Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions

Teasers?

It appears that the section WP:Captions#Drawing the reader into the article suggests making the captions "teasers". This philosophy appears contrary to other WP stylistic guidelines such as WP:LEDE - essentially: give the reader the information they need let them decide if they want/need to go deeper to satisfy their current need. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Centered captions

Any hard and fast rule on centered versus flush-left captions? I prefer centered as in Gorman, California. (At least as of 05:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC) they are centered.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Asked also here. --Nemo 11:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about captions in info boxs of biographies

Would this be the right place to address this? Should info boxes in bios include captions of the photo of the subject? Per this guideline, it makes it seem that mabe they are unneeded per: Other images (especially within standard info boxes) where the purpose of the image is clearly nominative, that is, that the picture serves as the typical example of the subject of the article and offers no further information - no caption needed. I saw somebody deleting them from info boxes. It seems that the argument that including the year the photo was taken does aid the reader. Anyways, thank you. Also, I might ask this in the BLP board as well. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"Click to enlarge"

Is there anywhere a guideline that says: An image caption should not include a note saying "click to enlarge".

Such a note could be inappropriate in some downstream use (especially printed media), and is unnecessary in any case since virtually all images on WP work this way. Staecker (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a guideline that such phrases should not be in alt text; see WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid. I agree that a similar guideline would be useful here. Eubulides (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

When do captions need to cite sources?

Currently I can't see guidence as to when captions should cite sources. This topic is appropriate both for this project page and for Wikipedia:Citing sources, and I've somewhat arbitrary started a thread at the latter guideline; please comment if you're interested. Eubulides (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Crediting section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should our guideline on giving credit to photographers in captions be changed to specify that we should give credit in captions where such credit is requested? Ray^Talk 20:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Detailed explanation of my reasoning: This is prompted by a discussion at WP:COI/N, where an editor has been accused of COI for crediting himself in his photos, and having his captions reverted. I think that our assumption that no caption attribution is needed is only fair where such attribution has not been requested, and we should stick in a note that where such credit is requested, it should be given. On a legal level, I suppose more learned opinion than mine is welcome. On a moral level, I think Wikipedia should be grateful to people who let us use their photos by licensing them under free licenses, not bitey, and give attribution even if not legally required. Ray^Talk 20:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• No - I see nothing wrong with the current wording in Credit that the appropriate credit is given on the image description page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• I also think that attribution on the image description page is sufficient... many thousands of people allow their photos to be used in articles without getting a namecheck, including myself. Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Captions says... Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page. Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  My particular concern here, is that we may drive away certain editors from posting their pictures, purely for the sake of form. I don't think giving credit to somebody in a caption is an onerous requirement when it's requested. Ray^Talk 21:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  Commons has 5 million images and attibution doesnt appear to be a problem, so one or two uploaders who are not happy with it and who do not upload images would probably go unnoticed. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  I've come from WP:COIN too, it seems to me as though people shouldn't add their name to a caption even if they are notable. It does seem a little promotional IMO and if one person can do it why shouldn't I add my username to captions of photos that I've uploaded? The caption should only be describing the photo and nothing else. Smartse (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  I agree. In the particular COI notice mentioned earlier I had commented that the editor in question was doing far more good than harm in uploading the photos, and there might be other cases where this is true. But regardless, if an editor actually requires that we credit them in the caption and won't upload otherwise, then that editor is not likely to be here to improve the encyclopedia, but is instead here for self-promotion. In that case, perhaps driving them away isn't such a terrible thing. -- Atama頭 23:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  Agreement here too. A couple of other things: the only time captions mention authors is when the author is is relevant to the article. Also worth noting that CC-BY licenses stipulate that equal prominence should be given to all similarly-licensed images in a given publication. We have to maintain a level playing field for all participants, so people agree to play by the rules (agreement being implicit in the CC license, as I say) or they don't play at all. --mikaul^talk 03:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• No – the curent wording is fine. Captions should not give credits ("unless relevant to the subject"), just as the many astonishingly brilliant paragraphs of text do not credit their authors (except incidentally via the history for text, or file information for images). The case leading to this RFC was a misunderstanding and not a problem, but the question has now been asked and it needs to be confirmed that Wikipedia does not credit content creators in articles. If photo credits were given, the credits would become links, and the links would become external links.THIS COMMENT BROUGHT TO YOU BY JOHNUNIQ Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Conclusion Well, it seems pretty clear that consensus of opinion is against my position, and I see no need to let the RFC run and peter out in 30 days; time. The current guideline of putting attribution on the picture page except when otherwise relevant to the picture's use in the article will remain, it seems. Thanks to all for commenting. Ray^Talk 15:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amended credits section

Brought the Wikipedia:Captions#Tips_for_describing_pictures and Wikipedia:Captions#Credits wording into agreement. This brings the guideline in line with existing practice for featured pictures (example provided). A relevant precedent was discussion surrounding Jerry Avenaim, who is a very notable photographer. Mr. Avenaim's Wikipedia contributions were profiled in The New York Times last July.[1] Appropriate mention within the caption for a photographer of this standing is encyclopedic and fitting, just as we do with historic artists. Durova³⁴⁹ 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Image credits in footnotes?

I know the consensus is that image captions don't need to cite an author, but it seems to me that putting a credit in a footnote improves the page by making it (in a self-contained way, for instance for those who print articles on paper) show where images come from. In particular, it seems absurd to me that the MOS not only allows but requires that ideas, quoted text, and even commonly accepted facts cite a source in a footnote, but explicitly rejects giving image credits in a caption. The argument in the case of captions is presumably that they would clutter up the main body of an article. So what about making such credits in footnotes? Of special note are the many pictures released by their authors under a permissive license, but who have requested credit on pages where their images are used; leaving those credits only on the image description page seems to abuse the spirit under which their images were released, to no particular benefit compared to providing footnote credit. (Notice that I'm not suggesting that all images throughout Wikipedia get this treatment, but only that it be allowed as a possibility.) Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 19:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I put the following text on the Village Pump, and am suggesting that discussion of this come here, as a reasonable place for it:

Hi all,

I've perused a few of the earlier discussions about image credits in captions, and while I find the arguments unconvincing, I can at least see where their proponents are coming from. Essentially, the argument goes something like "allowing credits in captions will add clutter and could potentially make wikipedia articles seem like advertising for the image creators.

The move to banish all credits to image description pages seems to me to violate several important tenets of wikipedia style: (1) articles should be self contained (2) article content should be verifiable (3) wikipedia should honor both the letter and spirit of free content licenses (4) wikipedia policies should be follow a consistent set of foundational principles.

To this end, I propose allowing articles to add photo credits in footnotes. This avoids all of the stated problems (clutter, promotion), while keeping articles self contained and verifiable (many users do not know that images are clickable, at least that I've witnessed), making them viable as printable (rather than only screen) documents, and crediting photographers concerned with proper attribution (for instance, as implied by the spirit of CC-BY type licenses).

This brings the citations for images in line with citations for quotations, numerical data, other facts, and even ideas and interpretations used in article text. Adding image creator credits to footnotes is unlikely to be enough incentive for users to add spammy images as self-promotion, and balances the goals of professional clutter-free encyclopedia writing and proper ethically proper credit for image creators.

I'm putting this same text at Wikipedia talk:Captions#Image credits in footnotes.3F, which seems like the appropriate place for the discussion, since several previous discussions of image credits took place there. (As far as I can tell, both numerical majorities and prevailing arguments in all the discussions I've seen have favored crediting image creators, while defenders of the status quo have mostly argued on the basis of "this is already settled, you punks." but that's neither here nor there).

Thanks for your consideration,
jacobolus (t) 05:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) Since when's this a style tenet? (3) And yet textual contributors don't sign articles; plus the logistical problems of keeping things in sync when someone edits an image; footnotes can still be spam (4) don't see the relevance here. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"This is already settled, you punks" seems fine enough to me - unless you have evidence of some new consensus, or some reason why there ought to be a new consensus. We don't do authorial credits in articles, and that is pretty much the end of it - it's settled. Is there something I'm missing? — Gavia immer (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There should be a new consensus because even the arguments against including credits in captions don't apply to footnotes. re: cybercobra's REFSPAM link, if you read that page, it says “Repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation.... Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia” This clearly does not apply to image credits generally; anything can be abused but this slippery slope argument is not a credible counter to the main argument here, and is just a diversion. (3) someone who uses a chunk of wikipedia text typically writes "this text comes from wikipedia" or similar next to the text. If they did not do so, but only but such an attribution behind a link somewhere, buried far from the text in question, they might be technically following the letter of the license, but would be violating its spirit. –jacobolus (t) 05:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that image credits can be acceptable if the author of the image is notable by himself. "Portrait of George Washington in military uniform, painted by Rembrandt Peale" is an acceptable caption. "Photo of the towers of the Palacio San José taken by User:Belgrano of Wikimedia Commons" is not. MBelgrano (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be to be a logical position. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, because in such case the artist's name is present more for informational purposes than attributive ones. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Footnote credit as you propose is really no better than our existing practice of image description page credit. Both take 1 click to get there and both are hidden from view when viewing the image as it is in the article. We don't need to maintain credits in two places, and I think credit on the image description page makes more sense from an organizational standpoint. Also, I'd wager the image page credit is more likely to be actually seen, as people will be enlarging photos more often than clicking little footnote links, which most people ignore anyway. -kotra (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's vastly better if someone decides to print the article. If no one is going to see the footnotes, then it really shouldn't bother anyone having them, right? I mean, that's the point of footnotes: people who want to can read them, and everyone else can ignore them. –jacobolus (t) 09:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, a previous discussion is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#edits_marked_with_copyrights. Also, here's what I posted to Talk:HSL and HSV, which is the article in question.

Wikipedia guidelines are entirely clear on this: WP:UP says "One should never create links from a mainspace article to any userpage", and WP:CAP says "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page. If the artist or photographer is independently notable, though, then a wikilink to the artist's biography may be appropriate." tedder (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I added some of what you're quoting, and it came from some really old discussions on this page which never really got to a mutually satisfying consensus. Then and now, the main reason I see for allowing (on a case-by-case basis) the crediting of non-notable people in captions is to follow Creative Commons' attribution requirements... the image description page credits probably are sufficient for CC's legal code but not the human-readable summary (i.e. Creative Commons seems to contradict itself about how to credit authors). We (I) asked Mike Godwin on his user talk page for his input but there was no response, so we eventually just put that it is "assumed" caption crediting is unnecessary. It may not be true, but it is what we assumed. -kotra (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The summary is just that, a summary; only the legal code matters. Have there actually been any complaints about this "in the wild"? (i.e. are there actual instances of image contributors complaining about the way they're credited?) --Cybercobra (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps only the legal code matters if it were taken to court. On the other hand, an argument could be made that the human-readable version is the de facto licensing agreement, as it is presented as a reliable summary of the legal code. IANAL, so I cannot make that determination. Regardless, legally valid or not, we shouldn't totally disregard the wishes of the photographers and artists who provide us free content. If the occasional non-notable credit in a caption does not conflict with our ideals, i.e. it wouldn't hurt, then we should at least consider accommodating them. I have no opinion on that, but it may be something to consider. Anyway, to answer your question, yes I have come across one or two artists who have voiced a desire for their works to be credited in captions, and you're likely to find more in reviewing the history of this talk page. But I'd wager that these vocal handful are fewer than the number of artists who refuse to release their works under a Wikipedia-permissible license or have become disenchanted with Wikipedia due to how they see we credit media. Of course, these still may be a very small group of people, and the benefit of their content must be weighed against the cost of what would need to be done to welcome them. -kotra (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) I was not familiar with WP:UP, and am perfectly willing to avoid links to user space. Sorry. (2) Wikipedia guidelines may be "clear" about credits, but as far as I can tell from reading all the discussions I could find, they are both extremely controversial and backed more by bludgeoning than reasonable argument. What a case there is for the current guidelines has broken down into 2 main arguments: (a) adding captions to images adds clutter, and (b) photographers will use wikipedia articles as a platform for self-promotion, perhaps for SEO purposes with links back to their pages, etc., but at least being noticed as named in the middle of the content. The SEO concerns are out of date since WP adds nofollow to external links. As far as I can tell, neither of these arguments is relevant in the case of credits in footnotes. Therefore, instead of just quoting back the existing policy and hiding under its skirt, I would appreciate it if you tried to actually make a case for not putting credits in footnotes. Thanks. –jacobolus (t) 09:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be "noticed" for your work, then you've come to the wrong place. See WP:OWN. SharkD  Talk  15:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Notice that I said that the argument against putting credits in captions is to avoid artists using wikipedia for self promotion. This seems like a legitimate enough goal: Wikipedia is not a platform advertising art, etc. etc. I don't think that putting image credits in footnotes has that problem (I don't personally think putting credits in captions has the problem either, but that was the claim, anyway). –jacobolus (t) 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable argument: I submit that the de facto Wikipedia norm is to credit all original content produced to "Wikipedia" generically rather than to the individual, specific contributors. Edit histories are where more detailed authorial info is tracked. Images only mention the wiki-creators on their pages for uniformity with fair-use image pages and to allow artists to later choose more broad/permissive licensing terms since we permit several. Aforementioned norm likely exists for the purposes of fostering an open, wiki-ish, WP:OWN-free atmosphere. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it's the de-facto norm on Wikipedia, but maybe the reason that this is surprising for so many is that crediting images is the norm pretty much everywhere else, even in publications with individually authored but not bylined text. The general expectation from looking at textbooks/magazines/brochures/academic papers/traditional encyclopedias/etc. is to see image credits. I think this mainly happens because images are to some extent independent and self-contained works of their own, not usually produced by large-group collaboration. Perhaps the main reason is just that images were often produced by someone other than the author of text they illustrate, and bylined to offer proper credit in contexts where everything else is credited too, and then inertia carried that practice along even into other contexts. It's possible that these cultural prejudices run contra to the "wiki ethos", &c. Given how widespread they are, I think you perhaps dismiss them too easily. Similarly, I don't you'll find tremendous agreement that writing authorship information on image description pages is only for "uniformity with fair-use images": rather, it comes from the same legal and cultural tradition that leads to image captions most places. I imagine, for instance, that if Wikipedia stopped describing image sources on image description pages, its pool of images and image contributors would shrink dramatically. The event of a user adding additional more permissive licenses to an image after its initial licensing must be extremely infrequent relative to the number of images on the site: I don't think that's it either. –jacobolus (t) 22:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It feels like you are tilting at windmills here; whether a credit is in a caption or hidden down in a reference, the effect is the same. Image credits are on image description pages, just as text contribution credits are in the history. The spirit of the WP:OWN policy is clear: content, both image and text, is edited and shared collaboratively. It may be a failure of Wikipedia not to credit contributions more blatanty, but.. it is what it is. tedder (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to raise the point that, not only has jacobolus credited himself with nearly all the images in the article, he's also removed nearly all images created by other users. SharkD  Talk  23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Unintentional, and with several different motivations over the course of about 2 months. (1) I added some images, (2) I decided some of the existing images were irreparably defective and added some more images to replace them. (3) I created some demonstrative figures out of nominees/winners of wikipedia "picture of the year" contests. (4) I noticed that their authors specifically requested image credit in their images as licensed (under cc-by-sa) on their sites. (5) I added image credits to those images. (6) I figured if I was going to add image credits for some images, I might as well add credits for all the images then on the page. The intent is neither nefarious nor self-congratulatory. In any case, if there's actually a consensus against putting credits in footnotes (I see about 3 editors asserting that, but little conclusive evidence; all the discussions I've seen seem roughly evenly split, with arguments mostly just passing in the night) then I will happily remove them. Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional examples

Are there examples of how to add captions that, 1) are labeled "figure 1", "figure 2", etc.; and 2) use short phrases without punctuation? If not I would like to see some made. SharkD  Talk  23:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What more precisely do you have in mind? I'm having trouble imagining it. –jacobolus (t) 02:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

More on credits in image captions

The page currently says "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page." However, the CC legal code and our templates that support it permit a copyright holder the spicy the form of attribution. (for an example see File:David Siegel.jpg.) In such a case we must use an image caption credit or not use the image (or be in violation of license terms). DES ^(talk) 13:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I share the concerns raised in the above comment (which I assume meant to say "However, the CC legal code and our templates that support it permit a copyright holder to specify the form of attribution.") As I understand it, our practice of attributing authorship for text contributions by having readers look through our history is based on the note at the bottom of every text edit page that says "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details." But there is no such agreement for media files contributed to Wikimedia Commons. Their use is governed only by the license under which the file was uploaded, which must be one of the free content licenses that Commons accepts. Our Terms of Use makes this clear. Common recommends "Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0) and GFDL." Increasingly we transfer images without asking permission from other photo collection sites, such as Flickr, as long as a suitable free license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA is granted. CC-BY-SA says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)" Flickr offers HTML code to use in attributing a work. If an author's attribution requirements are excessive, we always have the option to not use the image. But I don't think "It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page." is sufficient to address the complex legal and ethical issues involved with photo attribution.--agr (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Some background: I added that particular line as a compromise, because, while CC-BY's "human-readable summary" says we should abide by the copyright holder's requested method of attribution, CC-BY's legal code (which we assumed has more legal weight), doesn't seem to say anything about the copyright holder being able to specify the method... and so, though we assumed this meant that CC doesn't require us to follow the method the copyright holder requests, none of us discussing the issue were actual copyright lawyers, so we could only say it is "assumed". Copyright law is incredibly complicated and laypeople like us cannot say for certain whether the law says one thing or the other in this regard. But perhaps it would be better to say "It is assumed by some that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page, though this is currently disputed. A formal legal opinion on the matter has not been received." (additions in bold)

For your convenience, here's the relevant text:

You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

— CC-BY 3.0 human-readable summary

The credit required by this Section 4(b) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Derivative Work or Collective Work appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors.

— CC-BY 3.0 legal code

-kotra (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording you propose would be better. I am not a lawyer, but I can see courts taking the human-readable summary into consideration, even though there is a disclaimer saying it has no legal significance. Our article on the Parol evidence rule lists several exceptions that seem relevant in this context. But I also think we should look at this from an ethical perspective. Wikipedia is a strong proponent and beneficiary of free content and copyleft. I don't think we should act based on narrow legal technicalities if we can avoid doing so. I suspect the vast majority of people who submit content under CC-BY and its cousins do so based on the human-readable summary, not the legal text. In that context we should respect what the human-readable summary says. I would distinguish between content submitted by the author to Wikimedia and content we import based on a CC-BY compatible license. People who submit their photos directly, like myself, presumably have seen how we credit images and willingly upload their images anyway. People who submit to Flickr, say, likely expect attribution to mean what is done on Flickr, i.e. their name or pseudonym is on the same page as the photo. --agr (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It is both unethical and unreasonable to have a system on Commons that tells authors/licensors that their images will be attributed in the manner specified by the author or licensor, and then refuse to honour this on Wikipedia pages.

I propose the following change to the guidelines:

For photographs:

• • Where was it taken?
  • When was it taken?
  • Who took it? (this is only included in the caption if the photographer is notable, or if required by licence conditions)
  • Why was it taken?

Rowland Goodman (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's either unethical or unreasonable. An author could upload an image to Commons under a license that says "Reproduction of this image is permitted provided that the author is credited in 72-point Americana Bold in red with yellow polka dots." The fact that an author may specify whatever licensing terms they like doesn't mean that Wikipedia should be required to accept them.

You are right that a caption credit is very common and is usually not an unreasonable request. But this is an encyclopedia, which is intrinsically a collective effort, and you will note that there are no individual credits on the article pages at all. As the terms of use say, "you agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution." Tim Pierce (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled across this discussion today and have read through most of this page. This section actually address's the correct concerns - to be blunt - if someone uses the CC sa-by 3.0 License they can specify how they want their attribution to read. If Wikipedia accepts that license than there is no acceptable guideline here that overrules the copyright holders terms. That is clear if one reads the full legal code of the CC by-sa 3.0 license. The File:David Siegel.jpg example is a perfect way to illustrate how an attribution requirement can be worded. Another issue with this discussion that is being overlooked is that when a copyright holder chooses to allow something to be used here, and that file is also hosted here, that means that file is licensed to Wikipedia. It does not necessarily mean "For Wikipedia use only", is just means that Wikipedia is the end user. As such the copyright holder can terminate that license with Wikipedia at any time if Wikipedia's use of it somehow violates the license's terms of use. In plain English - a photo credit or by-line being *with* the image when it is used can be a requirement of use, if it is not given the rights of usage can be revoked. There is a slightly misleading wording that is used at Wikipedia which is "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable". If that is all that there was it would mean the actual license for the image can not be revoked. But that is not all there is - that statement comes from FAQ at Creative Commons. One has to read the next line of the FAQ to better understand the full context: This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license The important words are according to that license. Again, if one reads the full legal code for the Wikipedia accepted CC by-sa 3 license, section 7. Termination it states the the license will terminate automatically upon any breach of the terms by an end user. Bottom line - any end user must follow the requirement of the given license. The stance that some editors currently have about not giving proper attribution is based on older Wikipedia guidelines and polices that, in the case of images, stated we did not accept any license that required attribution. However now attribution is part of all CCL's, and none of them state the end user must only follow attribution requirements if the copyright holder is "independently notable". Since there was a push to make everything at Wikipedia available via a CC by-sa 3.0 license Wikipedia editors can not "assume" anything in regards to attribution - in fact most of the WP:CREDITS section should be removed or drastically re-worded. We have tags such as {{Attribution}} and {{CopyrightFreeAttributeEmail}} for images and {{Source-attribution}} for articles. Those can even be used in conjunction with {{ConfirmationOTRS}} if need be. We need only give attribution if it is required, however common sense should always tell an editor to "give credit where credit is due". Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Having spent some more time studying the CC-BY-3.0 license in the last few weeks I have come to disagree. There is no clause I can find in the legal code that gives the author the ability to specify the format or location of the attribution. Instead, it says (as quoted above) that credit may be given "in any reasonable manner" without specifying how or where or why, giving the licensee freedom to choose the manner. The CC FAQ appears to concur:

In the case where a copyright holder does choose to specify the manner of attribution, in addition to the requirement of leaving intact existing copyright notices, they are only able to require certain things. Namely:

• They may require that you attribute the work to a certain name, pseudonym or even an organization of some sort.
• They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work.
  — Creative Commons FAQ

So, absent a formal legal opinion on the matter, it seems to me that by using CC-BY-SA 3.0, an author is implicitly giving up fine-grained control over exactly how they are credited for their work. They must still be credited, but the licensee has a considerable degree of freedom over how to provide that credit. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are only a few words here and there - yes that is how one could read it. But after dealing with images and copyrights here for the last 3 years and in the real world for the last 30 or so I can look at the license and understand why all of CCL's are written very generic: because they are used for not only images but also music, books, artwork and pretty much anything else that can be licensed. I am not going to re-paste the entire legal code here, however, as all of the current CCL's are now "attribution" licenses that means the "Licensor" is required to be given the "Attribution" as they specify it to be (If they want it to be) whenever the end user ("You") seeks to "Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work." Remember this is a multi use, generic license - it would be pointless to word it so it is directly aimed at only one form of media. For example "Attribution must be displayed at the head of the motion picture or television broadcast" would not work for a book. "Attribution must be given on the front cover as well as the title page" would not work for a motion picture. This is why the wording used is generic and states "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing." In plain English the "medium" being used means the format or manner of use. Is it an article being printed in a newspaper? Is it a song being played on the radio? Is it a motion picture being screened in a theater? Is it a painting hanging in an art gallery? For this discussion the "You" is Wikipedia and "The Work" is an image. The first "use" is the image page - and overall Wikipedia does give proper attribution on image pages. The next "use" being discussed is image use in Wikipedia articles. The "medium" being used here is the internet. What kind of attribution is "reasonable" becomes the question at this point. It is already established we allow attribution on article pages. For "quotes" in article we have footnote at the bottom of the page, for articles or sections of article where text is used under a free license we use a tag such as {{Source-attribution}}. For articles on albums, books, motion pictures, video/DVD releases and television shows we give attribution to the artists, the label, the recording studio, the distributor, the director, the producer and various other "jobs", sometimes in an infobox and sometimes in the body of the article and sometimes both. It has already been established that for images we give attribution to someone an editor feels is "independently notable". If one looks on the internet at other websites that contain informative articles we find that attribution is given, one can even find articles taken from Wikipedia the carry attribution such as: "Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article..." Given that Wikipedia already allows attribution in articles and on images the opinion that Wikipedia does not use a medium that would allow for photo credit outside of an image page does not hold up.

As for what the "author" might require when "You" "Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work" it would very by what is being licensed. A distributor of a motion picture may have a long list of requirements via contract that must be used - their attribution requirements may include breakdown of specifics - such as "In any or all print media advertising attribution must be:" with a list of the name of the film, the producer, the director, the main stars and so on. As this relates to the FAQ you mention - when all of the section is read the first things it states are All current CC licenses require that you attribute the original author(s). If the copyright holder has not specified any particular way to attribute them, this does not mean that you do not have to give attribution. The key words in this first section are If and has not specified. If you read the examples for what would happen if there was nothing specified one of the examples is for a "derivative work or adaptation" where "You" might have to give attribution as "Screenplay based on [original work] by [author]." If this were a motion picture that kind of attribution is common sense (no pun intended) and that kind of common sense should be applied to image use as well. The section that you quoted above is as you quoted but one needs to read the full legal code in order to fully understand that the key words in that section of the FAQ are They may require.... In plain(er) English that "may" means *could* require, not "can only require". So you "may require" attribution to read: © Tim Pierce and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License. However the attribution could also be greatly broken down:

• "For world wide web use attribution must appear at each use location and must read: © Tim Pierce and licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License"
• "For print use, excluding books, attribution must read: © Tim Pierce and licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a similar license. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA."
• "For front cover or back cover book use attribution may appear on the inner sleeve, for content usage attribution can be in a credits section. In all cases attribution must read: © Tim Pierce and licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a similar license. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA."
• "For gallery shows a card must be placed near the image, it's use is any printed material associated with the gallery show must also carry attribution and must read: © Tim Pierce and licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a similar license. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. However if the printed material is limited on space © Tim Pierce and licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License may be used next to the image provided there is a note that reads To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. in the printed material as well."

That is just a brief idea. The FAQ is akin to the "human-readable summary", which states Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). It does not state, nor does the full legal code, Attribution — You must only attribute the work to a certain name, pseudonym or even an organization of some sort and possibly a certain URL (web address) for the work. This all should be a non-issue now that Wikipedia has moved to use only attribution licenses. It becomes more of an issue, I feel, when you see an image taken form Wikipedia and it has a credit as "Wikipedia" and not the photographer. Providing a link to another page or another website with the image is not really providing a credit. You might say it would be like reading a murder-mystery novel and when you get to the last page you find a notice to visit a website to find out "Who did it". Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is case law that supports this interpretation of "reasonable attribution" then I will agree with you. Otherwise I think that at most it is an as-yet unresolved legal question, certainly not anywhere near as clear-cut as you suggest here. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Section Break

It may be "too soon" for any "case law" with specific regards to CCL's and attribution but I will search. Having said that, what is within easy to find reach - There was an interesting lawsuit where an Australian ad agency hired by Virgin Mobile used images from Flickr that had a CCL attached. One of the images was of a minor living in Texas. (Download a PDF of the lawsuit here: Susan Chang v Virgin Mobile and Creative Commons) The lawsuit was not soley about attribution, it has multi layers - including a "Breach of Contract" section. It states that when the image was downloaded from Flickr the end user entered into a valid contract via the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. It is stated in the lawsuit that Virgin Mobile was obligated, inter alia, to attribute Justin Wong as the photographer of the picture. Virgin Mobile failed to comply with this obligation, thereby breaching the terms of the contract. It goes on to cite the legal code of the version 2 license, section 7(a), that says "(t)his License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License." So therefor when Virgin Mobile used the photograph without properly attributing the photographer and licensor, Justin Wong, the contract terminated, which thereby abrogated any rights that were otherwise granted to Virgin Mobile under the terms of the license. The lawsuit was dismissed, mainly because the Texas court system felt it had no jurisdiction over in Australia. It is interesting to read Lawrence Lessig, CEO of Creatives Commons, comment: As CEO of Creative Commons, I apologize for any trouble that confusion about our licenses might have created. We thought the meaning was clear. We work hard to make this as clear as we can. We will work harder. (From the Why-a-GC-from-Cravath-is-great Department: The lawsuit is over Of interest is also the conversation on that page about attribution - including a link to the Wikimedia Commons Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia article. NOTE: If you read that note the "Hotlinking" section which says that while you can hotlink the images "it is still good practice to add attribution as you would for copies on your own server.")

And on a very related note - a question was asked of the CEO:

• Question: I'd like to know why I can't plug in my own attribution requirements. For instance, if I release a picture under the CC, I want to specify that any page using that pic must contain a specific link. According to a discussion I had on cc-community, apparently I can't do that under the CC.
• Reply from CC CEO Lawrence Lessig: Actually, you can use the new attribution license to specify the attribution, including a link. (and so it begins)

You may also want to this: AutoWeek: Oh come on. In the meantime, if that isn't enough to establish what is being discussed, I will seek out any legal cases where attribution played a factor. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Consolidation?

Please note that this page has been nominated to be consolidated with the primary Manual of Style page. Please join the discussion at the MOS talk page in order to discus the possibility of merging this page with the MOS. Thank you.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think it is unwise that this information be fragmented into a page that appears to be very much to do with images and related guidelines, and needs to be in the same place. Please come forth with any technical or content problems that would arise from the merger. Tony (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that the miles of text devoted to dragging out fragments from the main text and using ellipsis points (wrongly spaced here, see MoS), is eccentric, even bizarre. I'd be happy to see it cut right back. Tony (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Centre-aligning captions

I've just been given a boilerplate talk page rebuttal from User:96.41.164.58, who seems to be responding to a number of editors who've independently (and perhaps incorrectly) told him that it's inappropriate to add <center> tags to image captions for the sake of aesthetics. Is there really no clear stance on this in the MoS? Should there be one? --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

period after image caption?

I'm curious why image captions on wikipedia, that are not complete sentences, do not get periods. Guidance for figure captions in almost all journals and theses IS to add a period. This is even if the caption is a sentence fragment. I can dig up references showing this. The guidance I always heard was that the appelation below a figure represented a comment on the figure (and you can even have a paragraph, although for wiki with the tiny images, I would not do that). As such it goes below the figure and has a period. On the other hand tables get the name above the table, with capitalization and without a period, as this is the "title" of the table. In essence, I think the current style guidance is "wrong" since it differs with most common practice. Wiki should try to normally not blaze new trails...only doing so when the very particular format here or of the web drives that...but otherwise should try to stick to the most standard usage, so readers don't do double takes. Anyhoo...even if the answer is "we just decided to do it this way", could you direct me to where this was debated before, could not find. TCO (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(Waffling with self) Of course we probably want to follow the format other encyclopedias do, which might be more popular. I guess magazines and such might not add a period after a sentence frag caption. But I don't know...TCO (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm curious why image captions on wikipedia, that are not complete sentences, do not get periods. -- You're asking the wrong question. The proper question is: Why should extended noun phrases have a final period?
  I can dig up references showing this. -- Please do.
  I think the current style guidance is "wrong" -- "wrong", or wrong? [I struck this part of my comment since it struck me as needlessly aggressive.] --87.79.224.212 (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  Maybe more to the point: I believe that there are only so many options. One reason I believe the threshold "grammatically complete sentence vs. non-sentence" makes a lot of sense is that on the one hand it provides an easy to understand underlying mechanic, and on the other hand I believe that periods on very short (one or two word) captions or on captions that simply name e.g. the depicted painting (see Painting for examples) are really awkward.
  So imho, the question cannot be about whether to put final periods on all captions. (At least I for one would be heavily opposed to adding captions in the aforementioned cases.) Therefore, we would still need a sensible underlying rule when to use a final period and when not to.
  As to how other publishers handle this issue, I've found e.g. this printguide at princeton.edu which advises against using periods in captions that are not full sentences. So it appears this rule is not something "made up" by Wikipedians. It's one variant that is out there, and imho it is the one that makes by far the most sense.
  Needless to say, my argument hinges on my personal strong opposition to periods on the examples I mentioned (e.g. very short captions or just names of the depicted painting or other work of art). Should a consensus emerge at some point that periods should also be used on such captions, then we'd again have a very simple underlying rule ("periods on all captions"). Until then, the simplest and most sensible dividing line remains "grammatically complete sentence vs. non-sentence". --213.168.116.136 (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Examples

The examples given don't seem very good - ie:

• "Burma Shave" the shown image neither 'tells a joke or a rhyme'
• the engine image has a caption that doesn't really explain the image (ok I know it's an engine) - it doesn't appear to show any stage of a design process
• image of a large ship captioned "...structures and vehicles of all sizes..." - ? Slightly surreal message

The "raven" caption appears normal and good.

I honestly fail to see how these are examples of good captions - and don't match 'common sense' standard usage of captions in the majority of articles eg Map. Are they supposed to be good examples or ?Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)