Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Images and Media    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page was within the scope of WikiProject Images and Media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.


There is a "discussion" at Talk:Breechblock regarding a rewrite [1]. This was reverted on the basis that: "galleries are generally unnecessary". A discussion was started and a notification made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms. The original reverting editor has declined to participate in the discussion and only one other editor has joined the discussion. I was wondering if an uninvolved editor or admin could have a look at this re a "consensus". I am posting here as the use of galleries was the reason for the revert in the first instance. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe a consensus has been reached. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I think it is time to revisit the wording of WP:IG, the image gallery section here. This was a rather contentious subject several years ago, but in general the wording - that I think has been little changed for some years - has sorted the matter. But the policy is still capable of misinterpretation. Whoever you think is right there, the policy ought to be clearer - he thinks it justifies just cutting the entire gallery for a major old master painter (Giovanni Bellini); I certainly don't. I'll do some research & propose a clearer wording. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I see one relevant long discussion back in 2008 at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/Archive_12#Removal_of_galleries - beginning on just this point. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Only to provide a point of reference, you might want to look at the talk of History of painting for more discussion on galleries outside of the realm of non-free images.
On a matter of opinion, as long as we are talking free images, a small feature gallery of 3-4-5 images that otherwise can't fit into context of an article, so that it spans a typical line along the page, seems reasonable, but outright removal of free image galleries isn't appropriate, nor is flooding them with dozens of images. We can always link to media at Commons for a given topic if more images are needed. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - I'm going to put a proposal together, so maybe let's wait for that. I'm thinking of free images, in the vast majority of circumstances. I hadn't contemplated changing the current strong disapproval of non-free images in galleries, though in a few cases long captions explaining the relevance of the images can make it appropriate. I'm somewhat surprised how precisely the issues not fully settled in 2008 are the ones I think need fixing now. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
collecting links for proposal:
section in 2006, when all references were to "photo montages" - changed to galleries in 2007
section on 8 April 2008
section on 20 November 2008, just before big discussion
discussion re the older "4 approaches" text, May-Aug 2008
Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/Archive_12#Why_Galleries_are_useful Feb 2009 discussion, essentially setting the text as it remains today
I'll leave these here in case anyone is interested. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File deletion RFC[edit]

You may be interested in this RFC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Image cropping[edit]

I am technically challenged when it comes to images, montages, and that sort of thing. How does one "crop" an image from Commons? Are there restrictions in the Commons realm? Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

List clean up needed[edit]

I am starting this discussion after I made edits that where reverted by EEng and I took the time to see what other list problems there may be as listed below.

  1. § What are public and private places? – mixed definition and unordered list wiki-text
  2. § Examples – same as above
  3. § Required information – unwanted definition list wiki-text in an unordered list
  4. § Deleting images – similar to #3

The first two could be fixed by removing the semi-colons (;) and if desired bolding the affected text ie. '''Examples of private places'''. Item three can be fixed by simply replacing the colons (:) with asterisks (*). I am thinking that HTML markup could be used in item #2 in the "Deleting images" section. Any comments or objections? – Allen4names (contributions) 00:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you remind us what's broken that you're fixing? Is this one of these things where HTML Version 6bis forbids self-closing indented tag definitions on non-Euclidean code pages? EEng 01:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It's probably the perennial problem where the html-semantics-purists don't like how ; is used to boldface subheadings and : is used to indent things, even though that's the meaning that all wiki-editors think of them as having, because the software turns these codes into html that is supposed to mean something different (terms and definitions in a definition list). Rather than change the translation into html to match our thinking, they want to force our thinking into the Procrustean bed of the software's interpretation of these codes. It's a wonder they can use talk pages at all; maybe they are only capable of leaving top-level posts, and not replies, because to do otherwise would be to violate their own rules. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
You must terrify undergraduates. EEng 02:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Fortunately I only have a graduate-level course this term. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Perhaps I should have qualified my question with the word useful. That said #4 on the list above is probably the worst as there appears to be a list in between two lines of text. – Allen4names (contributions) 02:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
You speak in riddles. EEng 04:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
This is very off-topic, sorry, but the above heresy makes me think this recent comment by a senior developer may interest some of those here. The ruling from above is that we humble editors should just use <br> without those silly spaced slashes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I've run across this on my own pages sometimes, when I try to validate their html and discover that the html version I'm using is incompatible with slashed br's. On the other hand, here, my experience is that the most common use of br (to separate items in an infobox) is better handled with {{plainlist}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Johnuniq, how is that heresy? It's not like you're repeating something you heard from someone else but about which you have no direct knowledge and can't be cross-examined. EEng 04:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Image-related project ideas at Meta-wiki[edit]

I invite you to comment and/or participate on the above ideas about obtaining more free images of persons. --George Ho (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Permission Use[edit]

Can I use Getty Images in a wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo1198 (talkcontribs) 08:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

In general, no. While Getty has made options for some unrestricted fair use, they remain commercial works, and more importantly, commercial works from a press agency (in that there is commercial value in their images), which under non-free requirements we cannot use, unless the image itself is notable on its own for a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)