated and less applicable. The point behind a thumbnail is to quickly download a small version of a larger image. A large default thumbnail is most noticed on a slow dialup connection where the larger sized image downloads way slower. An image that took tens of seconds now takes less than a second to download. I believe that the effect of increased high speed connections is that Wikipedia contributors started using larger size thumbnails. Contributors figure 'Why not see a better image since it will download quickly to most people anyhow.' Also, monitors and graphic cards keep getting better resolution. So an image that looks good at 800x600 looks too small at 1024x768 to use a dated example. The default thumbnail size has not kept up with these trends, so contributors are manually overriding the perceived problem. I bet well over 95% of images are manually resized. How do you propose training soooo many contributors to not override default thumbnails? I think it's impossible. Most of the 1.5 million articles are using manually sized images (if the article has an image).

  I will cite a website from February 2006 to back up my claim of increased high speed internet usage. I don't believe that a strong trend like this would abruptly stop.Quotes from here: "In the United Kingdom broadband now accounts for 64 percent of all connections, per figures for December 2005, released by the U.K. Office of National Statistics. Connections for broadband there were down by one-third, year-to-year. Five years ago, in 2001, only 1 percent of U.K. consumers used broadband access to get on the Net."

  and

  "But, unlike in the United Kingdom, overall "only 30 percent of U.S. households subscribe to broadband services," the letter to the senators noted, "a reflection of high prices, too few choices and unavailability of attractive services.""

  I am thinking more about the U.S. than the U.K. in my comments. Royalbroil ^T : C 13:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  Why are you trying to prove something to me that I already said was true?

  If you think the software's default size is too small, take it up with the developers. That's not something we decide here. If the default font size were too small, you wouldn't go around putting "font-size:xx-large" around every paragraph of text in every article; you'd be banned for disruption. Likewise, we should not go around overriding users' default thumbnail size on every image with explicit px sizes to make it look better on our screens.

  (Although, now that you point it out, yes, people outside of the western world are limited to slower bandwidth connections and smaller screen sizes, so a small default thumb makes sense, since the site should remain easily accessible to them. If you think the image size is too small, you can set it in your preferences for a larger size (mine is set to 300px). After you do that, see how annoying it is when people specify an explicit size that overrides your default setting and makes the images too small. Then you will agree that we should discourage explicit px sizes.) — Omegatron 15:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: specifying the pixel size of an image is almost always a bad idea.
  1. You don't know at what size it will actually appear. What looks like 4cm on your screen will likely not look like 4cm on mine. Never mind my printer, or someones PDA.
  2. You don't know how much size there is. You may think 300px is 30% of a column. However even someone with the same monitor might have a totally different experience. Maybe he doesn't like to browse full screen: he might want to be able to view previously opened browser window, or a chat window, or maybe he likes to open two webpages side-by-side... He might find 300px quite an obnoxious size.
  3. You don't know how large it's going to be compared to text and other visual features. You might be browsing Wikipedia at a 10 pixel font size, but there are people who prefer to set it larger for better legibility. One might imagine they would like that to be true for images also. 200px might be large enough for you, but for some this is still too small. For others this may already be too large.
  4. The specification of pixel sizes will cause inconsistency. Not only within articles, which looks very ugly, but also between articles, causing a kind of fragmentation where different articles have different target resolutions etc.
  5. It would be great if we could say "let this image be exactly as wide as this infobox" or "let this icon be just high enough to nicely flow with the text". Perhaps it would be nice if image sizes could be more dynamic, perhaps allowing a user to specify that images should be 4 lines high, with a maximum width of 30% of the available space. Unfortunately such functionality is not (yet) available. Having the pictures show up at a default thumbnail size is the next best solution.
  6. If it is judged that most people find the default thumbnail size too small, the default thumbnail size should be increased, rather than upscaling all images by a random amount – would you really think this could be done in an even remotely consistent fashion around the wiki? – in the process upsetting everyone differing from the assumed norm.

If there's anything I'd want you to take home from this, it's: "Pixels are evil." And so is any other fixed size in a world where the size of the display medium is not known in advance. Fixing the size of anything, anything at all, is trying to force a static design on a flexible medium. Shinobu 08:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I think some of your points are slightly overlapping themselves or repeating previous comments a bit, I follow your reasoning. I however fail to see how the default thumbnail size is the next best thing for a solution, especially for our IP readership. Of course it’s true that peoples resolution, monitors or font sizes are not all the same, but isn’t the variation of images, their resolution, their “font size”, their aspect ratio way much bigger? Is making them all the same thumbnail size (currently basically forcing 180px) the solution?

The gist I get from your points is that we just don’t have the tools to do it the perfect way. Maybe we really should ask some extra image syntax features from the developers. --Van helsing 16:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current wording of prefering using "Thumb" should remain. Eschew absolute px coding for an image. Atom 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This proposal is worded in a strange way and it makes it confusing. The wording "Delete forced image size "rule"" and the word "forced" is used several times. Hard coding the PX value is forced. Putting thumb is variable (NOT forced). Thumb provides a frame and title, as well as allowing the variable user preferences to be used. The MOS should recommend ALWAYS using thumb (non-forced), except in exceptional circumstances. We need to discard this vote entirely, and write a proposal that is clear, rather than written to be misleading. Atom 19:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry you find it confusing, but let me try to help you a bit:

1. The proposal was written with the assumption that you actually knew the history of why it was proposed.
2. If you want to know the history, see the discussion above and below this proposal.
3. Delete forced image size rule stands for: we cannot forbid the use of forced PX in a policy (see Good reasons for specifying a width apply below).
4. Maybe the second sentence of the proposal also helps:"...get the feeling we can agree on NOT having it in the policy page, but that it should be mentioned somewhere else as a guidance to consider."
5. Are you sure you are not forgetting who our readers are with: "allowing the variable user preferences to be used" and for who a"thumb is variable"
6. "We need to discard this vote entirely, and write a proposal that is clear, rather than written to be misleading." Yeah, I think misleading was my intention here, but please show me how to do it properly; I’m willing to learn.

--Van helsing 20:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The formulation does not seem correct ("without specifying a size" is missing). Also the main advantage (respecting preferences) is not mentioned. I propose:

Specifying the size of a thumb image is in general not required: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in his preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article.

Patrick 14:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh, even better, I like it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed a better formulation. Have copied it to the proposal text, and will inform Royalbroil. --Van helsing 15:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the word "required" should be replaced with "recommended". Both previous phrasings had "recommended" in them and it seems to be more fitting. With "required", those new to adding images will just think they're going above and beyond by adding sizing info. With "recommended" it's clearer that you should avoid it without good layout/readability reasons. *Spark* 16:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Not recommended" for me is a polite way of saying: "don’t do it!", while "not required" is similar to: "you don’t have to" (and therefore unlikely to be interpreted by new users as: "you’re committing a crime when you do it"). Too big a difference for me to support such a change in wording. --Van helsing 16:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Spark has identified the key word that is the point of contention between both sides. I like Patrick's version not Sparks. Is there a word in between the two that we can compromise on? Royalbroil ^T : C 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I too prefer Patrick's vertsion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "not recommended" is a stronger choice than "not required", thus I would side with Spark on this one. -- nae'blis 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting because I agree the "not recommended" is stronger than "not required" which is why I prefer "not required". HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking for other words in between, like Royalbroil suggested, I came across this: A synonym for required is: compulsory. A synonym for recommended is: not compulsory. Too different for my taste. --Van helsing 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In my proposal I just took over "not required" from the earlier formulation. In fact it is a bit vague this way what is considered best. So I agree that "not recommended" is better, or "not required and not even useful". Remember that we are also going to formulate the cases where specifying image width is useful.--Patrick 17:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to your synonym source? Roget's doesn't have it. [5]. Thanks *Spark* 23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I’m not sure how to link to Ms Word 2000 :-). But this is what I did for the two words. --Van helsing 08:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see it, though I don't see any online thesaurus duplicating that. Note Roget's has recommended as a synonym for required (which I also find odd). And of course "cleave" can be an antonym of "cleave". Question of context, I don't think anyone is going to think "not recommended" in that context means "not not compulsory". A wording that implies avoiding manual sizing is generally better than using it should be used. "Not required" doesn't imply such. *Spark* 11:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Think you’re right about that, I’m lifting my resistance against "not recommended". Also because we shouldn’t let this issue hang for too long, and partly because this is for a guideline (as in: not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception). --Van helsing 08:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you seemed to have the strongest disagreement to "not recommended" I find that encouraging. Does anyone else still have strong disagreement to "not recommended"? *Spark* 21:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I can't support "not recommended". I disagree with Spark's assessment. I believe that people will interpret "not recommended" as compulsory. I estimate about 90% of image contributors are forcing the image size. "Not recommended" slaps people on the wrist for forcing image size. It is too strong. It's hard enough to get people to take a picture of notable locations in their part of the world. People could and most likely would use "not recommended" to do mass changed to all the images on Wikipedia. We don't need that. I could only support a word in between the two proposals or "not required". Royalbroil ^T : C 12:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Would "in general not used", "not done" (which both are actually not true) or in "in general not considered useful/helpful" or "in general considered not useful/helpful" (word order) be gradients in between? (throwing some other words: "not encouraged/discouraged/prevented/avoided") --Van helsing 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I could agree to "not encouraged". What does everyone think of that wording? Royalbroil ^T : C 03:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Should the various considerations be presented?

In deciding whether to specify a thumb image size, and what size to use, consider:

• Some users have slow connections. Will the selected size of image be worthwhile to those users?
• Does the default size suffice? For anonymous users, and those who haven't changed their preference, the default is 180px (which means the width is 180 pixels).
• Other users have different screen resolutions. Will the selected size of image be too small or too large for those users?
• Are there compelling article layout considerations?
• If the article is printed and the reader isn't able to click on the thumbnail to see detail, will the image be useful?

Then maybe a default guideline could be presented.

Also, there ought to be a convention to indicate a size "was intentionally not selected." This is probably best a wikimedia technical issue (like pref_px' instead of, say, 150px), but an interim method might be: [[image:example.png | thumb | <!-- chosing user selected px --> | caption]] — EncMstr 20:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think adding points to consider when you decide to force or not to force that is the q.. thumb size would be a good idea for a MOS. But we probably would quickly come to that when we indeed are going to add example cases. I’m missing the point of the "pref_px" parameter a bit, isn’t "was intentionally not selected" the same as simply not filling in "px" (leave blank)? --Van helsing 21:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree: That's a better introductory sentence. I kinda prefer the Shakespearean! The point is to say "The editor thought the best size is user's preferred size." Omitting might mean also mean the same, but it might also mean that the editor didn't know about it, overlooked it, or couldn't decide. — EncMstr 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good reasons for specifying a width apply:

• when the height is very small compared with the width: probably the user likes a large width in this case
• when the height is very large compared with the width: probably the user likes a small width in this case

Patrick 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts.
• When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region.
• On the lead introduction image that covers the essence of the article.
• When the image requires a long caption explaining it, in order to keep the height of the multiline caption (word wrap) in proportion with that of the image. --Van helsing 22:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• To allow for images to flow better with infoboxes, text, and other images. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Flow is highly dependent on your resolution, window size, and chosen default font size. Specifying image sizes in an attempt to control flow would be largely ineffective. *Spark* 23:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Partially true, however if an element is 250px wide, and I make the image above it 250px wide they will still match size on different monitors. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a justification for manual sizing. If they're thumbnails and you leave them without a hardcoded size, they'll still match. *Spark* 18:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I said elements, not just images but infoboxes can also have fixed width, often forced to vary due to content. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an example of lining up an image outside of an infobox that shows this in use? *Spark* 19:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Here: User:HighInBC, not in the artice space, but it shows what I mean. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are userboxes, not infoboxes. Infoboxes are (generally) sized in em's, not px (don't know of an exception to that, would like to see one if there is). Can you provide an example that would apply in mainspace? *Spark* 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is that articles are incredibly varied and if the topic is Good reasons for specifying a width apply then my point seems to fit. I don't have a specific example. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to work with editors on the Yellowstone National Park article who are edit warring over image sizes. I'm undecided, as to whether thumbnail size should be specified or not. Theoretically, I support allowing user preferences to work by leaving thumbnail size out. Though, I logged out, looked at the article, and found the default size (180px) way too small to really see anything in the images. A precident has been set on other national parks/protected area featured articles with thumbnail size of 250px. I assume that 180px size is to preserve bandwidth or something. Though, think it would be better for anonymous users not logged in to have a default thumbnail size slightly larger than 180px, so they could reasonably see what the images are. Maybe 225px? That would reduce objections to going with the default size. --Aude (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe some a measure of what the most common resolution was when the 180px default was implemented and what the most common resolution is today would go a long way toward persuading whoever can change that to do so. I'm not certain this would be the place to do it, but would agree to support your idea in whatever forum would be proper. *Spark* 00:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to enlarge all default width thumbs? I don’t think that is the core of the problem. It should simply be allowed to enlarge images that need it (points above). Leave that decision up to the healthy mind of our editors who write the article. And if an image size dispute arises, consensus and a guideline should point in the right direction for a solution. --Van helsing 08:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked some of the balloon articles linked above. The removal of manual sizing was reverted. The majority of the pictures were off to the side and there was no readability/layout reason for sizing them. Most of the manual sizes were 200px. Some of the reversions put back 150px images when the default user would have seen 180px. What was the justification? If a user wants to manually go through articles and remove sizing when it isn't needed, why question that editor's healthy mind?

A review is probably necessary of the default width, it should at least be brought to the proper forum for discussion. You have to ask why did "they" pick 180? Why not 200? 160? Answer is probably due to bandwidth questions (both server and client) and how "they" expected the majority of readers to be viewing the pages. Since that majority has probably changed since that default was put in place, both in terms of bandwidth and resolution, it warrants review. *Spark* 11:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed thumb sizes from images only where it appeared to be violating the—now disputed—policy. That is, there were no compelling reasons for specifying a thumb size, such as layout, consistency or image resolution/detail requirements. — EncMstr 18:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(jumping a bit in my defense here) I’m sorry EncMstr, but I was under the impression that you thought forced thumb sizes were plainly forbidden and deleted en masse, not evaluating the appropriateness of the forced size at all (layout, consistency or image resolution). In fact I didn’t see you ones leave a "px" in an article, and saw you needed to repair the layout afterwards several times. Do you mean by saying: ...there were no compelling reasons for specifying a thumb size", that the complains by Uppland, Bishonen & Royalbroil where not valid? I’m not saying I’m a quick guy, but I note that I needed as long to revert you, as you opening an article, evaluate the images, search for all thumb markup, delete the "px", save, and go on to the next article. I get the impression you forgot the evaluate part a bit, but are agreeing to the need to do so. What do you think of the points in: "Good reasons for specifying a width apply:"? --Van helsing 09:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I skipped making a change to—I think—three articles either because the layout depended on explicit sizes, or the thumbs would have been uselessly small. So yes, all the articles I chose to change didn't need explicit image sizes. I guess that would appear en masse as I got into a good rhythm and could evaluate an article in a few seconds (most of which was waiting for wikipedia).

I understood the "policy" to be that they were permitted, but discouraged. Sampling the articles in the categories I changed, it appears the actual practice is the other way around: explicit sizes encouraged, but optional.

The current proposals address all the issues I have thought of—except giving ultimate control to each individual reader. But, that is a wikimedia technical issue which needs discussion elsewhere. — EncMstr 10:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to modify the source code for the next version of software to allow for:

1. Relative "thumb" size. Percentage of thumb, where thumb is set by user preferences, as it is now. (e.g. [[image:superman.jpg|thumb|50%|left|Man of Steel]] would show as 90px for users with default of 180px, 150px for users with max 300px set in defaults.) Why? This allows relative sizing of disparate images in the same article so that they are relative by user defaults, but allows editors to size two different photos differently relative to one another. [[Image:loislane.jpg|thumb|60%|right|The woman behind Superman]]
2. Allow setting for px size of zero in user defaults. This allows people who want SFW-safe for work to set their user defaults to 0px, and voila, no pictures. An alternative would be a checkbox to not diplay images. (in User prefs, or part of Wikipedia login page). Atom 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Atom 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I considered mentioning relative thumb sizes (either in ems or in screen width). Think it would increase load on the server a great deal due to all the combinations of sizes and resolutions. There are currently six preferred sizes, which I think would mean the server has (or caches based on demand) six thumbs of any given image if it hasn't been manually size in an article (in which case I believe it would have more). I don't know the software, so that could be completely wrong. I do think it's a good idea if it doesn't have high impact.

More importantly, I simply want my thumbnail preferences to not be overridden. If I set a preference, the software should respect that, or at least give me an addition option saying if I want to allow overrides or not. Again, tech issue not for discussion here. *Spark* 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Change vote format

This vote is formatted incorrectly. It presents a single wording and says "support or oppose this wording". It should list each possible wording and let people vote for the ones they like and add more possible wordings instead. — Omegatron 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Then please set it up in the proper format. Royalbroil ^T : C 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the vote should be changed, not only perhaps in the number of options, but also in clarity. When you see a support vote section near a text you support, you'd think it logical to vote there, but ho! That section is about supporting of the removal of text. In computer sciency classes they teach students not to write code like "if(!notDoneYet)" for a reason you know.

I have more to say, but that's going in its own section below. Shinobu 07:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussed before

This was discussed before: Wikipedia talk:Extended image syntax as well as here: Wikipedia talk:Extended image syntax/Archive 2#Image_Markup.2F_New_Preferences_.28suggestion.29. Would it have hurt anyone to leave a message there so that people who might be interested in the debate have a clue what's going on? As well as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, that is also affected by the proposal? I happened to stumble on this vote or debate, whatever it is essentially by accident, so there was a large change that I would have missed it entirely and only noticed after the fact.

As for my take on this matter, I can simply quote myself (from the first discussion I linked to):

I agree we should discourage literal pixel sizes. After all, 100px may be 8.5cm or 8.5mm depending on the device used to view the page. Perhaps it would be nice if there were "magic words" to indicate sizes like "larger than a usual picture", "icon", "a multiple of the line height" (ems?), a percentage of the default size, or the like. Shinobu 00:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I still stand by that. I will now post some notices to the abovementioned talk pages. Perhaps no one will mind much, but at least they will have seen it, which is important in itself. Shinobu 07:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Forced image size wording poll

Here's a new vote, since everyone agrees the original proposal was confusing. Mark variations that you like. Suggest other variations as their own subsections. — Omegatron 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we to indicate if we consider the wording to be intended as policy or guideline (MOS)? Having a recommendation in a policy page already caused confusion. --Van helsing 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - If users want bigger images on their screens, they shouldn't be overridden by people forcing smaller px sizes. — Omegatron 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per previous discussion --*Spark* 20:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as policy. Can't have a recommendation as policy, doesn't work, gets enforced without using "common sense", resulting in drama --Van helsing 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous discussion --*Spark* 20:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support This makes perfect sense, why say not recommended then go on to say reasons why it might be useful? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as guideline/mos, not policy. --Van helsing 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per previous discussion --*Spark* 20:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as guideline/mos, not policy. --Van helsing 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support as guideline/mos, not policy. --Van helsing 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Possibly include clarification on "introduction image" though. For an article on the Grand Canyon, or the Milky Way, etc., I could see an intro image. For an article on Spam, it isn't needed. --*Spark* 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

New image abilities

If image handling were changed, what do we want? Here's my shortlist:

---

1. Ability to size based on percentages of page/window width
2. Tag image as landscape or portrait
3. If user has preferences set, that overrides manual sizes depending on another preference
4. User preference for sizes of images, not just thumbnails.

---

Any others? Feel free to add them to the above list. --*Spark* 21:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Px (user default or hard coded) should refer to the longest (or shortest side) of an image? But I think you try to address that with point 2 already. --Van helsing 21:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Google Earth screenshots?

What's the policy on Google Earth screenshots? I guess they're copyrighted, becuase at the bottom of the screen there are several copyright notices from organizations. Is there any way to get them in an article under fair use? -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick answer is no, there is no way I can see of a sat image ever being fair use (unless in an article about the satellite). The images are copyrighted (by various companies) and taking a screen shot does not change that. BTW, your sig is excessive. Thanks/wangi 21:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Worldwind is a comparable program created on behalf of NASA. Its images are all PD-USGOV. -Will Beback · † · 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Post-Cards?

I have been wondering, what is the policy on post-cards?

I mean like old post-cards, Historical ones? Pictures from the past? Early 1960's and older? I have not found mention of this, and if there is mention somewhere please forgive my ignorance. The copyright holder and creator would most likely be dead and the Image is not duplicatable, seeing as how it is from the past. I don't know what the policy on this is or what the image tag would be, I mean like for a scan of a post-card? --MJHankel 18:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Postcards are not a special licensing case, except insofar as they are often produced anonymously. Jkelly 18:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So are they usable? and in which case what image tag would correspond to them? --MJHankel 18:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Anything from {{PD-old}} to {{imagevio}} -- they are not a special licensing case. Jkelly 18:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I did not want to get accused of copyright infringement. --MJHankel 20:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)