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 September 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 – September 2007 October 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – January 2009 February 2009 – 2010 –
Noncommercial-use Discussion of image sizes Specific image-related copyright issues
Sound help Image markup

Template wording

Please see Template talk:Orphan image. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice sought about image suitability

If an image says nothing about the article subject, and only performs a decorative function, must it be removed, per this policy, or may it remain if a majority of editors like it there. That is, does the policy prescribe removal in this situation, and if so, does local consensus trump that prescription?

I'm fairly sure policy doesn't prescribe removal, as such images abound. But confirmation would be helpful with drafting an impending RfC at Talk:Suicide#Image. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of images purely for decoration is generally discouraged. See WP:ICON for an in-depth discussion of this issue. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's just what I was looking for. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

But of course the image in question is not for decoration but show suicide the subject of the article in question. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, when we say "purely for decoration", we usually mean something like adding a picture of a butterfly to an article about an emotion, or a picture of a random smiling child to an article about a school. A famous painting depicting the subject of the article is generally going to be acceptable for the lead of an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that conventional understanding of "decorative". Thanks for clarifying. Actually, I have no real opposition to images that depict the topic but add nothing to the readers' understanding, per se. I added this to the infobox of "my" article. It's the combination of "adds nothing to understanding" and "possible real harm" that underpins my objection to this instance. I'll notify this page when the RfC is launched. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a fair assessment of decorative. First, if the image is free, we generally are more liberal with image use. It should be relevant, of course, but there needs to be little direct discussion of the image otherwise. A free picture of a butterfly could be used on a page about emotion if there's some potential linkage.

When you look at non-frees, we are a lot more critical. Decorative use, there, is basically including the image representing that topic without any way to tie it into the text. Except for elements like cover art which implicitly are covered by having an article on that subject, the picture and text of the article need to be nearly inseperable. Decorative images will always be separable from the text, and thus inappropriate if non-free. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry Wallis's The Death of Chatterton, 1856.

Notification of RfC

Talk:Suicide#Image RfC

1. Should Henry Wallis's painting The Death of Chatterton be used to illustrate the article Suicide?
2. Should the article Suicide contain an image depicting suicide?

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Further guidance needed

I need some help understanding image policy.

WP:IMAGE says

Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information.

And WP:IUP says images

should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter.

(My bolding.) This seems to rule out images in articles that add nothing to the reader's understanding. Yet all over the encyclopedia I see such images in the lead or infobox. Why is that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Visual identification of a topic is a common way to help the reader associate what the topic is about: the person, the published work, the location, the concept etc. Particularly moreso if it is a free image, where there's no restrictions to its use in WP. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's common. My point is it contradicts the two policies. Is there somewhere in Wikipedia policy where it says images that tell the reader nothing he or she didn't already know about the topic are OK? I'm pretty sure there isn't. I'm just running it by here in case I've missed it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't fight it and win, even though you are right. 99.999% of the book covers, album covers, and single covers are wholly unnecessary and contradict WP:IUP and any plain reading of WP:NFCC#8. The identification argument was used to violate WP:NFCC#8 in such volume that people have now institutionalized the violation. Take what comfort you can in being right, and don't bother to press the point.—Kww(talk) 03:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't put the number that high, but certainly more than 50%. Covers of fictional works that show any type of character representation at least is something, maybe not the best way to meet NFCC#8, compared to simple abstract cover art. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in fighting it (although enforcing policy as written would simplify the above RfC enormously). I quite like uninformative but emblematic images in the lead/infobox in general, except of course where they may do harm - defame, mislead, violate copyright, etc. - but would like to see it made explicit. If anybody watching can effortlessly point me to a relevant prior discussion of this I'd appreciate it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that such usage does violate copyright. Without substantial discussion of the image, there is no fair use, which means that all uses of copyrighted images in an "uninformative but emblematic" manner violate copyright.—Kww(talk) 11:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah right. Actually I'm discussing CC BY SA images that add nothing to the readers' understanding. Using such images violates this policy. WP:IUP says an image (not just fair use) should add to the readers' understanding. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

All CC BY ... images fall within free use, not fair use, so WP:NFCC does not apply. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

True, and there the IUP provisions of "relevant" and "increase the understanding of the reader" still come into play. If you can't even come up with an explanation that passes that weak test, the image truly doesn't belong at all.—Kww(talk) 16:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the RFC that I initiated at the start of this year regarding NFCC cover art, where consensus clearly feel towards its allowance. Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Massem. I'll take a look. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You should also consider whether the image benefits the article a a whole. If it makes an article look professional and interesting it can motivate a reader to actually read the article or glance at the infobox to learn some quick facts. This will be a better result than the reader thinking "dull topic" and closing the window immediately. Perhaps we can have a proposed rewording of this policy if the actual consensus for use does not match what this says. After all most image users do not write the policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. A lead image that is emblematic of the topic as a whole but doesn't improve the readers' understanding, such as in Pain and Chair, is comforting when approaching an article. It confirms the reader is on the right page in a more immediate and less complicated way that a word does, and makes the article somehow more welcoming. What about:

Lead images
Articles do not have to have an image in their lead or infobox but an image depicting the topic of the article is frequently used in one or both of these locations.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversial images

There are (at least) three huge time sinks around images at the moment: Pregnancy, Muhammad and Suicide. They all revolve around the use of controversial images that some argue add little or nothing to the readers' understanding.

At Pregnancy and Muhammad, the board's May 2011 statement of principles and guidance concerning controversial content was invoked. This Foundation resolution says, in part

Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. "Controversial content" includes all of these categories. [...] We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement.

That wording seems to say if content may be offensive to some viewers and has no real educational value, it should be avoided. But a number of editors have challenged this, asserting that, if an image is related to the topic and carries any information, avoiding it because it is controversial would be a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED.

Most images in Wikipedia, per this policy, educate the reader on the topic of the article, some are worth a thousand words. But many others could be replaced by one line of text without losing one bit of information relevant to the article, or are simply emblematic of the topic and add nothing of educational value at all. (See the emblematic image I added to the infobox at Pain.) We tolerate such images if they make the article more welcoming and appealing. But I believe the Foundation is telling us we should not tolerate images that do not add to the readers' understanding of the topic if they are "controversial" per the Foundation's use of the term.

I'd like this apparent conflict between the Foundation resolution and WP:NOTCENSORED to be resolved. The issue at Muhammad was recently put to ArbCom but was declined as something that needs to be dealt with by community discussion. This seems as good a place as any to discuss it. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There will always be a pool of people who use not censored to justify the useage of some ridicoulous images. Frankly i just wish people would use common sense and that we didnt have to revisit this over and over. Its a sad state, and it runs off so many users from this project. I personally am fine with 'that policy' but i can understand that it would be easily preverted around and used to suppress images that might be needed. The issue is where do you draw the line when you have hundreds of lines that are all in different places which people will never move, just some thoughts. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)