Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Why are we telling users to place |right when it is a default?

On the project page it is stated "As an example in its simplest form..." followed by example image markup that includes |right, despite that right hand placement is a default parameter everywhere, as far as I am aware. Is there some reason this is included in this "simplest form" example? I have many times at the help desk/new contributors help page advised users that the "simplest form" (even serendipitously using that exact language independently) is [[File:example.png|thumb|caption description]] and gone on to describe the ability to change the right and size defaults using |left and |???px. So why is this in there? Is this possibly an artifact from a time when images did not automatically default to the right, or am I missing something?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made the change to the page reflecting that right it is the default, highlighting that right placement is preferred in most places, and describing how to override.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about a photographer's displeasure with my crop of his PD pic

User:K72ndst added a nice photo of Jim Steranko to Steranko's article, as seen here. I didn't think it made the best use of the available space, so I cropped it, and added the cropped version to the article, see here, which devotes more of the space to Steranko, as seen here.

K72ndst then left this message on my Talk Page: "Hello: I really do not like how you cropped and edited my photo of Jim Steranko, so I am changing it back. I am a photographer, and I made a serious and thought-out decision how I wanted to best present my image. I took more than 20 of Steranko at the con, and could have had a boring photo like you have cropped my photo down to be. The reason I presented it in this way was to show the con around him. I do not want it presented in this fashion. Or I will take the image down. I have contributed many many images to Wikipedia, and never has anyone just gone in and chopped up an image of mine this way."

I cropped the photo because the article is about Steranko, not the convention, and I think the cropped version shows him better. If I understand copyright law and WP policy correctly, K72 released the photo into the public domain, so he has no authority to determine how it's presented, he has no authority to "take it down", and to declare that the article MUST present the photo as he declares, simply because he's a photographer, without discussion, sounds like WP:OWN. I myself have had photos of mine cropped, as with the pic that currently serves as the main accompanying photo in the Richard Dreyfuss article, which was cropped from a more full shot that I took and added, and I did not react this way. I want to tell him this, and suggest a consensus discussion, but don't want to inflame the situation. What do you think? Nightscream (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you asked several seemingly random people to comment on this, but since you asked me to, I will. I too am no expert on copyright law, but the license that this is released under seems to allow you to crop the photo. I personally think that the cropped version looks much better in his article, but also you should note that the photo is included in the New York Comic Con article, which is about the convention. Therefore, I recommend that you make a separate cropped image. I also recommend that you verify that the editor cannot in fact remove the image. Then the issue will just be an arbitration of which image should be included in the Jim Steranko article, which I think shouldn't be too hard to reach a consensus in your direction for, considering how much better the cropped image looks. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 18:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The photographer chose the "by" (attribution-only) license restriction; it's therefore safe to modify (such as by cropping). If the photographer didn't want it modified, then s/he should have chosen a license that included "nd" (no derivatives) restriction.

CC licenses are irrevocable, so I suggest that the photographer consider this one a learning lesson. If you are interested in a reasonable compromise, it sounds like the author has plenty of other shots, and perhaps a different one would make a better head shot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the original photographer does not have the authority to revoke the license or the image; but I also agree with him that the image as he originally presented it does a better job in the context of the article, showing that guy in a relevant situation. The image is not sharp enough to make a decent head shot, and the cropped one is too tight, and looks very awkward. I've also gone in and cropped or enhanced photos of others, but I do try to be respectful; in most cases, it's just amateurs who wouldn't know a good photo from a hole in their head, but in this case it's a photographer who cares, and I'd say respect his art. Just because we can legally change it doesn't mean we should. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How can there be a "no-derivatives restriction" on a free image? By definition, as a free image, anyone anywhere can modify the file as they please, as long as the author(s) or licensor(s) is attributed. Nightscream did not overwrite the original image – he created a second, derivative image and it's properly annotated as "other version" at Commons. As to which image should be used in the article's infobox, that should be decided by consensus on the article talk page. The original uploader gets one !vote, the same as any other editor.  JGHowes  ^talk 20:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because there isn't a "free/non-free" dichotomy with copyright. What WhatamIdoing is suggesting is that the author could have chosen a copyright license doesn't allow derivatives to be created from it. Such a license is still broadly "free" because it can still be used as you like, except that you can't modify it. I suspect such a license may not be acceptable at Commons, however. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about licenses, not copyright. Of course, the original photographer retains the copyright to his work. But what free license will Wikipedia accept that doesn't allow derivatives? Such a restriction makes it a non-free image which could only be used with a justifiable Fair Use Rationale at en-wiki, i.e., "The license must not prevent commercial reuse or derivative works", re WP:ICTIC.  JGHowes  ^talk 20:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Legally Nightscream is correct, but I personally think he should act in good faith and respect the photographer's wishes. Timeshift (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have also been asked to comment on this cropping, though I'm not sure why. It is legal and acceptable to crop the photo. I think it just has to be handled the same way as any other content dispute is handled... through discussion and consensus-building. The photo is out of focus and grayscale (sepia), so I don't have a strong opinion about which version looks better. They both look out of focus and colourless. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the image should be moved to another section (as in not in the infobox) and another image should be used. The current picture has good composition but I think a replacement can be found to better illustrate the subject. So basically, move the picture to another section and find a picture that better illustrates the subject, so, a close up picture of his face. Jerry teps (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To Asmeurer: I did indeed create a separate image. As for why I asked random people to comment here, well, I needed info on the legality and policy concerning images, and since you were all in this Talk Page's History, I notified you. I do not see what Good Faith has to do with respecting a photographer's wishes, since consensus may decide that the cropped version is better. I do not think moving it to another section makes sense, since there is no other image available. Nightscream (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, too. There's no issue for here; let's take the image choice question to the article talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the photographer and I thank you all for your input. I asked that it not be cropped, because this is how I wanted it to be presented. I already stated my reasons for this. For this article to go from C class to B class it will need a photo of the subject, and this is the one I have taken the time to create for the article. This article is well-written and researched; my contribution will be this photo. That is really all I have to say on this. -- K72ndst (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with several above - consensus is clear that a modified image may be used regardless of contributor's wishes - whether a particular image should be used in a particular article should be taken to the article discussion page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Raster

I like raster images they are cool. --98.162.148.46 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Namespace

Why are images in the File namespace instead of the Image namespace now? --Fangoriously (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

images in lists

Is there a policy, guideline, or style guide that excludes images in lists as referenced in this edit? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of in fact I use images in lists all the time. See these 2 for examples: List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima, List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients.--Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of images in an article

Is there a policy or guideline governing the number of images in articles? My understanding is that the more images in an article, the longer it will take to load on slower connections. Is that accurate? Would someone be so kind as to check out Whale tail, there are 6 images in the article but 2 of them essentially duplicate the same thing. I've tried to remove one but one of the article's more prolific contributors objects. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I started a similar discussion here. SharkD (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

According to fair use criteria, images must be more than decorative and serve an actual useful purpose in the article. I propose extending this to include all images—not just copyrighted material. (Exceptions would include icons and so forth which exist to make site navigation easier.) SharkD (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be preferable to have the discussion in one place or the other, but not both. This talk page is the better place, rather than the main WP:MOS talk page, because the question relates to the WP:Images guideline page. I posted the same suggestion at the other discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Large numbers of images. Finell (Talk) 22:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Image translation

So, what would I need to do to go about translating the contents of this very useful page? Do I need special permissions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to new name

Maybe we should move this to Wikipedia:Files. --— HK22 \my contributions/ ^{(my talk)} 06:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but we'd have to copy-edit a lot of the WP pages that discuss images. The file/image thing is already confusing me beyond belief! :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not. There is nothing on the page about files (files other than images) other than in the sentence, "Wikipedia contains millions of illustrative images and other electronic media." The page only discusses images and how to use them. Naming it "WP:Files" would be completely counterproductive. The Image namespace was moved to File for the convenience of audio and video files, but should not result in the detriment of use of Image files, which in my opinion should still use the Image: format for purposes of clarity, even though the actual file they represent is of the namespace File. As it says,

The "File:" prefix may be used interchangeably with "Image:":

and there is nothing further that needs to be said. I would recommend keeping all of the examples of the format Image:, so that by implication users would tend to have a preference for using Image instead of File. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Images not uploading

On three separate computers over the last few days I have noticed our images are sluggishly uploading, or not uploading at all in the articles. Is it just me? -->David Shankbone 14:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-Free entity logo

I want to use a non-free entity logo on an article, but can't figure out how to lower the resolution. Can somebody help me out? The image is for the Poker Hall of Fame?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

figured out.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting the Moire (or maybe you call it something else) out of digitized images of halftone originals

Jafet Lindeborg Nome Businessman 1905

Digitized photos scanned from printed sources often have a checkerboard pattern or rows of alternating light and dark spots which I presume to be due to the dot pattern of the scanner coming into and out of register with the dot pattern of the halftone in the printed source.

For instance see at right:Dankarl (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me this should be removable with some mathematical filtering? Is there a way to get this done without buying expensive software or becoming an image processing expert?

Or would there be a better place to post this question?Dankarl (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Image rendering but you could go to sourceforge.net and download Gimp. Gimp is a freeware version of Photoshop and does most of the same things without the cost. You can also go to youtube and find tutorials that will teach you how to use it.--Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I know this doesn't answer your question, but in terms of scanning antiquarian book images so that they don't show the moiré pattern, what I usually do is position the page so that it is at a slight angle (5–10°) to the scanning instrument, then scan at a higher than normal resolution. Once the picture is scanned, I use a graphics editor (PSP) to smoothly rotate the image back to the normal alignment, apply appropriate correction settings (contrast, &c.), scale it down to get a nice smooth tone, then crop it appropriately. This eliminates nearly all moiré pattern effects, except perhaps for slight gray intonations on a light background. For the latter I usually try again with slightly different modifications.—RJH (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Worked on it a bit, was able to reduce the distortion only a little without losing too much detail. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Should it be Image or File

I have noticed that pywikipediabot has changed some images from File: to Image: and I was wondering if there was something that directed this or if it was just an error.--Kumioko (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation in captions

All the examples omit periods at the end of captions. Is this standard practice/policy for the project? SharkD (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking for an image-specific noticeboard

Two editors have a dispute at WPMED over whether the other guy is unfairly promoting his private-practice cosmetic surgery business by (*gasp*) listing their websites on the File: pages (not in the articles, but in the "source" field of the description). The discussions are here and here. Since we can't very well knock heads together over the web, what's the right forum for resolving such disputes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

confused

I am extremely confused over image rights at the moment. I am currently working on an article for the rapper Remo Conscious on a subpage in my user space, found here. I have spoken several times to Remo on Facebook (probably not the best place, but it was the easiest way to contact him) and he has provided me with some information about him which I have included in the page (with references). The problem I am having is finding an image of him. There are images of him on Facebook but I don't know if there is any copyright on them or if they have been released into the public domain. I also do not know who took the pictures.

Should I contact Remo himself and ask him to release one under CCA 2.0, or should I try to find out who took the picture and ask them for the copyright details? Or is it safe to upload it without asking? Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. -Itachi007 (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Either "ask" approach will work, but if you don't know the copyright status, you should NOT upload the images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

galleries

It is claimed (e.g. here) that image galleries are against WP policy. I doubt that's the case, but do we have any guidance on them?--Kotniski (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries. -Optigan13 (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

I can't find anything anywhere about this, but for images such as File:FernandoTorres.jpg, according to the author the photo "must" be attributed to be used ("All usage must display the phrase 'Photo: Philip Gabrielsen' in the immediate vicinity of the image"). I thought I had read somewhere that we shouldn't put "Photo by [such and such]" directly underneath the image when used in an article. Can somebody help me by clarifying the rules there may be about this? Ksy92003 (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

While you can doubtless find a couple of similar attributions somewhere on Wikipedia, we generally avoid using such images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC to increase the default thumbnail size of images

The issue of the default thumbnail size of 180px has come to a head after many years. All input is welcome. Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's bonkers image policy

On the one hand, WP insists that in order to reach GA or FA level, an article must have images, but, on the other hand, its draconian enforcement of fair use means that locating an image that actually has anything to do with the topic at hand is virtually impossible. This leads to the ludicrous situation of people slapping images onto articles that have little or nothing to do with the topic being discussed, purely because they are images. Either relax the fair use policy or stop insisting that every high level article have images. Serendi^podous 08:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Image problem

I spotted this particular image that I want to put in the SAJ page.

[1]

However, it seems that the seemingly apostrophes are thinking that the word "ACUPAT" is being italicized. Help is appreciated since I want to put the image of an armed SAJ operative on illustrate its page since I removed its gallery, which is inappropriate IMO. Ominae (talk)

I have renamed the file without the offending chars and you should be able to insert it now as needed. [2] MECU≈talk 03:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

malicious

I made two images as I always do in illustrator: it tells me they are malicious! File:NA hybrid.svg and File:Microarray exp horizontal.svg... what am I doing wrong? (it never gave me that before)--Squidonius (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The SVG files you uploaded appear to be corrupt in some way... Firefox doesn't want to open them. Did you uploadupdate Adobe Illustrator or the SVG export plugin recently? I'll have a look. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I was able to get them to render properly by loading in Inkscape, and saving as "Plain SVG" rather than "Inkscape SVG". It seems the RSVG renderer, used both by MediaWiki and Firefox, doesn't understand some XML element in the Inkscape versions of the files. I am not sure whether this is an Inkscape bug or an RSVG bug. Can an SVG guru help???

UPDATE: It could be an Adobe Illustrator bug, since that's what Squidonius originally created his SVG images with. Any ideas?

Anyway, they should be working now. And they look like great, useful images. Thanks!!

Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can museum photos be used?

Let's say I want to add a photo to an article on Joe Bloe, a baseball player from 1919. I visit Cooperstown and there is a display case showing his jersey and the baseball he used to pitch a perfect game, etc. If I take a photo of that display case, is that my property, so I can then upload and use it in an article, or is property of the museum? I know this question has probably been asked before, but I didn't know where to look for the answer. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

1919 falls under the pre-1923 public domain window of US copyright law. So if what you say is correct there would be no competing copyright claim. Durova³³² 22:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So the museum has no rights to photos you upload? If the material was more recent, like a sports figure from the 1960s, for example. Does subject matter not play a part? Does the museum have no rights to any photographs of their exhibits?BashBrannigan (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The earlier reply is specific to the circumstances described. Most photographs from the 1960s are under copyright, in which case a photo of the photo would be a derivative work (that is, you the rephotographer wouldn't gain an entirely new set of rights to it). Additionally, some museums use contract law to assert control over patrons' reuse of images. That would be a civil contract between the museum and the patron, which means it wouldn't be binding on Wikipedia if the patron uploaded here, but you (as a patron) would assume a risk of civil court action if you broke a contract with the museum. You didn't ask about the latter in your previous query, but yes subject matter does play a part and yes museums sometimes assert rights. Durova³³² 00:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So, in other words, let's say I took a photograph of an ancient Egyptian scroll a museum was exhibiting. The scroll itself has no artistic rights attached, but the museum would have rights to the exhibit. The museum has made an investment in the exhibit, whether it's a baseball jersey, or dinosaur bones, and would want to protect that investment. If photos of the exhibit became widely available to the public it might devalue the exhibit. But I think you're also saying the museum would sue me, not Wikipedia. Does this sum it up?BashBrannigan (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. The museum may assert rights, which might or might not be valid depending upon the sort of rights asserted or the jurisdiction. If the type of rights asserted are contractual, then those would affect the patron only (if at all). These matters don't boil down quite as easily as that; one makes one's own decisions of what risks to assume (and for the record, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice). Durova³³² 04:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Using images from foreign language wikipedias

Does anyone know of a way to link to and use images from a foreign language wikipedia, like the Japanese version of wikipedia? I want to use some pictures from that wikipedia, but I couldn't link to it like normal. Is it even possible, or will I have to re-upload it to English wikipedia? Thanks. Quillaja (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally, when an image is to be used by multiple Wikimedia projects, it's best to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. When an image is available on Wikimedia Commons, that same filename is accessible from any Wikimedia Project. For example, here's a file on Commons: commons:File:Processor_families_in_TOP500_supercomputers.svg. I can include it in a Wikipedia page via the regular syntax, [[File:Processor_families_in_TOP500_supercomputers.svg]]. Commons only accepts freely-licensed images (no fair use!!!). If you want to move an image from Wikipedia to Commons, so it can be used more widely, please read Wikipedia:COMMONS#How_to_move_an_image_from_Wikipedia_to_Wikimedia_Commons. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 16:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why we use images

I strongly feel that an image should be used to illustrate information that is stated in the article, and should not be used to present information or as a source for information. Does anyone object to adding a statement along these lines? Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That is entirely too restrictive. Some information is much better presented as a graph or diagram than in text. Furthermore properly authenticated images can be primary or secondary sources on a par with text sources - maps for instance. Dankarl (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I mispoke in using the word "presented"... perhaps I should have said tht I do not believe information should be introduced into an article in image form. I have a serious problem with using an image as a source for information... especially a user created image. There are frequently serious OR and reliability issues that crop up when information is drawn by a user from an image. However, these issues go away if you mearly use the image to illustrate information that is properly discussed in the text (and cited). Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Old image question

I have a question for an admin, or maybe just someone familiar with the history of how images worked on Wikipedia. Any idea why the image on File:Fr unapproachable east.jpg is unrestorable? Might be interesting to know if it's because the file is older than ones I've successfully restored. It was created on 8 December 2004 and deleted on 22 November 2005, if that helps. BOZ (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is an imaged appropiate

Where would I ask if an image like this is appropriate? My questions include, is it WP:OR, do the images included need to be properly attributed and a few other issues that you can see by looking at it. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC related to image use

Please see Talk:Dalek#RfC:_Free-use_image_for_infobox_picture.3F. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

PD image question

Does anyone know the answer to this? Do images claimed as PD on Wikipedia have to be PD in the U.S., or is it enough that they be PD in their country of origin? I'm not talking about the Commons, which is discussed here. I'm asking only about Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Found the answer, thanks to Jappalang, which is yes, they have to be PD in the U.S., per WP:IUP#Public domain. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion of a new way for media donations

Suggestion (special wiki media donation project): a new highly efficient way for world public to donate images and video to wikipedia/wikimedia/commons etc.

• There should a link on every wiki family project page saying "DONATE AN IMAGE OR VIDEO". Anyone should be able to click on it and make/upload a media donation easily, SPECIALLY SELF CREATED WORK with the profusion of relatively cheap personal devices available now in the NEW AGE.
• In the donation form there should be all related disclosures and and Licenses that the donater can choose regarding donating a particular work.
• There should be place where Donater has to fill all related information related to media being donated like location, subject, time, basic info about self, etc. and details if from other source.
• People should be able to send copyrighted/unusable images to make suggestion of what we are missing and which we can put out on a list of required media, this list may be easily available to public view and/or ciculated.
• There should be an email address to where images/video/media can be emailed, clearly stating that the donater has read the various disclosures and licenses (on our website or our news release requesting media donations) and he is donating under which license. Once a media donation email is received to a special mail account: 1) once an email media donation is received from the donater and automatic (from wikipedia/media/commons etc.) email should go out to their address from our no-reply email address reminding them to read, in mail, provided disclousers and provide appropriate license and info for use again. Donater should be asked to email back the reply keeping the same address line explaining preference will be given to media donations which have been replied to, hence making them more usable earlier. 2) It should be available in an online archive for mining by users looking for images for articles they are working on and the public at large.
• Replied email donations with disclosures read and licences provided and direct media donations by clicking on link should be at all times available to our users and world public at large and journalists etc. There should be a warning to them to make sure BY THEMSELVES that they check (what could be our mostly unsupervised database) out if the donation has been made properly and if donater has read disclosures and provided consent and chosen the license properly. Users should be provided a basic guideline on how to make sure if the image/media is good.
• Proper donations should ask for keywords that should activate various tags for easy mining of donated database.
• The whole online media donation/uploading process should be VERY SIMPLIFIED with users asked to click/select choices with one click only from various choices after reading all. Short Disclosers should be page wise only, advancable by clicking NEXT so that all get read. Licenses should be chosen by a simple click from a choice. Media Info should be requested by filling blank by blank advancable software, including location, subject, time, DATE, donator info etc.
• This Media donation project should be centralized in commons with centralized email for donations. Project should be accessible from all wiki family projects from all their pages at all times by clicking.
• There should be a special option/Tags setting alerts for media donations regarding HAPPENING EVENTS and that should make news where world journalists/News companies can find Important or Immediate topics to pursue and other agencies like Aid agencies etc. to find places and subjects to assist. A media related to citizen reporting a historical national monument in bad shape should have the potential to trigger positive action to conserve. Potentially database mining should be able to facilitate new discoveries and affirmative action in right direction and build a tremendous world resource to record history/historical period datewise over the decades.
• Anyone mining the database should be able to setup warnings with a simple click about offending/sexually explicit/illegal images and special users with experience and extra powers should be able to either remove the image or make it invisible where in doubt.
• Should an option be provided where users of this donated media like journalists/new companies can provide citation like: Donated media from wikicommons server by ..(name of original donator).
• Donators should be able to choose their nonconflicting wiki User name, and make it a Tag, so that by clicking on name tag all images donated by the users can lineup in a online gallery for public and for donator to promote himself in other/outside professional media fields, if he chooses to provide link to this online portfolio.
• There should be a clear warning that there is no monetary compensation by wikicommons for media donation of any kind, it is a DONATION.
• Wikicommons software should be able to mine technical info of media if possible and provide the same online for researchers, sometimes it may include type of camera used, aperture, date, time of day and in the near future models, the GPS position/coordinates of where the media was made. If needed donator should be asked to give consent to publish this info.
• Public/Users should be requested to make media for donation with no recognizable faces/adertising/brand names as that may trigger having to take permission from people etc. shown in media made or fuzzing their faces/advertising/brand names etc.

Please forward to concerned persons/department for brainstorming and fine tuning.

I got the above idea while creating the article on Karvi shrub which only flowers once in eight years before dying.

Thanks

mrigthrishna (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Posted on wikimedia commons at [3]

Posted on - Talk:Proposals for new projects; From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki - at: [4]

Posted on - Wikipedia talk:Creation and usage of media files - at: [5]

Posted on wikimedia commons at Commons:Usability issues and ideas: [6]

mrigthrishna (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Building a “media donation culture” and a “world media archive” from donated media – help enlisted from volunteers to “visually document the world” for an ongoing visual world historical record.

This is in continuation of my last post, posted at the following locations: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]

Building a “media donation culture” and a “world media archive” from donated media – help enlisted from volunteers to “visually document the world” for an ongoing visual world historical record.

• We need to strive for creating a “media donation culture” where donating pictures and documentary videos, shot on people’s personal devices is thought of as a worthwhile activity / community service and a scholarly voluntary work which goes a long way in visually documenting the world we live in, in present times. An ongoing visual historical record available free for present researchers/authors to supplement their work with and for future generations to come, to look back upon. Gradually we should hope this will catch on as modern popular culture/fad, will also empower citizens and assist them in making citizen reports. Hopefully a time will come when if someone is taking a vacation then he will remember and friends will remind them not to forget making some documentary pictures/video for donating about the places they will visit during vacation. All this can be done easily now as there is a profusion of cheaper and cheaper personal devices available now incorporating embedded Still & Video camera technology.

• This is about Campaigning and Requesting for “100 percent Media Donation” for “documenting the world” in a “copyright free world archive” to serve in the future as a world historical visual documentation. This could be an “uploading + emailing project” by itself and donated pictures/video/media can be freely usable in all wikis and similar projects or commercial publications/productions etc.. Commercial entities could be encouraged to develop an informal “best practice” where they “donate funds” to upkeep this world archive, especially if they use anything from here and if they can afford it now or in future.

• There should be a link (“Donate an Image or Video”) to upload and donate media on every wiki family project page including on every page of various wikipedias in different languages and it should be centralized in one place like wiki commons in a world media archive. As and when possible over the decades viewers should be able to see/read this archive in their own language through translation software etc.

• All media donations to be uploaded/stored in “high resolution” to be more usable to future generations. Most searches in the archive should only display a decent low resolution image where the user should have the option to call for higher/highest resolution version.

• There should be a centralized Email address for media donation, and where ever it is publicized it should give all disclosures that this is in regards to 100 percent media donation.

• The above media donation link and email address should be well publicized in newspapers, magazines, and press releases and media requests; with all related disclosures that media sent will be treated as 100 percent donation and the act of uploading/emailing means that donator has read all disclosures which are provided and well publicized here and elsewhere.

• It should be preferred that media donation should be made by “original media creators” by themselves mainly as someone under normal circumstances can not donate someone else’s property.

• It should be made very clear in simple straight forward language at the very beginning before uploading donated files that one is making a 100 percent media donation, “100 percent Media Donation” means there will be no copyright, no royalties, no monetary compensation or any compensation in any kind paid in return for the media donation by the wiki family or any secondary users and the world public to the original media donator/creator. One’s donation can be used, reused, modified, broken up and made into anything else by anybody in the world and that too without having to give any sort of credit to the original media donator. There will be no legal requirement to give credit; and all these rules to apply world over. Though some sort of voluntary “best practice” should be encouraged to emerge where secondary users of the donated media, i.e. the world public including journalists, newspapers, magazines, books, businesses, government institutions the world over, who use donated media to supplement their work, could be encouraged to develop a popular culture of crediting the media to wiki’s media donation campaign/world archive and have a reference/courtesy credit to the original donator. Voluntary citation could sound like: Wiki common’s media donation server, original media donated by…. Commercial businesses/institutions who use donated media could be educated by a regular campaign that if affordable monetary donations can be made to wiki for help in maintaining wiki’s media archives. This donation can be made in any country and wiki could set up a local body in major countries so that tax break forms can be given in regards to monetary donations.

Now the question remains what absolutely free but worthwhile perceived benefit could a media donator receive in regards to donated media. Can a $5 per piece ad hoc acknowledgement tax break form be sent automatically to the media donators in regards to media donations, at the time I guess not. A popular culture should be created where the biggest perceived benefit that the donator should receive is the satisfaction of having participated in historically documenting the world in a particular time. The only other major satisfaction that they could receive is that they are able to click on a tag by their name/username and their lifelong contributions are lined up in an online gallery of the donated media. This gallery they can show proudly to everyone and in many cases receive some other benefits from elsewhere or use it as a scholarly portfolio while pursuing arts and related professions. Some sort of awards be given out to media donators who have done exceptional work.

• Professionals might want to earn money from their media but after money is made they can donate what they didn’t use or plan to use, that which they think is not as good etc.. Instead of deleting images/video footage they can donate.

• The whole idea is to attract the help of amateurs around the world who can now create media with the extremely cheap good quality profusion of computerized personal devices incorporating cameras/video etc. Who already earn a living doing some other work and who are not dependent on income through media making. Amateurs are casually making media and enjoying the process and the results but most of the results are enjoyed for immediate gratification only. Anywhere upto 95 percent or even more, of the media casually created usually gets deleted as it is of no perceived use to the creator in the long run over the remaining decades of their life. Any media creation takes lot of work and expenses but Casual media creation is perceived as no work and the process is enjoyed by casual media creators, it is perceived as totally free in the mind of the creator hence unfortunately majority of the casually created media is deleted, “This is the targeted media that we must campaign to save, the one that is being deleted”. All over the world the common man/world public should be educated from now on that they can donate this media before deleting it from their personal devices and they could be educated how to create usable documentary media for donation. Additionally there should be links to special “Tutorials” on how to create “usable” media for donation which can be used by secondary users (researchers, authors etc.) in various ways including research on what was captured and illustrating articles etc.. Usable media should avoid brand names, advertising and recognizable faces, specially of friends and family etc.. as then it may trigger having to take permission from people shown in the media for it to be usable now. Educational courses and institutions teaching Media creating; and personal device manufactures who incorporate media making functionality in their devices could one day carry these tutorials and educate public the world over that media can be donated to remain forever in a world archive. Like we see Warnings!!! in Cigarette Packs: If you smoke cigarettes you could get cancer; similar principal may one day be used by personal device manufacturers educating the buying public in the device manual and brochures that the media you create with this device can be donated to assist in documenting the world in present times so that it remains in a world archive for present and the future generations as a worthwhile historical media artifact documenting a particular location at a particular date and time from a particular angle etc. or documenting any other subject or human or animal behavior etc. All major networking sites around the world in local languages should carry links to these tutorials and media donation links in time with the development of media donation world culture.

• A lot of seemingly repetitive media will be created around famous subjects/locations but this should not be discouraged as no 2 media/pictures are exactly the same, they are created in different time, days, weeks, decades etc. and from different angles and magnifications, subject focus etc. this continuous record will be invaluable to researchers in time centuries later and could also be packed off with future unmanned space explorers to educate aliens who may receive these capsules in the chance that they exist.

It looks like in the near future GPS will be embedded in all personal devices. And if GPS data along with date & time is mined from media donations then in the future special software could be developed that would make it possible to play-out/ lay-out the donated media in various requested sequences. For example Taj Mahal is a famous tourist site; maybe pictures are created here every second of the day. Lets say over a century later a researcher having mined GPS data available to him from pictures donated of Taj-Mahal, could request the computer software to lay out a sequence where pictures are laid out in a movie type flow encircling the Taj from 150 meters (using pictures taken at every foot in the circle identifiable by the GPS coordinates imbedded in the donated media), starting from the year 2000 and the circle completes 100 years later in the year 2100. In this requested computer output sequence, mined information from donated pictures of the Taj including time and date along with GPS coordinates available in that (as it is evident that most personal devices will soon have inbuilt GPS) would assist the computer in arranging the sequence in such a manner that the camera would travel from the front of the Taj, all the way around clockwise and come back to the front from the other side. The future computer software would make minor adjustments in magnifications for the Taj to appear the same size in all the pictures. If over time the historical site deteriorates, researchers can see how it took place over time requesting daily or weekly pictures to play-out in a movie, from a particular angel and particular distance etc.. Many more applications like this may be available with future software. In the example above about the Taj mahal, it could be seen every year, month, week, day, time of day etc. and from many different angles/magnifications etc. with the assistance of GPS coordinates. All this will be possible if data is mined from the donated media and properly electronically catalogued along with the image. And if donators are requested to fill in various detailed tags about each image that they donate through the designated upload link where they will also see various disclosures that they are indeed donating the media 100 percent and foregoing all their rights. “Emailed” donated images/media could be sent an auto-email-reply with a form to fill in creating all the various Tags that could apply to the donated picture/media and the auto-reply should contain the disclosure that the donator is indeed making 100 percent media donation and foregoing all rights.

• Should inappropriate media be censored and deleted completely by administrators? Well, I think not. The media donated with brand names visible, copyrighted material, too many friends and family visible, sexually explicit material should be temporally removed from public’s view and should not be available to search in the present times. This material could be sent/dumped in an unsearchable database where it could lie for a few centuries and for a few generations to pass and after that when no one remembers who these people were the material could again be provided to public as a historical record from a previous time assisting researchers in human/historical studies and studies in human behaviors etc.. It may be noted here that even uploading unusable media requires effort and this effort may prove useful to researchers centuries later. The copyrighted material will be usable again then as copyright would have expired long time ago and in most cases the original work may have also been destroyed without a trace as most originals like books, paintings, newspapers etc. are made up of biodegradable material which perishes if it is not stored in museum like conditions.

• There should be various TAGs that should be chosen and created in respect to each donated media so that they may assist the public at a later time to pull images/media from the archive. Various appropriate Tags should be created by original media donator who should be first provided with list of short Tags he could choose from that were created by others and were eventually standardized, additionally when he starts typing, to reduce effort, other types of tags may be suggested from the ones that were created by other users elsewhere. Some standard tags could be name/user name of donator, Subject/Location, magnification/seen from what distance, angle, Date, Time, context, normal view or description of “special event captured” (Like rioter throwing stones on police, people fighting, people shopping, building on fire, reading, praying, neglect, human rights violation etc.), atmosphere tags like, sunlit, sunshine, sunset, sunrise, raining, overcast/cloudy etc.. If news-making event is captured then NEWS-making Tag should be chosen and donator should be requested for little extra notes/comments why he thinks the media has captured news worthy event and be asked to describe the event in greater detail. The news-making tags could be patrolled by actual news companies etc. and could provide them/journalists/authors potential leads as to what stories that they can pursue now or at a later date in the pipeline; additionally news making tag could provide government agencies the opportunity to take positive corrective actions and for aid agencies to find people/projects to assist. Original donators should create tags and then on a later stage when the archive is being viewed by researchers and secondary users they should be also in a position to quickly add/create some more appropriate additional tags to assist future searchers. For example someone casually shoots a picture of an unknown butterfly sitting on an unknown flower, a zoologist/botanist viewing the picture in future could add butterfly name and flower name and scientific names etc. and create tags or/and notes/comments to go with the image. Some sort of “voluntary acknowledgement tags” could be created for secondary users who actually use the image in a wiki or outside publication, they can leave a tag/info/comment if they used the particular archived image and where, could leave a citation like detail of their article/publication, where the donated media was used by them. There should be tags to rate the donated image or video so that researching public can rate donated media on quality scale and could also leave additional educational comments in case they know more about the subject captured in the media which future researchers could follow up.

Computer software should supplement the above created/chosen tags with mined embedded technical information that is available embedded in today’s electronic media files, like camera used, aperture used, lens used, date and time of day; and very soon most personal media creating devises will have embedded GPS coordinates about where the media was made. All the above will help in Citizen reporting & Citizen documenting of the world in a particular, soon to be, historical time i.e. Citizen documenting of history, especially visual world history as it happens. There could be a Tutorial on how to make and use tags effectively, also showing how to view translated tags/event-description in a particular language. As an article is written or improved on a wiki or elsewhere, tags can help authors search for appropriate media/images/video etc. that can be used to supplement their work.

A Tag-search could give an output of a list of appropriate media that could by it-self be used as an online gallery; or best chosen images could be lined up in a gallery. Donators should be able to line up their lifelong media donations by clicking on the tag of their name, there should be a link here (and elsewhere too) to a “tutorial” on how to make their donated media more useful as searchable historical documents where donators could be taught how to go back in and improve each media piece already donated by them and already listed in the world archive; basically most possible improvements should relate around creating extra and much more effective tags for fairing better in searches and writing researched notes with references in the comment space under their listed archived media about what was captured in a particular picture/video donated by them, where, when and in what context etc.. (Once a media piece is donated and listed in the world archive, it should be possible to go in there and create more tags to supplements those already created for the piece, rate the piece on a quality scale, write comments about the piece in spaces provided. There should be tutorials to show how to do all this better)

• As this is about building what will undoubtedly be a world archive, the scope is world wide and immense and lot of funding will be required to build and maintain such a resource. Lot of worldwide large scale funding drives will have to be organized targeting large donors annually. United Nations could be a good platform to request help from as this project is about the world as a whole. If someone provides funding from another country then we should set up a local office in that country so that tax-break forms can be issued to the donator so that they can get an income tax-break/incentive against donated funds which is valid in their particular country.

• Huge Archive hence Limited & More Accurate Searches to Save Energy: As overtime a huge archive will come into existence it will take lot of electronic energy to make a search in the entire archive so some of the material could be deemed to be almost duplicate by volunteers and boxed together; and time periods could be boxed together etc. and when some one wants to search the archives first these boxes should show up and only if researchers want to search a particular box then only that box can be searched. In this way searches can be made more particular and electronic energy saved by making smaller/limited searches. Additionally media should be tagged properly and accurately along with research notes/comments on what was captured so that it can be located easily when needed. If required lot of un-usable or copyrighted or duplicate media could be boxed off in unsearchable boxes for the time being and could be made to surface again years, decades, centuries later when it is deemed to be usable again as copyright would have expired, persons shown are not living etc..

• Digital Archival Storage Economy: It is hoped that this huge digital archive of high resolution images and video (as donators will be requested to upload in high resolution) will need smaller and smaller digital storage space as technology advances with time and most storage when not being searched will need no or little electrical energy; and very soon most electricity will be produced with cleaner technology hence building and searching this archive will be a relatively smaller drain on energy/world resources and wont be as harmful to the environment.

• Archival Strategy: Strategically it might become necessary to have 2 or 3 copies of this world archive with only one that is connected for searches. All copies of the world archive should be located in the Free-World which is free from dictatorships and meddling by medieval religious institutions and regimes. Physical locations of all the copies of the world archives should be located in secret underground tunnels/caves away from earthquake zones where they will remain safe from bombings during future wars or/and purposely targeted sabotage. Obviously in the future when man does colonize other planets then copies could be located there in addition to the archives they will build about themselves.

Please forward this to concerned persons/departments for brain storming and fine tuning.

atulsnischal (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Also posted here in continuation of my previous post: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]

atulsnischal (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Donating means giving the WM foundation the license of any media uploaded, contrary to our current upload system which allows the uploader to select the license they want.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

External Image

What is the procedure for links to external images like can be found here. Are they allowed? BigDunc 08:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect file name misnomers

Question. While working the backlog of Category:Incomplete file renaming requests and subsequent Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming, there are instances where, after the file has been renamed within all usages across the Wikipedia project spaces that we are left with a previous ambiguous misnomer used only as a redirect. My question is: Do we request deletion of these ambiguous redirects or leave what will be thousands of redirects that appear to serve no credible search relevance. The one issue I can think of would be whether an image is currently being used on a website other than Wikipedia or Meta using that file name. Any thoughts or relevant links to previous instances such as this are appreciated. Thanks in advance. Calmer Waters 19:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Question on using Australian army-based images?

I found some images of the Australian army regarding the Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group. Do I post them as fair use if allowed or public domain so that they can be placed in Wikipedia commons?

It's [17] just in case someone wants to look.

A speedy reply is appreciated to those who can answer this question. Ominae (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems in embedding Images

Hi,

Puzzled by a weird problem. Hope someone here can help me. I am in the middle of expanding an article on Organization of the Luftwaffe. I have embedded two images with the standard format of right aligned. However I lost my Caption on both of them. For other images in that article, I don't seem to have the problem and have my captions just fine. The images with problem are in Sections,

• Levels of Luftwaffe organization
• Strategic Level

Can someone shed any light why this may happen, or how to fix it ? TIA '  Perseus 71 ^talk 17:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to add thumb. Cenarium (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That did it! '  Perseus 71 ^talk 18:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Consideration of image download size

Would it make sense to include an advisory section regarding the download memory size of images? I think it may behoove the primary editors of an image-rich article to consider the impact of multiple large image files on the download time. Slow downloads can be annoying, particularly if the reader has a low bandwidth connection.

Examples:

• Animated GIF format files should be avoided where possible, especially when a static image would serve just as well. This is because the entire animated image file needs to be downloaded, whereas static images can be sent as thumbnails. A single animated gif file can be larger (in some cases much larger) than all the thumbnail images on a page combined.
• A JPEG or other compressed image format can be much smaller than a comparable GIF format file. When there is no apparent difference in quality, the compressed image is preferable.
• Some photographic images in the Commons have been stored using PNG format. However, they could achieve better compression and comparable image quality by using the JPEG format. (The thumbnail files for PNG photographs are also less efficiently compressed than JPEG files.) The PNG format is best used for storing graphics that contain text, line art, or other images with sharp transitions.
• Rather than including an image gallery on an article, which could add significantly to the download size, consider creating a gallery on the Wikipedia Commons instead.

Editors may want to review the actual download size of images (in contrast to the full image size) by right clicking over the image and selecting "Properties". Thoughts?—RJH (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As there was no feedback, I went ahead and added a section on this topic.—RJH (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem with pic

The picture File:Heroesjourney.jpg is listed as being in the public domain "because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." This is completely untrue. The information is derived from the research of Mythologist Joseph Campbell. I have a book by him that has a similar diagram explaining the hero's journey that makes up the "monomyth" as first described by Campbell. What is worse is that the editor who uploaded the pic got it from the 4chan online forum, which is by no means a reliable source for information since most people post anonymously. That is just like finding a random pic online and then claiming it to be in the public domain because no one knows where it came from. The pic needs to be taken down. I do not have a wikicommons account, so hopefully someone on here can do it in my stead. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Photographer credit

I searched the archives and found nothing relating to this (or no responses). I came across an article where a photograph has a caption; at the bottom of the caption in small print is the photographer's credit. Credit is given on the file's page, but I don't see why it should be on the article page itself. I would like to remove it, but I would like to cite one or more policies or guidelines regarding this. I can't find anything though. Any ideas? –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the photo by a WP editor? Maurreen (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maurreen, here's the image on the right: Antony_Gormley#References. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Some image licenses allow free use of the image but want you to display the credit (such as NASA images). Is this the case here?—RJH (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, definitely not the case. The photographer is actually a WP editor. Also, according to WP:CREDITS, "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article [because] the appropriate credit is on the image description page." So, I'll go ahead and remove it, Thanks guys! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

New subsection on offensive images

As part of the ongoing effort to rationalize the Manual of Style sprawl, Gnevin nine days ago proposed a system to improve consistency across multiple WP guideline pages. The system is based on the concept of the "core": a summary of the main principles expressed in a page, of the sort that often constitutes a page's lead paragraph. In the proposed system, a distinct paragraph-long page is created for such a core and transcluded via template into those full-length WP pages that, all too often inconsistently, reference the core's master page. This innovative system may sound complex, but I find it very elegant and I believe it is worthy of serious consideration.

We have been trialing this system with WP:Profanity; a core Gnevin created from Profanity's lede graf (Wikipedia:Profanity/core); and Wikipedia:Words to watch (itself a proposed replacement for WP:Words to avoid), where that core is now transcluded.

It occurred to me that we were not truly testing the concept unless the core was transcluded into multiple pages. It struck me that this guideline page was an appropriate location for such a transclusion (note that Gnevin's smart design allows for word substitution, so the transcluded core can focus on "words" in Words to watch, on "images" here, and on both in the Profanity master page).

I would like to know what you think of the concept and, of course, of the text of the core itself and its inclusion here.—DCGeist (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

For starters, how does one determine what is a "typical Wikipedia reader"? Human values vary from person to person and from culture to culture, so I have no idea whether a particular word or image may be considered vulgar on average.—RJH (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

These questions should be raised at WP:Profanity Gnevin (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For background on the well-established phrase "typical Wikipedia reader", please see Wikipedia talk:Profanity#Community standards?—DCGeist (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but that discussion didn't help clarify how "typical" is to be applied. I can find no concrete definition of the term in this context and the wictionary description was equally vague. Raising the matter on WP:Profanity was useless.—RJH (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Modifying copyrighted images

From my understanding, given a copyrighted image it is illegal to Photoshop it (breach of copyright) and upload the modified version but one can trace or copy exactly the image either on paper or in Illustrator and that is fine to upload. Is that correct? --Squidonius (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect - what you describe would be a copy or a derivative work and still be in violation. Dankarl (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, an image that is loosely based on another is obviously fine, I take it? is there a page where I can read when a copy stops being a copy and becomes an image based on a copyrighted image? --Squidonius (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything that spells it out. for starters, search WP:copyright questions Dankarl (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

An image "based on a copyright image" (i.e. using significant features or amount of the original) is a "derivative" image and hence still a copyright violation: you have still "copied" some copyright elements, although maybe not all of the copyright elements. See Commons:Derivative. Ty 00:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And for many cases, once you have gone far enough that it is no longer covered under "derivative" - it is at that point no longer a suitable representation able to be used in Wikipedia anyway. It is best to start fresh. Active Banana (talk) 01:22, 25 May 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) 20:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting comments

I am reposting what I wrote at an RfC page regarding Talk:Pope Leo XIII,

Two editors have raised issue over an image of Pope Leo's XIII coat of arms, which I happen to have illustrated. The editors opposed to the image have subsequently removed all coats of arms illustrations from the article because they feel it is self-promotional to have any artist's work presented on the page. There have been three editors supportive of the image in question, however, this is no consensus by any means (especially after the quite lengthy discussion that ensued). If editors would please review the images and comment, it would be much appreciated.

There is actually room for a large image in the article and a smaller image in an infobox. If you would like to suggest one for the article and a second for the infobox, that is also an option.

The sources provided here and here as well as a discussion at the Heraldry WikiProject have shown all three images to be heraldically accurate. So now it is merely a matter of taste and opinion.

[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Xanderliptak is the user who only yesterday accused me of forum-shopping! With Xander you always have to read between the lines. Notice, for instance, how his link to Talk:Pope Leo XIII takes you to a sub-section headed "Arbitration: break", rather than to the top of the Arbitration section where you might read the substantive arguments that History2007 and I put forward against his practice of replacing perfectly good images with his own self-drawn "creations" without consensus. Note also the Erratum section where he is still, after thirteen days, trying to convince one of his critics that he is actually a supporter and just doesn't realise it yet. Scolaire (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - None of the images being considered are photographs or direct recreations of historical artwork. All of them are accurate representations of the heraldic formula. I find that the painted/drawn version, although beautiful, is somewhat more difficult to "read" than the two digital versions. The SVG, while perhaps a little clinical, is very easy to read and will be clear and usable at all web resolutions. In particular it works better at thumbnail size than any of the alternatives. I suggest using the SVG only for it's rich information content, and separately using a picture of a historical coat if one can be found. As an aside, I must say that the way this RFC is framed doesn't make it immediately clear what the actual question is. You might get more responses if you state the question clearly and comprehensively, in a neutral manner, on this page - including the images themselves. Thparkth (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Images and verifiability

Watchers of this page may be interested in an RfC I posted at WT:V. Dlabtot (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)